I have no qualms about the techiques that you referenced in your link. I certainly do not want my government using those methods, "if at all possible". However, we live in a world where weapons of mass destruction are inevitably going to be found in the hands of very unstable and lethal groups of people one day.

The idea of the innocent children suffering in an American City that was just nuked, somewhat causes me to pause and wonder if maybe we tied the hands of our troops in interrogating the terrorists that might have information that is applicable.

Mind you, I read your referenced comments from the Lt. Col. that said he's never in 30 years seen such a scenario played out, but I will suggest to you that it is still a possibility.

So, lets just say for the sake of argument that we discontinue any and all methods which inflict any pain or discomfort on the terrorists. Does that mean we can't take their Koran away from them? Does that mean we are torturing them if they don't get NPR or Democracy now on their plasma screen HDTV?

We are dealing with extremes here. True they are hyperboles, but hyperboles are a means of testing absolutes. You say torture is an ABSOLUTE WRONG. Therefore, it is absolutely wrong to torture, anyone for any reason, no exceptions.

Do you think merely raising our voices and demanding that they tell us everything we need to know is all that we can do? What about drugs? I mean there is a painful prick associated with the I.V., and trust me, I pass out when I get my blood taken, and for me that is torture. So where do you draw the line?

I know I would love to live in the utopian world that liberals believe we live in. The world where we all have excellent health benefits, where everyone has security, health, wealth, and happiness, but until then, there are going to be people that hate us for no other reason than their god said so. And those people will do what is necessary to inflict upon us with as much pain as possible. I for one, believe we should do whatever we can reasonably do to prevent it from happening. So, how do you propose we interrogate men who long to be killed so they can have their 70 Virgins?

You say that torture is an absolute wrong, I say it is wrong, but not absolutely. There is a difference between the two.

but I would be interested in seeing the list of Americans who support torture. And you can leave off members of the current administration, since we know their stances already. Keep the faith.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

According to the world clock population count as of today. There are 303,611,583 people in the USA.

According to the latest CNN poll 58% of all Americans think water boarding is Torture and should not be used.

That would be 176,094,718 people against water boarding

According to the same poll 40% of all Americans think water boarding maybe torture but should be used.

That would be 121,444,633 for water boarding

I assume the last 2% of the people polled didn’t have a preference.

That means 54,650,085 more people are against water boarding than for it. I did count Jeff C’s 37 people against, wouldn’t want to leave anyone out.

Ok, Can the majority change the minds of the 121,444,633 people who favor water boarding?

Looks like a big job. I wouldn’t bet on it.

Wulf

Thanks for being so kind and asking- we have an appointment today, so I will update you. Keep us in your thoughts and prayers. Thanks again for the concern, it means alot. Talk later.

______________________________
We Will Stand

"...the adults will be in charge once again in 10 months

Too bad adults were not in charge for the past 7 years. This recent video of Bush whooping it up makes me sick. How he can laugh and sing while our economy collapses, soldiers continue to be blown up and our global reputation continues to take a nose-dive, is beyond belief.

BUSH LAUGHS AND SINGS AS THE WAR RAGES ON - ECONOMY FLOUNDERS - DOLLAR SINKS - GAS PRICES RISE - U.S. REPUTATION PLUMMETS - HE'S SUCH A HAPPY GUY...

that we who are critical of GWB's policies actually hate him personally. Oldbeach not withstanding, some find it hard to separate people from policies. Some of this is born from equating pro choice people with murderers. Anyway..

GWB's sense of humor is what I like about him. He isn't a stuffy, serious politician. Unfortunately he isn't serious enough at times (the where's the WMDs skit), but I'm sure he's a fun dad.

If I were his boss, however, I'd have let him go around 2004.

Kevin "Hack" King

Do you seriously think that any of those candidates wouldn't change their minds about torture if they thought it would get them elected?

I yam what I yam....Popeye

You don’t have to define torture Richard. It has already been defined in US and international law.

Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime

As for the terrorist who hypothetically has the information regarding a nuclear device, here is an article from a 30 year Army intelligence officer who says in part:

“But the so-called ticking time bomb scenario is a Hollywood construct that I never encountered in my 30-year career. Even so, it has become the rallying cry of many well-intentioned but ethically challenged military and civilian personnel.”

Two problems with torture

------------------
"President Bush talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years. Maybe a hundred, that's fine with me. I don't think Americans are concerned if we're there for a hundred years, or a thousand years, or ten thousand years." John McCain

I would rather take the words of a real American expert on torture:

1.Trust me, you don't want to go down that road with me.
2. If you don't tell me what I want to know, then it'll just be a question of how much you want it to hurt.
3. You don't want to try me on that one.
4. Tell me what I need to know!
5. When I'm finished with you, you're gonna wish that you felt this good again.
6. I need you to trust me.
7. There's no time for backup.
8. I don't have time to explain right now.
9. Thousands of lives are at stake
10. I'm going dark.
11. Damnit!
12. That was our only lead
13. I have killed two people since midnight. I haven't slept in over 24 hours. So maybe you should be a little more afraid of me than you are now.
14. The only reason that you're conscious right now is because I don't want to carry you.
15. You probably don't think that I can force this towel down your throat. But trust me, I can. All the way.
16. What is your primary objective?
17. If you hurt my daughter I WILL kill you.
18. Where is the bomb? I said WHERE IS THE BOMB?
19. What's on the chip? WHAT'S ON THE CHIP?
20. I need an interrogation room prepped NOW!
21. You are going to tell me everything I want to know or I swear to God I will hurt you before I kill you, and no one will be able to stop me.

Now try and trump that.

I admit, you've got me there.

Gotta run, but did you see where my man made up half of the delegates he lost in Texas and Ohio by winning Wyoming? You can't make this stuff up! On to Mississippi!

And poor Samantha Power, the person who tried to pour a bucket of water on Hillary to make her melt? I traveled across Indonesia with her. Terrific woman, incredibly smart. Probably end up as SecState or NSC advisor.

I've just re-read this thread from top to bottom and I have to admit this in one positively surreal thread.

Hack outlines his position against torture.
Richard Hobbes counters with a quote from a fictional movie (A Few Good Men)
Jeffc outlines his position about torture being criminal under the law.
Richard Hobbes counters with quotes from a fictional TV show (24).

Am I the only person here who thinks Richard Hobbes has a problem distinguishing fact from fiction?

