liberals baby terrorists

maineman said:
we should be SO proud! [/sarcasm off]
Click to expand...


I know. It's so horrible. Sometimes, I get so upset at people who defend this, with smirks on their faces like John Fund on Hardball, that I wish that we could put them in one of these holes for a week...or a month.

And then other times I wonder, how long before they can and will start disappearing dissenters and activists? Just that I've come to actually believe that this might happen in the United States of America, really upsets me.
 
Darla said:
I know. It's so horrible. Sometimes, I get so upset at people who defend this, with smirks on their faces like John Fund on Hardball, that I wish that we could put them in one of these holes for a week...or a month.

And then other times I wonder, how long before they can and will start disappearing dissenters and activists? Just that I've come to actually believe that this might happen in the United States of America, really upsets me.
Click to expand...

Just had a debate today on FP, with a number of conservatives who are in favor of waterboarding.
 
Cypress said:
Just had a debate today on FP, with a number of conservatives who are in favor of waterboarding.
Click to expand...

Waterboarding is really horrible. But, if you don't let yourself fully imagine what it would be like, it doesn't sound all that horrible. I mean, look at the name they gave it. Waterboarding. It sounds like a sport. Snowboarding is fun, how bad can waterboarding be?

And sometimes I wonder if they haven't purposefully centered the debate around waterboarding for that reason. I mean, a lot of what has gone on in these rendition cases Cypress, as you probably know, is very sexually sadistic stuff. Why isn't that being debated on television?
 
Darla said:
Waterboarding is really horrible. But, if you don't let yourself fully imagine what it would be like, it doesn't sound all that horrible. I mean, look at the name they gave it. Waterboarding. It sounds like a sport. Snowboarding is fun, how bad can waterboarding be?

And sometimes I wonder if they haven't purposefully centered the debate around waterboarding for that reason. I mean, a lot of what has gone on in these rendition cases Cypress, as you probably know, is very sexually sadistic stuff. Why isn't that being debated on television?
Click to expand...

LOL It does sound like a sport! That's twisted! Maybe Rove came up with it

I find it interesting the the debate has centered largely between the military war heros and Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs on one side , and civilian chickenhawks on the other.
 
Some people think that the end justifies the means.....
And tend to become more like the enemy they are trying to defeat. And even if the enemy is technically defeated the victors have lost as well, for they have become more like the enemy they fouught.
 
uscitizen said:
Some people think that the end justifies the means.....
And tend to become more like the enemy they are trying to defeat. And even if the enemy is technically defeated the victors have lost as well, for they have become more like the enemy they fouught.
Click to expand...

Yes...very nicely stated USC.
 
uscitizen said:
Some people think that the end justifies the means.....
And tend to become more like the enemy they are trying to defeat. And even if the enemy is technically defeated the victors have lost as well, for they have become more like the enemy they fouught.
Click to expand...


Loyalty to Bush trumps everything else - loyalty to america, loyalty to principles, loyalty to the constitution.

Mere months ago, most cons I knew on these boards claimed they were against waterboarding. As soon as it became evident bush was for it, they changed their tunes.
 
maineman said:
liberals only care how they are mistreated in the context of protecting our troops from similar mistreatment at the hands of future enemies.

If you think it's OK to waterboard a Gitmo detainee.... you need to understand that, by doing so, we give future enemies carte blanche to waterboard American soldiers they capture on the battlefield.
Click to expand...

We also break INTERNATIONAL law, that WE AGREED TO...waterboarding is DEFINED as torture...president Bush SUPPOSEDLY ordered this to be done, the Cia was doing it to those guys they sent to rendition in other countries supposedly, and unless the Congress CHANGES OR REWRITES the definition or torture in the Geneva convention, President Bush CAN BE brought up on WAR CRIME charges....he committed a war crime IF HE DID GIVE THE OK for our CIA to uses waterboarding.

Can you say impeachment?

probably not because at this point it will be Bush's word against the detainee's word.

