Moon-Crane wrote:I wondered how long i would be before someone on the Rep side used the 'T' word.
Whats the 'T' word?
JT wrote:Moon-Crane wrote:I wondered how long i would be before someone on the Rep side used the 'T' word.
Whats the 'T' word?
Moon-Crane wrote:Is Palin certain she really wants to go down the path of digging up potentially dubious people from her opposition's dim and distant past? Really? Things like that usually open up some pretty unfortunate floodgates. Regrettably smells of desperation when i hear things like that. I hope she's got something for the next bite she's likely to get on her ass.
I also wish McCain wouldn't keep saying he 'will get Bin Laden'. To say he knows exactly how to do it but can't reveal those details at the moment is pretty stupid, i'm afraid. And surely the World and its dog understands that finding and killing Bin Laden, were it possible, would make zero difference to the situation now? Granted, he'd be a golden token symbol in these media led times.
Moon-Crane wrote:JT wrote:Moon-Crane wrote:I wondered how long i would be before someone on the Rep side used the 'T' word.
Whats the 'T' word?
Terrorism, JT. I didn't see the point of Palin trying to sling that card against Obama by associating him to someone from his past using such an emotive word. Leave that to all the conspiracy and militia sites out there shovelling such content. It looks like it'll backfire - i just don't think it would be difficult to associate someone from McCain's past who would make him look like a mug - especially in financial circles.
I also wish McCain wouldn't keep saying he 'will get Bin Laden'. To say he knows exactly how to do it but can't reveal those details at the moment is pretty stupid, i'm afraid. And surely the World and its dog understands that finding and killing Bin Laden, were it possible, would make zero difference to the situation now? Granted, he'd be a golden token symbol in these media led times.
Both sides are as bad as each other, and always look to find the most centrist position, even if it means compromising their beliefs... the scramble to win is all. I guess we all get what we deserve. I still can't see either side making much difference to the current climate.
Mr Blue Sky wrote: ... I'm uneasy with language like 'capture or kill'. ...
JT wrote:Bin Laden is mostly a golden token at this point. I don't know if its stupid to say he will get him but the methods are classified.
JT wrote:Our first plan and instinct towards people like that should be to simply kill them, or if circumstances permit, capture them, extract intelligence - by torture if necessary - then put on trial, convicted and executed.
If "Violence begets violence, and the cold bloodied execution of Bin Laden will only breed more terrorists" then so be it. Justice and retribution is the principle.
Hans the German Butler wrote:I find talk like "extract intelligence - by torture if necessary" to be ludicrous.
Hans the German Butler wrote:Firstly, torture has been proven to be the least effective method of extracting information from captives - the fact that "water-boarding" worked in one case doesn't make it more effective in every case - the facts prove otherwise.
Hans the German Butler wrote:Second, by any standard of enlightened humanity, it's just plain wrong.
Hans the German Butler wrote:Thirdly, it reduces western society to the level of the terrorists they're trying to stop. Nation states cannot repay terrorism with terrorist tactics of their own - or do the burning villages and raped women in Vietnam not bear adequate testimony to that.
Hans the German Butler wrote:Fourthly, it creates more terrorists.
JT wrote:Fair enough, but I don't think that torture in extreme circumstances is ludicrous.
I have heard otherwise, but if there are indeed more effective methods - and this may be a case-by-case thing - then they should be exhausted first for both practical and moral reasons. I don't believe in torture for punishment or retributive reasons - although in extreme cases I wouldn't be so bothered by it on an emotional level. To be clear, I will give a hypothetical example. If a terrorist ass wipe cooperates with us in giving us information we need to protect ourselves and we reasonably believe this to be the case, then to torture that terrorist would be immoral. However, if that terrorist ass wipe were to respond to our requests with the likes of "you Infidel pigs will all die, to hell with you all", then that particular ass wipe, after other techniques are reasonably exhausted, is ripe for 'other' more unfortunate techniques designed to protect us. Otherwise would reinforce my belief that liberals are "so broadminded that they can't even take their own side in a fight".