If McCain is elected, he will eliminate waterboarding. Perhaps that is because he endured POW torture himself. What I don't understand is why a veteran such as yourself doesn't understand that. I do, and I was never a POW. Hack understands. It's very clear--if we torture our prisoners, then it's open season on our troops when they get captured.

My other point is that you talk about "dems" like they are a monolithic block, and all they want to do is tear down the Republican party in partisan fashion. That type of partisanship is more a function of the Republican right wing, and it is responsible for most of the trouble we are currently in.

You mentioned that "rather than maning up and admitting they were wrong, they now focus on the cost of the war." The problem with that is that they were NOT wrong about the war overall--it was a colossal blunder. The surge has indeed worked better than I expected it to (thank God!!) but overall, we are still in a mess, and we are bleeding money, not to mention the enormous burden that our troops on active duty are paying.

In case you haven't noticed, we are in the middle of a mortgage meltdown and financial crisis. This is mostly due to the fiscal policies of the Bush administration. It has nothing to do with Monica's stained dress, hard as that is for you to believe.

My final point is that you seem to have a weak memory when it comes to McCain. Three years ago, you right-wingers on this website were all sneering at any mention of McCain, because he was not right-wing enough for you. I remember that, because I actually expressed support for him back then, and got ridiculed for it. He actually thinks for himself, unlike "W", and if he wins, we will be vastly better off than we are at the moment. For one thing, he will be willing to work with the Democrats, not just see them as the enemy like you do.

My definition of "the American way" seems to be different than yours.

you are absolutely correct in your statement that the Democratic Party is not bent on tearing down the Republican Party (atleast on the local level). That solves nothing and merely ratchets up the animosity without addressing the essential differences in philosophies that exist between us. The time is right (PART due, IMHO} to put partisanship aside and tackle the difficult problems together. Maybe we will both be able to learn something if we stop and listen. Keep the faith.,

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

That was the sound of the coffee exiting my nose after reading this:

you are absolutely correct in your statement that the Democratic Party is not bent on tearing down the Republican Party

Mr. Yardman, Read your own postings and then let me see if you can say that while keeping a straight face.

Keeping the faith... Just not in our political parties.

Git

________

"I'm Pro Choice - On Light Bulbs

I am sorry I was not there to see that, LOL. and let me add the rest of the quotation that you inadvertently left off (I am sure)..."{atleast on the local level}" Keep the faith.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

I just assumed you were consistent. So it's okay for Democrats to get nasty on a national and state level, but not on a local level?

Whut's the difference? Is it kind of like; "It's not okay to waterboard Islamo Facist Murdering Terrorists in order to save innocent lives, but it's okay to kill unborn babies as a convenience to the inconvenienced"?

"I'm Pro Choice - On Light Bulbs

it would take longer than I have here to discuss the Democratic Party and its structure. Besides, you would probably get REAL bored very quickly. Suffice to say that the Democratic Party does not march lockstep behind anyone. For my part, assuming either of the two front runners for the presidential nomination actually end up with the nomination, I will be asked to support my third choice in that race. I asked my wife the other day, "How much am I going to be asked to compromise my beliefs here?"

As a result of that, I have made a conscience decision to concentrate my efforts in re-energizing the party on a local level. Does it mean that I will not support my party's candidate for president? No, it merely means that what happens on the national level is of less importance to me than what we do on the local level to make Fayette County a two-party county. I don't necessarily believe that any Democrat is more qualified than any Republican. I DO believe that people deserve a choice when voting and that people deserve an forum to state beliefs that depart from the local norm. Now, there are plenty of folks in the Democratic Party that disagree with that view, but then we have a free system that encourages such differences of opinion and searchs for ways to accommodate those diverse opinions.

See, pretty boring stuff. Keep the faith.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

I know how you guys work, thank you very much.

but then we have a free system that encourages such differences of opinion and searchs for ways to accommodate those diverse opinions.

You mean like the diverse Democrat supporting groups that bombed the recruiting office in NYC and burned the high income homes in.....

________

"I'm Pro Choice - On Light Bulbs

if we torture our prisoners, then it's open season on our troops when they get captured.

It's already been "open season" on our captured troops. And that occurred before we even opened up Gitmo and other prisons. Our men and women are brutally tortured, murdered, and drug through the streets by our enemies. Like our banning waterboarding is going to make a difference? I would venture to say that waterboarding has saved many of our troops lives in multiples over the amount of troops that have been tortured because we used the waterboard technique.

WATERBOARD THESE GUYS

WATERBOARD THEM NOW! TO HELP PREVENT MORE OF THIS

At least our waterboard victims live to endure another day of the evil hatred they feed off of. If waterboarding will save the lives of one of our troops then I say have at it. These evil sub-human beings forfeited their rights to decent treatment voluntarily.

My other point is that you talk about "dems" like they are a monolithic block, and all they want to do is tear down the Republican party in partisan fashion. That type of partisanship is more a function of the Republican right wing, and it is responsible for most of the trouble we are currently in.

So..... please tell us again how non-partisian the Democrats are? Did you really say that?

In case you haven't noticed, we are in the middle of a mortgage meltdown and financial crisis. This is mostly due to the fiscal policies of the Bush administration.

Uhhh.... did it ever occur to you that perhaps the mortgage meltdown and financial crisis that you refer to was brought about by greedy, selfish, and stupid financial decisions made by the idiots that actually financed those homes they couldn't afford and then rang up massive credit card debt in trying furnish those mini-castles? I really don't thing your president forced any of these morons into buying a property they were never going to be able to afford. I always wondered how people making much less than I were buying these huge homes. Now I know..... they were never able to afford them in the first place. And this was W's fault?

You know there's a huge majority of homeowners in this country who are not affected by this 'mortgage meltdown cycle' if you will. I'm one of them, and it's perfectly clear as to why these people are losing their homes. Oh well... at least they get to keep their Mercedes and Lexus cars after filing bankruptcy via their self-inflicted personal financial suicide.

It has nothing to do with Monica's stained dress, hard as that is for you to believe.

You're right. The mortgage meltdown cycle that we are experiencing had nothing to do with the sperm left of Monica's pretty blue dress.

Three years ago, you right-wingers on this website were all sneering at any mention of McCain

I'm still sneering, but it looks like I'm going to have to vote for him. Oh well.... if that's the best of the bunch (Dems & Reps) we've got to vote in this election, it makes me wonder; We're the greatest country on the face of this earth and this is the best we can do?

John McCain - The Republican candidate that the Left loves, but will never vote for.

I think I'll move onto something more thought provoking than this election..... anyone up for a game of solitaire?