They used waterboarding on the Canadian the usa captured in new york and sent to Syria, and he confessed to being on a training field in afghanistan with alqaeda...

AND GUESS WHAT ROB......they kept him for 10 months with no word to his family or anything.....AND HE FALSELY CONFESSED TO A LIE....because of the waterboarding....he had never been in afghanistan with alqaeda...he was in Canada the whole time and not training with the Taliban/alqaeda...

this kind of torture BRINGS ONLY LIES and gives us no protection from terrorists WHAT SO EVER....

rob is being foolish and UNAMERICAN!!!!!!!! :(

care
 
Last edited:
And then other times I wonder, how long before they can and will start disappearing dissenters and activists? Just that I've come to actually believe that this might happen in the United States of America, really upsets me.
Reply With Quote

This is why the second amendment is so important. I think many liberals are rethinking their postion on this after the Bush administration came to power.
 
IHateGovernment said:
And then other times I wonder, how long before they can and will start disappearing dissenters and activists? Just that I've come to actually believe that this might happen in the United States of America, really upsets me.
Reply With Quote

This is why the second amendment is so important. I think many liberals are rethinking their postion on this after the Bush administration came to power.
Click to expand...

Well, guns have never been one of my issues. It's not that I'm for them, and I think these new laws popping up that you can pop a bullet in someone's face because you had a feeling your life was threatened, are really dumb. But I always kind of figured that the NRA nuts would eventually kill each other off. Gun accidents and all. You know, like our VP almost pulled. And I figured that's all fine and Darwinian.

But after Katrina, I gave serious thought to learning how to use a firearm and getting one. Because the thing about Katrina was, whites underestimated or outright dismissed the racism involved, and blacks underestimated or dismissed the amount of classism involved. And though I am white, I am not rich and I came to see that under conservative idealogy, were a disaster to strike my area, be it mother nature or man made, rich people would kill me just as I would swat a fly, were I to try and obtain basic survival needs from them. Such as food, water and shelter.

So yes, Bush has made me slightly more apt to support gun ownership. If that can be considered an accomplishment in a civilized society.
 
Darla said:
Well, guns have never been one of my issues. It's not that I'm for them, and I think these new laws popping up that you can pop a bullet in someone's face because you had a feeling your life was threatened, are really dumb. But I always kind of figured that the NRA nuts would eventually kill each other off. Gun accidents and all. You know, like our VP almost pulled. And I figured that's all fine and Darwinian.

But after Katrina, I gave serious thought to learning how to use a firearm and getting one. Because the thing about Katrina was, whites underestimated or outright dismissed the racism involved, and blacks underestimated or dismissed the amount of classism involved. And though I am white, I am not rich and I came to see that under conservative idealogy, were a disaster to strike my area, be it mother nature or man made, rich people would kill me just as I would swat a fly, were I to try and obtain basic survival needs from them. Such as food, water and shelter.

So yes, Bush has made me slightly more apt to support gun ownership. If that can be considered an accomplishment in a civilized society.
Click to expand...
That would be the opposite of an accomplishment, at least in the sense of civilizing society. The goal of society, at the most fundamental level, is to free people from feeling they need to protect themselves by violence. Ergo, Bush be a step backwards toward barbarism.

;)
 
I would love a world where weapons do not exist for the idea to harm another fellow human would never enter the mind.

We're a long way away and recognizing the depths of depravity of humanity is necessary. Bush may have not helped advance society but he has allowed a more realistic view of it.
 
I would love a world where weapons do not exist for the idea to harm another fellow human would never enter the mind.
//

Me too but unfortuantely it would not have humans in it.
 
As soon as man could craft a tool he used it to kill his brother. The first advances in tool making are often at least related to being used to kill others.

Nuclear power, radiology, teflon. All came from the desire to kill.
 
Were tools needed ? Remember the story of Cain and Able ? And they were spawned from thr first two humans God mades, or so the story goes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top