GOP debate audience cheers at the prospect of using more torture

Cypress said:
Darla's right. The whole scenarios of ticking time-bomb nuclear explosion in NYC is a hollywood movie fantasy. It's virtually certain, that the hollywood scenerio wingnutters employ is never going to happen. This hollywood scenrio rhetoric is simply employed, to demonstrate to the base how "tough" and "pro-torture" these guys are. They're smart enough to to know how to employ rhetoric to fire up the base.



Note: I'm not implying a nuclear strike will never happen in the U.S. I'm saying the hollywood movie scenario construction that is used as pro-torture
rhetoric is virtually certain to never happen.
Click to expand...

You took the words out of my mouth. I'm exteremely disheartened at the fact that they are basing their positions on a hollywoodian context: like they will really know who knows and doesn't know. If they were that omnipotent they would know where the fcking bomb was in the first place. The entire thing is stupid on face value.
 
People now-a-days are having more difficulty telling the difference between "hollywood" and reality. Not to be confused with "reality" hollywood :)
 
I think they skipped him on this one. They didn't ask every question to every participant.

I figured as much.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Damocles said:
I think they skipped him on this one. They didn't ask every question to every participant.
Click to expand...

Yeah they did. But IHG you should watch it just to see what happens when they seem to feel that he implies that America "invited" 9/11" which was not what he said, but it's what the moderators and Rudy Guliani and the others on the stage, decided that he said. He had talked about some possible reason we might have been attacked, and blowback, and the idea that maybe if we weren't in the middle east it wouldn't have happened.

9 heads almost exploded at once. "They hate us because of our freedoms" is the only acceptable answers. Even at a Dem debate, you can be sure. Talking about actual history? It's simply not done.
 
Darla said:
9 heads almost exploded at once. "They hate us because of our freedoms" is the only acceptable answers. Even at a Dem debate, you can be sure. Talking about actual history? It's simply not done.
Click to expand...

Are we back to this again? I feel like we've gotten no where in the last 7 years.
 
LadyT said:
Are we back to this again? I feel like we've gotten no where in the last 7 years.
Click to expand...

sadly you have it figured out.....

the topic of the USA officially condoning torture is a really sad statement about how our country has fallen down...
 
uscitizen said:
sadly you have it figured out.....

the topic of the USA officially condoning torture is a really sad statement about how our country has fallen down...
Click to expand...


You mean your country. I'm applying to become a French citizen.
 
What is an Eddie Vetter ?

If you are referring to me, I am not kidding, if this country puts another bush type in as president, I am giving up on it.
 
LadyT said:
You took the words out of my mouth. I'm exteremely disheartened at the fact that they are basing their positions on a hollywoodian context: like they will really know who knows and doesn't know. If they were that omnipotent they would know where the fcking bomb was in the first place. The entire thing is stupid on face value.
Click to expand...


The presentation of this hollywood scenario to solicit a pro-torture answer is ridiculous. I blame both the media and the candidates.

The sophisticated and proper response to the question is, that this ticking time bomb "scenario" is never going to happen in REAL life. It's silly to discusss that hypotheical. The point is, the policy of the United States is that we DON'T torture. It's illegal, ineffective, and leads to bad information far more often than good information.

In fact, this is the exact response I recall John McCain giving a year or two ago, when presented with the hollywood scenario, in TV interviews. Back, when he wasn't courting theocratic primary voters.
 
Damocles said:
I agree with "loose cannon", he isn't there because he thinks he has some serious chance at becomng the nominee. But that one again was in answer to a nuclear scenario, and "take out" is not the same thing as nuking.

The question being that if they had attacked several US cities with nukes what kind of response might be taken. He said, "well... we could take out some of the holy sites." (I agree, bad idea for such a scenario, but he was on the spot and realized he had made a mistake.)

Taking it out of context with the question is sad. If it is the only way that you can attack him, then I'm glad it takes so much twisting to get there.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree that he didn't just say to bomb muslim holy sites, out of the clear blue sky with no provocation.

My point is, answers like this make this guy not only look like an idiot, but makes it clear how DANGEROUS it would be to have him be president.

If a city of ours got nuked, it would be the work of a small cell of al qaeda-type terrorists. Criminals, in point of fact. 99% of the muslim world would condemn it, and we would have vast internation cooperation to find and retaliate against those actually responsible (just like right after 9/11, when we had the world on our side -- before bush squandered it)

By going off half-cocked, and nuking muslim holy sites, and killing tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of innocent muslims, we would immediately turn the entire muslim world against us. Pakistan might very well give their nukes to somebody to conduct further attacks on us. The entire muslim world (as opposed to a small cell of criminals) would line up to take a shot at us.


Only an IDIOT would even entertain for a nanosecond, what Tancredo suggested.

Honestly, you ought to look to Ron Paul in your party, for reasoned and pragmatic answers to complex questions on war and international affairs.
 
Cypress said:
Oh, I agree that he didn't just say to bomb muslim holy sites, out of the clear blue sky with no provocation.

My point is, answers like this make this guy not only look like an idiot, but makes it clear how DANGEROUS it would be to have him be president.

If a city of ours got nuked, it would be the work of a small cell of al qaeda-type terrorists. Criminals, in point of fact. 99% of the muslim world would condemn it, and we would have vast internation cooperation to find and retaliate against those actually responsible (just like right after 9/11, when we had the world on our side -- before bush squandered it)

By going off half-cocked, and nuking muslim holy sites, and killing tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of innocent muslims, we would immediately turn the entire muslim world against us. Pakistan might very well give their nukes to somebody to conduct further attacks on us. The entire muslim world (as opposed to a small cell of criminals) would line up to take a shot at us.


Only an IDIOT would even entertain for a nanosecond, what Tancredo suggested.

Honestly, you ought to look to Ron Paul in your party, for reasoned and pragmatic answers to complex questions on war and international affairs.
Click to expand...
And I disagree how? I like Tancredo. I don't think he will become President. Seriously, you act as if he is the front-runner just a little tip and he'll be sleeping at the WH and bombing holy sites around the world.

I think he did far better in this debate than last debate. That still won't make him the President.

This irrational belief that because I put something in context before I judge them to be promoting torture is simply disingenuous.

I'd like Ron Paul, but he won't be the candidate either. I do not believe our candidate was on that stage last night.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top