See above. Or, if one were to prefer, I will just have to bear the tag of being unenlightened.
It would not be terrorism. How possibly can some sort of equating of the two be valid? Any criminal raping of women in Vietnam, etc. has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
Only if the New York times gets a hold of it and does their usual unpatriotic thing.
Hans the German Butler wrote:JT wrote:Fair enough, but I don't think that torture in extreme circumstances is ludicrous.
Surely it's a far greater mark of a person or a country's character that they don't sacrifice right principles even in the most extreme circumstancesI have heard otherwise, but if there are indeed more effective methods - and this may be a case-by-case thing - then they should be exhausted first for both practical and moral reasons. I don't believe in torture for punishment or retributive reasons - although in extreme cases I wouldn't be so bothered by it on an emotional level. To be clear, I will give a hypothetical example. If a terrorist ass wipe cooperates with us in giving us information we need to protect ourselves and we reasonably believe this to be the case, then to torture that terrorist would be immoral. However, if that terrorist ass wipe were to respond to our requests with the likes of "you Infidel pigs will all die, to hell with you all", then that particular ass wipe, after other techniques are reasonably exhausted, is ripe for 'other' more unfortunate techniques designed to protect us. Otherwise would reinforce my belief that liberals are "so broadminded that they can't even take their own side in a fight".
I thought that quote about liberals was funny when I first read it but its repetition becomes tiresome to the reader and bespeaks laziness on the part of the writer.
We're hardly talking about a fight though when a person is tied to a gurney and has water forcibly swirled around their lungs to simulate drowning. It is cruel, unusual and inhuman. I don't want anyone to be harmed by terrorist activity and I have no problem with accurate intelligence leading special or regular forces to a surgical action that kills or extracts terrorists. I accept that there may be limited "collateral damage" as a result. I don't even really have a problem with extraordinary rendition, so long as it doesn't lead to torture. My natural leaning is also against capital punishment - however if a terrorist suspect is tried in a state where that is the penalty then so be it. Torture is not an expected punishment and cannot be acceptable.See above. Or, if one were to prefer, I will just have to bear the tag of being unenlightened.
I realise that tag won't bother you greatly, in the same way as having a "broad-minded" tag doesn't bother me. I have however taken my own side in a fight and the side of others. I once ridiculously almost faced charges for breaking the jaw of a person who was about to clobber someone with a house-brick.It would not be terrorism. How possibly can some sort of equating of the two be valid? Any criminal raping of women in Vietnam, etc. has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
I think I'll rely on my own judgement as to whether or not torturing someone counts as terrorising them. There are degrees of terror - filming someone's decapitation and broadcasting it via the internet may be an extreme form of terrorisation but water-boarding surely has a place on the terrorisation scale too.
For the record - I'm not the sort of person who believes that denying prisoners cable TV or porn is in breach of their human rights - so I'm no bleeding-heart as you might see it. I am however against torture, soldiers pissing on prisoners or getting them to simulate sex acts. That's not even because it might offend their religious sensibilities - they've chosen to misinterpret their own religion to justify murder so I think their religious beliefs lose credibility. It is because it degrades both prisoner and captor.Only if the New York times gets a hold of it and does their usual unpatriotic thing.
I happen to believe it is more patriotic to try to put the situation right and, if necessary, to blow the whistle when your Government is in breach of international law. The US is a proud country, and rightly so, it has given so much to the modern world. Maintaining that pride and dignity should be far more important than any temporary gains from a cover-up of torture.
JT wrote:Hans the German Butler wrote:JT wrote:Fair enough, but I don't think that torture in extreme circumstances is ludicrous.