________

"I'm Pro Choice - On Light Bulbs

Git, I'm pretty sure that you know a lot more about economics than I do, so I'm sure you are already aware of this, but here's excerpts from a current article from Reuters:

(http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0838569920080309?sp=true)

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The FBI has begun a criminal inquiry into the largest U.S. mortgage lender, Countrywide Financial Corp, for suspected securities fraud as part of investigations into the mortgage crisis, The New York Times reported in Sunday editions.

The Countrywide inquiry follows a broader investigation by the FBI into 14 companies as part of a review of the practices of the mortgage industry, the Times said.

Investigators had been looking at possible accounting fraud or insider trading connected to loans made to borrowers with subprime credit, the Times said.

Countrywide already faces federal and state investigations of its lending practices, as well as several lawsuits by investors and mortgage holders.

State investigations include one by the Illinois attorney general, who earlier this month subpoenaed units of Countrywide Financial and Wells Fargo & Co in a probe of whether the companies violated federal lending and civil rights laws by steering minority borrowers into more expensive loans.

Countrywide, drowning in a pool of bad home loans, is in the process of being acquired by Bank of America for about $4 billion. It reported a loss of about $422 million in the fourth quarter of 2007.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
So this is not just a matter of stupid financial decisions made by idiots buying more home than they can afford. Like you, I'm not directly affected by this mess, as I've already paid off my house, but back when I was a 20-something buying my first house, I could have easily fallen for one of these loans, and so could most 20-somethings. Lucky for me, the banks didn't start doing this until around 2006. I think that was because of a lack of regulatory oversight, and I blame the Bush administration for that.

Bottom line: Do we really want the sort of laisse faire society in which banks and other institutions are out to screw the little guy, and it's "every man for himself"? If you look at the stock market, I think the results speak for themselves.

Oh, but River----that is BUSINESS. they provided a lot of jobs and sold millions of less sophisticated people impossible mortgages, which put us where we are today!

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The FBI has begun a criminal inquiry into the largest U.S. mortgage lender, Countrywide Financial Corp, for suspected securities fraud as part of investigations into the mortgage crisis,

This is simple. If there is fraud and other criminal activities involved with Countywide (and I don't doubt there isn't) then nail their butts to the wall. Countrywide has always had a sleazy reputation and dealing with them has made about as much sense as furnishing your house via Aaron Rents. Only "idiots" would be so stupid.....

So this is not just a matter of stupid financial decisions made by idiots buying more home than they can afford.

I stand by my original statement in referring to the majority of those losing their homes as "idiots". You can blame Countrywide all you want.... but who were the "idiots" that made the voluntary decision to buy homes, furnish them with credit card debt and then purchase vehicles that they could not afford. Countrywide didn't force them into these deals. These losers knew exactly what they were getting themselves into when they signed onto those idiotic ballon mortgages and interest only mortgages just as you and I know that if we pee onto an electical outlet, chances are, sooner or later we're going to get zapped. Thanks for having the intellectual honesty in not blaming Bush again on this one. This type of consumer stupidity isn't a political one.... nor do I want those idiots mucking up the market for the rest of us due to the "idiots" out there. The "idiots" we will always have....

Another point to ponder: Remember in the early 90's when "racism" was being screamed by all the low income, credit unworthy jealous characters that like to buy big hats while actually possesing not cattle? Well, looky what happened when the gumament stepped in and forced the banks to come up with creative ways to enable these bankruptcy minded yahoos a way to buy mortgages without actually being able to meet the practical pre-qualifying requirements banks and lending institutes used as standards for decades prior to this time. Now I'm not going to blame Clinton on this. I'm just going to say that the standards were lowered under the the pretention of "fairness" and look what happened to us.

My hope is that the lending institutions will tighten up on their credit policies and require down payments and reduce the qualifying purchase amounts to more properly reflect the ability of the "idiot's" ability to afford his mortgage.

As for the builders and their surplus properties and "gold rush mentalities" biting them in the tail? Well, tough turkey toes.... They can deal with their greedy decisions, adjust during this cyclic market correction and deal with their own "idiotic" business decisions. Yeah, my home's value has deflated some. So what? Prices on raw materials other building products aren't going to go down anytime soon. We just need to sit back, and homes will appreciate once again. And if we have any sense we'll stay put and build wealth in the homes we have rather than trading up every few years at a tremendous expense.

As for the stock market... so what again. If you're an "idiot" financially, chances are you don't have any stocks anyways. As for me and my investments....... I'll just kick back and wait it out. I expect the cycles to take place and I'm ready for them.

as to the banks screwing the little guy..... the banks will screw anyone if they get half a chance. The key is to not allow yourself to become vulnerable to their screwing. It's quite simple. If you can't afford it, don't buy it, and you won't get screwed.

Oh well. Good conversation.

________

"I'm Pro Choice - On Light Bulbs

I just saw an article on Forbes.com that pointed out that Warren Buffett, the richest man on earth, still lives in a house that he bought in 1958 for $31,000. I guess it still meets his needs. Well, I certainly can't argue with that!!

But, I'm starting to see the value in not piling my retirement fortunes in my home. Much like Warren and Truett Cathy. It takes money to make money, and obligating up all my wealth in one piece of real estate just cripples my investment goals.

Unfortunately many of those who are victims of their own poor financial decisions, somehow thought a house they bought and were only able to make to make principal payments on, was a form of investing. But, there's always that interest deduction at the end of the year (eyes rolling).

________

"I'm Pro Choice - On Light Bulbs

Yardman Peter Lewin (Vice Chair of FayCo Dems): "Which is more lethal, waterboarding, or Denise's deluge of cut and paste?" (BTW, waterboarding hasn't been "lethal.")

"Five Minutes Well Spent"

The relevant Democratic congressional leadership for intelligence — including current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, and former Sen. Bob Graham — not only knew about it but approved and encouraged it.

Maybe we should subject them to READING. Just look at the effect the mention of it has on $$$$, Hack, & others.

Clearly above you say that "The relevant Democratic congressional leadership for intelligence — including current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, and former Sen. Bob Graham — not only knew about it but approved and encouraged it."

The report said this: "Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said."

This was a room with republicans and democrats. You attempt to shove words of approval into the dems' mouths with no evidence or justification.

The articles written on this never indicate Nancy Pelosi or J. Rockefeller encouraged and approved torture.

And you said, below, with such moral superiority, that lawmakers only spoke out on torture out to save future votes in this Denise classic:

"[Typical spineless reaction by politicians, and the only morality they're typically worried about is something that would cost them votes.]"