Surely it's a far greater mark of a person or a country's character that they don't sacrifice right principles even in the most extreme circumstancesI have heard otherwise, but if there are indeed more effective methods - and this may be a case-by-case thing - then they should be exhausted first for both practical and moral reasons. I don't believe in torture for punishment or retributive reasons - although in extreme cases I wouldn't be so bothered by it on an emotional level. To be clear, I will give a hypothetical example. If a terrorist ass wipe cooperates with us in giving us information we need to protect ourselves and we reasonably believe this to be the case, then to torture that terrorist would be immoral. However, if that terrorist ass wipe were to respond to our requests with the likes of "you Infidel pigs will all die, to hell with you all", then that particular ass wipe, after other techniques are reasonably exhausted, is ripe for 'other' more unfortunate techniques designed to protect us. Otherwise would reinforce my belief that liberals are "so broadminded that they can't even take their own side in a fight".
I thought that quote about liberals was funny when I first read it but its repetition becomes tiresome to the reader and bespeaks laziness on the part of the writer.
We're hardly talking about a fight though when a person is tied to a gurney and has water forcibly swirled around their lungs to simulate drowning. It is cruel, unusual and inhuman. I don't want anyone to be harmed by terrorist activity and I have no problem with accurate intelligence leading special or regular forces to a surgical action that kills or extracts terrorists. I accept that there may be limited "collateral damage" as a result. I don't even really have a problem with extraordinary rendition, so long as it doesn't lead to torture. My natural leaning is also against capital punishment - however if a terrorist suspect is tried in a state where that is the penalty then so be it. Torture is not an expected punishment and cannot be acceptable.See above. Or, if one were to prefer, I will just have to bear the tag of being unenlightened.
I realise that tag won't bother you greatly, in the same way as having a "broad-minded" tag doesn't bother me. I have however taken my own side in a fight and the side of others. I once ridiculously almost faced charges for breaking the jaw of a person who was about to clobber someone with a house-brick.It would not be terrorism. How possibly can some sort of equating of the two be valid? Any criminal raping of women in Vietnam, etc. has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
I think I'll rely on my own judgement as to whether or not torturing someone counts as terrorising them. There are degrees of terror - filming someone's decapitation and broadcasting it via the internet may be an extreme form of terrorisation but water-boarding surely has a place on the terrorisation scale too.
For the record - I'm not the sort of person who believes that denying prisoners cable TV or porn is in breach of their human rights - so I'm no bleeding-heart as you might see it. I am however against torture, soldiers pissing on prisoners or getting them to simulate sex acts. That's not even because it might offend their religious sensibilities - they've chosen to misinterpret their own religion to justify murder so I think their religious beliefs lose credibility. It is because it degrades both prisoner and captor.Only if the New York times gets a hold of it and does their usual unpatriotic thing.
I happen to believe it is more patriotic to try to put the situation right and, if necessary, to blow the whistle when your Government is in breach of international law. The US is a proud country, and rightly so, it has given so much to the modern world. Maintaining that pride and dignity should be far more important than any temporary gains from a cover-up of torture.
I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye on this issue, but just a few points that summarize my thoughts:
1. If faced with a situation where we have a terrorist who is suspected of having information that could save us from an imminent nuclear attack, and the terrorist refuses to impart this information, and we are against the clock, and all other reasonable efforts have failed - and we decide that it is 'against our interest' to use physical means to get the terrorist to talk, then that would be as ridiculous as allowing a mugger to shoot you in the face because you don't believe in physical violence....
and..
2. Hence the best bumper sticker synopsis of this perversion, "A liberal is someone who is so broadminded they can't even take their own side in a fight".
3. To equate raping in Vietnam and abu graib, etc. with the conditional need for physical interrogation measures is worse than claiming that opening McDonald restaurants around the world is a manifestation of U.S imperialism.
CatNamedRudy wrote:You're gonna need JT to answer the economic questions MC. Sorry!
I'm not sure what measures California has taken previously to reduce their spending and their debt but I do know that part of the problem is that they have an incredibly high population of illegals who get benefits but don't pay taxes. That puts a strain on an already strained system.
I know in Wisconsin though, the state govt. is taking some drastic steps to save money. Every single state employee, including those that are contracted or working on grants has to take 16 unpaid furlough days over the next 2 fiscal years. Plus, the non represented people who were supposed to get a 2% pay raise in June, didn't get it. Fortunately for me, I'm represented and the raise was contracted so I still got mine!
I understand why Barack Obama wants to send every kid to college, because of their indoctrination mills, absolutely [...] The indoctrination that is going on at the university level is a harm to our country.
Santorum is a nasty horrible person. Anyone who's voting for him needs their head examined.
And i'm also sick of people, such as his wife, always using the 'it was god's will' line as a reason for doing anything. People who say that need shooting in the face (ok, just laughed at and have fingers pointed at them).
Moon-Crane wrote:Diggin up an old thread here, but didn't know where else to put it.
I can't be bothered to check through the pages of the thread, but i recall JT proudly claiming how US universities/education are the greatest in the world - so, it must be a bit embarrassing to have one of your presidential candidates denigrating them?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57384204-503544/santorum-obama-wants-to-indoctrinate-students-by-boosting-college-enrollment/I understand why Barack Obama wants to send every kid to college, because of their indoctrination mills, absolutely [...] The indoctrination that is going on at the university level is a harm to our country.
Strange that a now fundie religious nut would claim institutions built on critical thinking and debate are the places where the 'indoctrination' is performed. I'd have thought it's logical for anybody going into higher education with an insular view is going to have their mind opened to the wider world. It's called growing up. Mind, he's pulling the 62% line out the same ass as i am when i say 87% of statistics are make up.
Santorum is a nasty horrible person. Anyone who's voting for him needs their head examined.
And i'm also sick of people, such as his wife, always using the 'it was god's will' line as a reason for doing anything. People who say that need shooting in the face (ok, just laughed at and have fingers pointed at them).
So you've got these idiots at one end of the spectrum, and the nutters too lazy to do basic research at the other who are still claiming that Obama is a foreigner/muslim/antichrist.
Whackjob 1
Whackjob 2
You can tell it's an election year
JT wrote:Not to defend Santorum (I 'voted' for Romney in my state caucus), but American colleges and Universities are among the LEAST tolerant and ideologically diverse institutions in the U.S. This despite being ostensible places of debate and critical thinking. Hard sciences yes. Social sciences are another matter, as is the general slant among faculty and students. Look no further than the fact that an organization like MEChA has chapters on just about every campus in the country. Check them out here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEChA
Basically they are a Latino 'Aryan' nation of sorts.
If the Aryan Nations tried to set up chapters on an American campus they would have not only the school administration and local media screaming to high hell, but would probably have the FBI up their butts. And rightly so. But with MEchA, well they just seem to need that 'diversity'.
American colleges and universities are social and political indoctrination mills.
Moon-Crane wrote:Hmm, i'm not sure what your criteria is for such a claim, but think i could name a whole bunch of less tolerant institutions than a US college or university.
Moon-Crane wrote:It may well be crazy to allow these mecha guys such freedoms in colleges/uni but unless you can show cases where aryan groups have tried to start up similar groups and been banned from doing so then i can't say for sure they'd point blank be refused.
Moon-Crane wrote:I Any racist groups for their own races need to be called out and, if necessary, ridiculed out of existence.
Moon-Crane wrote: In it's own stupid way, it surely shows that colleges and universities aren't intolerent or non-diverse?
Moon-Crane wrote:If you're going to declare them indoctrination mills, i'm assuming none of your fellow like minded thinkers ever went to a college or uni? How did they make it out of such institutions with their own beliefs in check? I guess you're just the strong, lucky ones? It's all those other people who can't think for themselves, right?
Return to Off Topic Games / Polls / Quizzes
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests
© Site contents are copyright Stuart Lee 1999 - 2024. This is a Frasier fan site and is not affiliated in any way with the program, Grub St Productions, Paramount or NBC. |