Denise, what does the Washington Post article we both are referencing ACTUALLY say:

"Congressional officials say the groups' ability to challenge the practices was hampered by strict rules of secrecy that prohibited them from being able to take notes or consult legal experts or members of their own staffs. And while various officials have described the briefings as detailed and graphic, it is unclear precisely what members were told about waterboarding and how it is conducted. Several officials familiar with the briefings also recalled that the meetings were marked by an atmosphere of deep concern about the possibility of an imminent terrorist attack."

Hutch has called you on this tactic of insurgent posting you employ. I've tried. Others have as well. You use so many other people's words in your messages and you somehow believe that you can disavow yourself from the thoughts you are promoting; be it a callous attitude towards homeless veterans who aren't as "tough" as veterans in your family, or Jeff Carter's dad, or liberals in general.

It is INTELLECTUAL COWARDICE, Denise. You have no right to even address the issues of fortitude and bravery when you can't even support your own words. To this day, after a year of posting, the only opinion I know of yours is that a "baby" is whatever you say it is.
So I guess I'm harsh and unfair Denise. Consider this a simple liberal saying your argument either for or against torture (as I'm not sure where you think your position is) are dishonest and also show cowardice of conviction (or lack thereof). With this out in the fresh air, let's feel free to ignore eachother, or not, as we do or don't see fit, depending on the opinions of others that we paste, without implying support of same. Capice'?

Kevin "Hack" King

When you learn to READ, let me know; then you can use your "moral superiority" to lecture me about intelligence.

The article was not written by me. I'm not Jonah Goldberg. I wrote the comment to GIT because I knew that he'd READ the whole article (even page 2) and like it. Politicians LIE, especially at election time. Git would likely find their "I can't remember" statements and political pandering sickening.

If I misquoted or misinterpreted the article, I'm sorry. Ask Richard to sue me for the price of your subscription.

Does it make you feel "morally superior" to call me a coward, a liar, and lacking principles and to instruct me on the proper way to blog? Does it make you feel "morally superior" to second guess the President and members of Congress?

I definitely get a lot more than you even know you're saying. Capisci [kapeesh]?

His standard operating procedure is to smear and link you with items (or people) you never mentioned.

If he can't do that he'll misquote your quote.

If he can't do that he'll tell you how morally superior he is.

But ...He's a generous guy to help the poor as long as he can to it with other people's money.

What not have a toast to truthfulness, Hack?

Cheers!

Hack accused me of calling him a "shovelnose".

---------------------------------
Barack Obama is a human featherball -- a slick, smiling, substance-free empty suit who excites gullible dimwits by repeating the words “change,” “unity,” and “hope” over and over --

he also acknowledged that he was wrong and it was your little brother "Take Back Fayette". Let's not twist this too much.

I yam what I yam....Popeye

Please show us how much you "get" and translate sdg into English for us.

Kevin "Hack" King

Cheers!

Smooches

Kevin "Hack" King

My God, do you have no idea how disturbing it is to Hack, and to the other libs, to even invision that the three sole examples of water boarding over five years ago, lasted between 90 seconds and a few minutes.

Oh, the humanity. I suppose if we took away their cable television from their cells, that would surmise as torture too.

Please Denise, quit picking on them. It makes them get angry and start using the Shift/Number keys more often, as Hack demonstrated below, i.e. you're nothing but a $%^&*@!

I know, its hard not to "torture" Hack with the facts. I can just see his head spinning around like Linda Blair in the Exorcist, but stop it now, or I'll report you to Cal for raising the bar to high. You know Cal's continued posts as SAGE are where this website's typical level of intelligence tends to go, so don't do it too much or you might be banned as well.

BTW: You have a strange ability to pick out the real people behind the monikers, but I've not figured out who you are at all. Have we at all met? I thought maybe at one of the baby water boarding lessons that new parents in the Republican party must participate in. Got to teach them while they are young, or they might grow up to become a self professed liberal, who denounces America at every turn, while claiming to be the most patriotic fly boy of them all.

Richard Hobbs is right, Denise, quit trying.

When you attempt to pass off an editorial by the idiotic Jonah Goldberg as "factual" "proof" of your position, you've failed.

Richard, thanks for the laughs as well. Have you ever considered winding down your struggling law practice and hitting the comedy club circuit?

Thanks for more unsubstantiated 'nothings'.

I suppose I'd be bitter too if I were just getting by on some dead end job like you appear to be and no one at works wants anything to do with you. Try smiling once in a while.

Keep up the good work Denise. For Hack, Sniffles, and Main Street to become so hateful and nasty, you must be throwing out some tough facts to set them off so. It seems their arguments to repudiate you are simply to tell you how long winded you are, to criticize your source linking, and to tell you how ignorant you are. Oh well... wear their criticisms as a badge of honor.
________

"I'm Pro Choice - On Light Bulbs

Git, from you:

"For Hack, Sniffles, and Main Street to become so hateful and nasty, you must be throwing out some tough facts to set them off so. It seems their arguments to repudiate you are simply to tell you how long winded you are, to criticize your source linking, and to tell you how ignorant you are. Oh well... wear their criticisms as a badge of honor."

from Denise: FACT?

"About those baby waterboarding lessons -- We expect our kids to be TOUGH -- not whiners -- Marine material."

and this: LIE!
"The relevant Democratic congressional leadership for intelligence — including current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, and former Sen. Bob Graham — not only knew about the waterboarding but approved and encouraged it."

Knew and ENCOURAGED it? Pure B S.

and this: Contradiction

"And since neither you nor I are privy to all of the intelligence, to make a judgment without all of the facts would be imprudent."

This sure sounds like a "judgement" without all of the "facts:"

"The "boss" didn't ask soldiers to "strip them nude and simulate homosexual acts between them." And the soldiers were punished for their CRIMES"

1: The president refused to disallow "stripping prisoners naked and "simulated sex acts." These techniques are ON THE TABLE!

2: No reasonable people involved with the Abu Graib case believes that there was no higher authority responsible. The Army personell involved often were locked out of CIA interrogations, and ZERO CIA personell have been implicated. Hmmm...

Bottom line on losing credibility:

When you are arguing FOR torture when even your war hero presidential candidate is against it;

When your argument includes movie quotes and obfuscations with the abortion issue (as if we have soldiers go abort people's babies)

You are arguing from a position void of credibility.

I have served with men who were torture victims. I flew over Iraq with a man who faced inhuman torture in Iraq after being shot down. We were able to go after those who acted outside of the rules because we followed the rules. Now what can we say, Git? What can we say Denise? What can we say Richard?

Please answer this: IS THERE ANY CHANCE AT ALL THAT YOU THREE MAY ONE DAY BE SUBJECTED TO RETRIBUTION ON THE BATTLE FIELD BECAUSE OF A US POLICY OF TORTURE?

I didn't think so. You may now put your compassion back on, unless, of course, you still care to defend torturing human beings in our care.

ps, Git. The guy that hit me has not a pot to pee pee in, but judgement, for him, is comming.

Hack

Liberals love to LIE while calling others liars, leaving them "void of credibility."

"Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002"

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

Yet long before "waterboarding" entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.

"Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said [Rep. Porter J.] Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.'

Only after information about the practice began to leak in news accounts in 2005 -- by which time the CIA had already abandoned waterboarding -- did doubts about its legality among individual lawmakers evolve into more widespread dissent.

[Typical spineless reaction by politicians, and the only morality they're typically worried about is something that would cost them votes.]

_________________________

"The "boss" didn't ask soldiers to "strip them nude and simulate homosexual acts between them."

I drew the conclusion about "the boss," former Brig. General Janis Karpinski, because she was demoted and charged with dereliction of duty, making a material misrepresentation to investigators, and failure to obey a lawful order, as well as shoplifting. The JUDGMENT against her and others was made by a military court. But then you probably feel that O.J. is innocent, too.

"In his final report, Major General Antonio Taguba [who oversaw a criminal investigation by the US Army Criminal Investigation Command, beginning in 2003 before the scandal broke in 2004, where multiple recruits from the 320th MP Battalion had been charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with prisoner abuse] blamed Karpinski for the abuse by not paying attention to the daily operations of the prison. According to Taguba, Karpinski rarely visited the prisons during her tenure, and she reviewed and signed reports about claims of abuse without following up to make sure her orders were carried out. As a consequence, the abuse was allowed to continue and her subordinates developed a lax attitude towards protocol. Brigadier General Karpinski was cited throughout the Taguba Report for repeated violations of Army procedure, good management and exercising her command as directed by Army regulations. During interviews it was reported within the Taguba report that Brigadier General Karpinski was disconnected from the reality of the situation in her area of command." (Wiki)

Why didn't Karpinski report the abuse and make her charges before her demotion? As a side note, there are sound arguments against women in the military (policies changed by Pres. Clinton) and affirmative action promotions.

And the soldiers were punished for their CRIMES" (not harshly enough, IMO -- comment made to River & in other posts) -- Do you deny that?

Military and CIA cover-up? Show me the proof (i.e., LINKS, but not to Cindy Sheehan). Congress has been controlled by Dems for more than a year. Where are the charges?

Hack, learn to read so that you don't label a personal comment made in jest to Richard as a "FACT" and so that you don't mischaracterize my statements as being in support of torture.

I do support adult reading programs, evidently a form of torture for you.

Howdy Git, why don't you tell us again how torture makes America strong and admired throughout the world!

I'm just reading all of the crying libs on this site, whining about three terrorists having water poured in their face for a few minutes some five years ago and was amazed at the indignation.

Yes, INDIGNATION.

I read about how we as Americans are better than that. We don't torture people, period. Hands held over their hearts as they talk about sacrificing their lives in support of our Constitution that they claim is being destroyed by Bush. Yes, a few gallons of water poured and the flood gates of tears begin falling for the terrorists.

Then, as my son and I discussed another matter, he mentioned the anguish, pain, and torture that a fetus endures as it attempts to defend itself against the needle that is plunged into its womb and scalds it with the rush of saline, and I had to stop and think.

Just exactly what is the argument here? Let me see if I understand the liberals position.

Torturing innocent life by killing it under the guise of another's "right", verses, pouring water over the heads of murdering Muslim fanatics who are intent on killing our own people. Hmmm.

Yep, you guys, like Main Street, Sniffles, Hack, et. al. are right, I don't have the intelligence of a liberal elite such as yourselves, such to understand how very wrong Republicans are.

I'll try to do better.

So I thought we would just call the torture of terrorist with nomenclature that you are comfortable with. Obama likes Partial Birth Abortions, so I suggest we change the terms. (You know like liberal is now progressive.) So from now on torture shall be called Post Birth Abortions! Yep, we abort these Arab terrorists, some 20, 30, or 60 years after their birth. Instead of a woman's right to choose, we call it America's right to choose.

Gives me goosebumps all over.

Outstanding concept Richard. I lift my aluminum can of V-8 to toast your genius!

You've enlightened me as to another issue I am Pro-Choice on. From this day forward Git has seen the light and now I am in complete agreement with our government's stance on aborting Islamo Fascist Terrorists.

And how about this for a thought? Instead of murdering unborn babies, how about we just allow them to live and waterboard them for 3 minutes when reach the age of five. Then at least we're treating them with the same respect for life that we given to to our murderous and head-whacking Islamic enemies. And this way everyone gets to live.

I love it.

________

"I'm Pro Choice - On Light Bulbs

Debating abortion and torture in the same context is certainly a new twist Republican's have thought up in order to deflect from the real issue.... which is human torture (pure and simple).

However, I believe you have this argument turned around. The impression has always been, that a good portion of conservatives seem to care more about the 'unborn' than those that are actually living. Do conservative Republican's believe that it is alright to torture because there isn't an umbilical chord attached to the person being tortured?

Why aren't conservative Republican's more concerned with the LIVING, instead of only the unborn fetuses? If you want to relate the two, torture and abortion, why is your ethical argument only applied to the unborn and not the living?

The new Republican mantra: Stop Abortion but Allow War and Torture

(good luck with that one)

------------------------
HOW MUCH WE'VE SPENT ON THE IRAQ WAR SO FAR

Is it torture for you to THINK?

How was this country founded? Ever heard of the WAR for Independence (Revolutionary WAR)? There were no Republicans then. If you prefer bowing to the Queen, move to the U.K.

What led to the emancipation of slaves? Have you ever heard of the WAR of Northern Aggression (Civil WAR)? That did occur under a Republican president.

How were the Jews and other Europeans liberated from Nazi domination and torture and the Japanese prevented from conquering our country? Ever heard of World WAR II? To which party did FDR belong? THINK really hard.

Who said, "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists.... If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow" (excerpt)? B_LL _LINT_ _

Who gave "not just approval, but encouragement" for waterboarding and "other harsh interrogation methods"? HINT: I'll give you the first 3 letters PEL_ _ _, and she's a DEM_CRAT.

“Code Pink: The Castro and Chavez Fan Club”

"'Feminists are never as militant as they are when promoting peace [and abortion].'"

_______________________

INNOCENT 8-week fetus ("young one") who has never killed or tortured anyone -- Only 30-32 more weeks to go, unless Mommy decides to have me sucked out and flushed down a drain.

I'll continue the open handed love taps that you and I so often exchange. I was looking back through our blogging couples love-hate photo album, and stumbled across this from last October. Has nothing changed or what ?

"Submitted by AF A-10 on Mon, 10/29/2007 - 4:37pm.

Quick Denise. Guess one very long post that Hack did not read. You're getting warmer... warmer... very hot!!! If you want a "tolerant" response from me, Denise, I recommend you not start out calling my opinion "whining." That approach won't smooze the conversation too well. If you have an opinion, state it. Don't expect me to click your links and bridge gaps and read other people's opinions drug into your reply. Think of this as the lightning round. And Denise, if my replies to the paper are sooo monotonous, why are you always here joining me in this banter filled with a certain, unmistakeable tension that exists between people who don't want to admit that they actually look forward to responding to one another's blogs? I freely admit it, Denise. I see your name and click click away Smiling."

By the way, what in the world was the War of Northern Agression?" We never studied that at the DOD schools I grew up in.

Kevin "Hack" King

I think she was referring to the War of Southern Insurrection! Keep the faith.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

About Religious Tolerance:

Click Here

Cllck here for this one, they will need to update the ones that are not on there.

_______________________________
We Will Stand

In the first place, nobody was asking about "religious tolerance" in this thread. I'd ask you to start your own blog entry if you feel compelled to discuss this issue (yet again), but I don't think you know how to do this.

I notice that once again you are obsessing about Obama's church. You keep posting the same links over and over again. Do you feel empowered doing this?

We all know by now that you are passing judgment on a Christian church, in direct contradiction of the Gospel of Matthew. Perhaps your church regards the Book of Matthew as not "really" part of the Bible, that might explain quite a bit of your philosophy.

I have to ask you this, Beeps....Do you enjoy doing Satan's work here on Earth, trying to convince people of the shortcomings of Christian Churchs that you don't agree with?

You say that you are a "tolerant" person....can you say that with a straight face? I think a good number of people on this board would use a lot of different adjectives to describe you....sadly, I sincerely doubt that any of them...including your friends!...would use the word "tolerant".

I know you won't respond to my post, you've already told us over and over that you're only going to post your (and Satan's) own opinions and not lower yourself to "our" level. That's fine.

I truly shudder, though, when I think of the kind of example you are setting for your son.

I don't think you are being tolerate to my response.

BTW- I have done blogs.

Yes, the other day someone linked to this site, and this is my response to it. I noticed this was not on the tolerance site, they have to include it. This is our next President churchs site and beliefs and we have to be tolerant of it.

I'm not passing judgement- I just said that we will have to include this.

Straight face- yes I can- deal you meet me and I will. Deal? Not with your buddies just you.

Do you think I care what people on this board think, I have lived and learned, the answer is no- I know who I value their opinions and the one's I don't.

Mine and Satan's opinion- Sniffles who are you- (how judgemental)

You do have value - my belief system says we all have value and are equal in God's site.

Example- well do you know my son- I think you are passing a little judgement. My son is a fine young man- I am SO PROUD of him.

Oh, you will get over the Obama thing- Yes alot have trouble with his churchs site- even my friends that have the same heritage as Obama

Have a nice day.

_____________________________
We Will Stand

The difference my dear Mrs. Street, is something we like to call guilt verses innocence.

I know in the liberal world view, we are all guilty of everything and responsible for nothing. I know you find it hard to punish criminals, always having one excuse or another about why they shouldn't be punished, etc., but in the big people's world, some are guilty and some are innocent.

Taking the life of an unborn child by poisoning it while its alive, in its mother's womb, is the taking of an innocent life.

Pouring water on the head of a Islamism terrorists head to learn information that might prevent the taking of other innocent life is what you guys find reprehensible.

I specifically typed much slower to help you understand. Unless, I'm mistaken, you've mentioned you were a mother. I can't help but believe, that while your child/children were being nurtured in your womb, that you could sense their presence and being.

Well imagine being poisoned alive, and then to finally die in the womb of your own mother, and then tell me that this isn't a bit worse than pouring water on three known and avowed terrorists some five years ago.

No, don't tell me. I know your head is going to explode because you have already euthanized your intellect to compartmentalize your compassion for the unborn, and to reserve that for the terrorists.

Now, just go back to the democratic underground, and start writing more editorials for the newspapers across the U.S. whining about how awful America is for water boarding.

Sorry to you liberal elites, I'm just not smart enough to understand your purest of logical analysis. Since Barack is rated 100% by the right to abort groups, including Partial Birth Abortion. You know when the baby is viable, but the mother's boyfriend was caught with a different ho, so she'll teach him, by aborting the baby of her sperm donor.

If only I was as smart as you liberals. Life would be so much easier.

First of all, you and I have rarely debated, if ever, on this blog so the condescending tone of your post to me is unnecessary (we don't hold any grudges towards one another, that I'm aware of, and actually seem to agree somewhat on the topic of religion). And the personal reference to my children and my womb just lowers you to the same level as others on here, like TSleuth who was recently banned. Keep the level of discourse higher, Richard, and maybe we can all have an intelligent, lively debate on this blog.

And you are dead wrong about me, and I'm sure other liberals, regarding "punishing criminals." I am a strong proponent of capital punishment.

But is this the new Republican tactic, to drum out abortion when discussing torture to soothe the conservative conscience? If you stand for the rights of the unborn, then you must stand for the rights of the hundreds of Iraqi children that have been blown to bits during this ridiculous war, correct? Can you compare these as well in your inane argument concerning abortion and torture? We could go off on all kinds of crazy tangents if you like, comparing fetuses and living Iraqi children, as well.

I continue to hear ramblings from the Bush administration AND Congress that we are fighting a "new and different" type of enemy; an enemy who does not respect the rules of war or even the Geneva Convention. However, our leaders have failed to put in place any "new and different" guidelines on how to treat this new enemy. It has been 7 years since we were attacked on 9/11 and we have not seen any "new guidelines" to treat prisoners or detainees. Unless "waterboarding" and torture are the new guidelines we can expect in the future.

Again, our leaders are failing us and we slip further into the mud, along with our enemy.

New guideline: Torture others, as you would have them torture you. (Bush Admin. Golden Rule)

------------------------
HOW MUCH WE'VE SPENT ON THE IRAQ WAR SO FAR

oops second copy deleted

Dear Mrs. Street,

First off, my apologizes for my condescending tone. I don't know who you are, so I doubt one would say it was personal. For all I know you could be Jeffc bride, or some teenager in the Bronx.

Secondly, I think that my tone was appropriate. So, I'll withdrawal that apology. Your reply to my earlier post was to state that Republicans are Pro-War and Pro-Torture, and then to question the basic analogy that I was making. You deliberately played dumb in your reply. You acted as if you couldn't understand how I could compare the horrific way we can treat an unborn child, with pouring water over three terrorists heads.

Then, you refuse to answer that question, and become indignant, as if I'm comparing apples with oranges. Well you're right, comparing the torture of innocent life to pouring water on terrorist heads is rather stupid, which is exactly my point.

You know it and instead you just ignore the argument and accuse me of mud slinging. Well, I'd rather be labeled a mud slinger, than someone who would find compassion for a terrorist and none for an unborn child.

So sling your mud back at me. I've read your posts on numerous other topics so me thinks thou doth protesteth too much! You may very well be $age, who I refuse to respond to.

Oh and as to being dead wrong about liberals, yeah right. I am not even going to dignify that political spin with an answer. You either know its a lie, or you are delusional, or maybe both. Liberals have always been weak-kneed on crime and on national security. I'll not debate that with you. You may personally favor more stringent punishments for criminals, but that means you are not as liberal as most of your bretheren and sistern are.

And finally, for you, an anonymous poster, to feel slighted about me mentioning your womb is rather comical. You are offended by that, while no mention of the poisoning death of the unborn child can by typed in your reply. I'm sorry but thats what I call offensive. I guess ignoring the truth is a natural defense mechanism that liberals have learned to master.

You've left them speechless.

Left side of the scale
Terrorists trying to kill innocent lives old and young.
Able to decide and choose good or evil actions.
Able to defend themselves.
Well armed.
Able to flee our armed forces.

Right side of the scale
Totally innocent unborn human who has never harmed anyone.
Unable to defend herself/himself from saline poison.
Unable to flee from Doctor who pulls their limbs off one at a time.

Wow! How could Main Stream not equate the two??

Knowing the science really helps

This is the way to blog!

Hardly.

Richard's attempt to circumvent the issue of torture, by comparing it to abortion is ludicrous and doesn't even deserve the time it takes to continue posting.

So, just continue your quest to save fetuses while turning a blind eye to the Iraqi children being incinerated everyday. We will never come to an agreement on this so what's the use of wasting our time debating apples and oranges... torture and abortion.

Have a good night.

that you study ANALOGIES (which help to develop logical reasoning skills) so that you can understand Richard better.

"Intelligence, in psychology, is the general mental ability involved in calculating, reasoning, perceiving relationships and analogies, learning quickly, storing and retrieving information, using language fluently, classifying, generalizing, and adjusting to new situations." (Columbia Encyclopedia)

Who's "incinerating" Iraqi children "everyday" [sic]?

Terrorists using RPG's & IED's? Terrorists strapping bombs to children? Female al Qaeda terrorists wearing bombs, such as the ones who killed 99 people at two pet markets and 63 people returning from a Shi'ite religious ritual in Baghdad in Feb.?

Produce the facts and figures for your claim. (I-HATE-AMERICA.com isn't a credible source.)

Mainly Extreme: "A million innocent children are dying at this time as we speak, killed in Iraq without any guilt." -- Whoops! Osama bin Laden said that after 9/11/01, but he was using 1999 U.N. figures when SADDAM HUSSEIN was in control.

Mainly Extreme Code Pink-O doing her Cindy Sheehan impersonation: "[Bush] has contributed to the slaughter and murder of not only our soldiers, but innocent Iraqi lives as well." War is not murder, but death is one of the unavoidable consequences of war.

Mainly Extreme: "I grew up in the Bay Area during the turbulent 60's - it made me what I am today (can ya tell?)."

Never would’ve guessed you’re a Beserkley Red Diaper Baby.

_________________

8-week fetus ("young one") -- Only 30-32 more weeks to go!

“Women who are experiencing an unplanned pregnancy also deserve unplanned joy.” (Feminists for Life)

In fairness to you, I'm defining speechless as not being able to refute Richard's thesis.

BTW-If you only knew the work some of us on here are doing for children here and abroad you'd be surprised.

Richard's point was straight up. How do you defend burning a 6 month old human being with a saline solution while decrying waterboarding a terrorist group that tries to kill an entire city?

I think he was holding your feet to the fire to get an answer on what appears to be an inconsistent treatment of human beings. One group is totally innocent of wrongdoing; the other is guilty of vile crimes.

I believe Richard is willing to address the torture questions if you'd just answer his inquiry.

I'm used to this treatment. Often I present medical facts about human life that are never refuted. The other side says (as you did)
We will never come to an agreement on this so what's the use ..

Hey, I'll throw out the challenge one more time for you.

Show me medical or scientific proof that the unborn are something other than innocent human beings and I'll help you get all the abortion you want.

BUT

if all known medical science shows that they are human life, all the ranting about terrorist treatment in the world can't change that fact.

Looking forward to the medical science that you'll present,and I promise we can then move to debate your topic of choice.

This is the way to blog!

Mrs. Street has had an epiphany and its not sitting right in her stomach, so the way she deals with it is to merely say its a ridiculous argument and then to say, we aren't going to change anyone's minds.

Well its hard to change the minds of people so willing to close theirs. She knows that what I say is logical and what's worse, is it makes good sense to her. She isn't that hardened to abortions yet. She likes the slogan politics such as Pro-Choice, and Yes We can. It fits into her lifestyle of only believing in something that can neatly fit on the bumper of her Volvo or Prius. (We own an hybrid, so don't laugh.)

But I sense she is uncomfortable with this subject, because try as she might, she knows that I was say is right, and it pains her to have to again swallow that big horse pill which she swallowed so many years ago, --that the 7 month old fetus can not object to having its burning lungs scalded out in its own mother's womb merely because the child's own mother's rights summarily defeats its own right to breath real air. She long ago grew comfortable with calling it a woman's right to choose. It seemed so simple to just not fixate on the cringing hands and feet of the unborn child as it wrenches in a painful and cruel death. So very close to its mother's heart, that its last sound is that of the muffled cries of pain, and its mother's beating heart.

But, if you are a Democrat, sacrosanct is the right to take the life of an unborn child, for no other reason than the convenience of the mother. Yes, the same mother who made her choice months before to allow herself to help create this new life.

But hey, Mrs. Street, if you are reading this, and your stomach is turning a bit over the realization of what I speak, then maybe, minds can be changed. Maybe words do have meaning, and the rights of an unborn child might weigh more important than that of an avowed terrorist.

I believe you, Mrs. Street have a choice. The right to think about this issue, deeply and with some reflection of the truth as you know it, and really examine the truth without worry about what your democrat friends will think of you. You don't have to be a bible thumper, or a right wing fanatic to appreciate that what I have written is true. Life is precious, especially innocent life. We can debate the collateral damage caused to the children in Iraq, in Darfur, in North Korea, but that is truly another subject.

STOP ganging up on Shrillary or you'll make her cry. It might make people think that "she is likeable. It humanizes her in ways she doesn't seem to be able to do herself."

How appropriate for Shrillary: the OLD 60s song "The Sound of Silence," which was also played in The Graduate.

Hello darkness, my old friend

In restless dreams I walked alone

People hearing without listening

"Fools," said I, "you do not know [what MS thinks of us]
Silence like a cancer grows

...have an epiphany as you stated, and my stomach is just fine, thanks. If you truly want to debate this issue, I suggest you just re-read the multitude of posts on this subject already posted on this blog (use search option - it's easy). We all know pretty much verbatim what the argument will be between liberals and conservatives, so really, why go at it again? I know, I understand the drill, it's just your way (and Paul/Denise's) of pounding your chest and typing silly diatribe, like knocking the type of car you think I drive (a huge SUV actually!) so have at it. No minds have been changed here, nor will they ever.

Your original post, comparing abortion and torture continues to be ridiculous. I believe your morals are horribly skewed because you ache for the unborn, yet have little regard for those living and breathing on this earth. Pro-life, pro-torture, pro-war. It makes little sense.

BTW - Roe v. Wade is the law of the land for a reason. Women want that 'choice' and the public, as well as the courts, supports that right. When that law changes, then maybe we can take up this argument again.

You are nuts!
I am old enough to remember our hatred of the Japanese and the Germans for torturing us during WWll!
Also, do you remember what the Koreans did to our boys that they caught?

And, ask John McCain how desirable torture is.

There is NO CONTROL over torture when authorized! It will continue in many cases until death or information. I personally would not perform it if ordered to do so.

I don't know how much of it we have done and neither do you.
Anyway it is no deterrent to threaten terrorists with it in the hope that they will talk when captured.

Just how much information have we gotten so far with torture--how many lives saved?

We now shall always be known as a country who tottures, and never again will be able to try torturers at a tribunal as we did after WWll!

We are them now! Just as the Catholic Inquisition and the Crusades were for Europe!

Debating abortion and torture in the same context is certainly a new twist Republican's have thought up in order to deflect from the real issue.... which is human torture (pure and simple).

Are you referring to the human torture that allows our murderous enemies to live after we've retrieved enough information to perhaps abort more terrorists while saving perhaps hundreds or thousands of innocent Iraqi lives, not to mention those of our troops? Dog gone it... you gotta love that comparison. We actually afford terrorists the 'right to life' while butchering and murdering our own unborn babies.

Yup... I could see why you we be offended by that comparison Main Stream.

Do conservative Republican's believe that it is alright to torture because there isn't an umbilical chord attached to the person being tortured?

That's an easy one to answer. The answer is YES!

If it will help us to rid our world of THESE EVIL PIECES OF HUMAN DEBRIS

and save the lives of

THESE GUYS

and

THESE GUYS

then I personally see no problem with aborting terrorists.

Why aren't conservative Republican's more concerned with the LIVING, instead of only the unborn fetuses?

An idiotic statement such as you framed into question is unanswerable. Perhaps if your premise were somewhat factual and realistic one could address it. You make about as much sense as Basmati The Sniffler stating that "homeskoolers" are ignorant and inferior to pubic school children.

The new Republican mantra: Stop Abortion but Allow War and Torture

I like it, I like it..... We can save unborn babies and protect ourselves against terrorism, while saving innocent lives around the world..... I like it! It makes more sense than pretending we're going to save the world by blaming Bush for global warming.

________

"I'm Pro Choice - On Light Bulbs

Is that it has save the lives of many Americans, allies, and our Iraqi friends. Waterboarding has awarded us with information that has allowed us to kill and capture many more pieces of murderous human debris. And they're all living as opposed to the innocents and our troops that would have been slaughtered otherwise. As for being admired by France, Russia, Cuba, Mexico and Venezuela.... who gives a crap.

Now as to why we should sniffle about and coddle up to evil murderous Islamo Facists.... Tell me again why we shouldn't simply end their pathetic hate-filled lives with a bullet after we waterboard them?

________

"I'm Pro Choice - On Light Bulbs

"it has save the lives of many Americans, allies, and our Iraqi friends."

Oh really? Wow, I didn't know that. Say, you wouldn't have a link to back up your claim (preferably not an editorial), would you? Hmmm?

You two are missing the point here, TORTURE is wrong, in any degree it is wrong. Remember WE are supposed to be the good guys, try to keep that thought uppermost in your mind while you debate what degree of torture is allowable. Just because you can get away with something doesn't make it right, and to risk our servicemen and women suffering the same fate is in my humble opinion wrong and unless your willing to put yourself on the front lines and risk what our guys and gals are risking I don't think you have the right to make that choice.Denise, I think it is exceptionally callus of you to say we expect our Marines to be tougher then that. I'll leave you with this thought, if you do it to them you can't bitch when it's done to you and also remember, you don't always get to be the one who defines who or what a terrorist is.

I yam what I yam....Popeye

I didn't approve CIA/military policy; Congressional leaders and others did. Did you vote for any of them?

They gave "not just approval, but encouragement," even "asked the CIA to push harder."

My going into combat has NOTHING to do with the issue. (That's called a logical fallacy, a red herrring.)

How easy it is for you to call me "exceptionally callus" (why not attack Richard, too?) when you don't even know me and WRONGLY assume that I'm for torture.

You actually think that my joking comment to Richard means that I want our soldiers tortured? They are prepared to face torture, however, and that includes undergoing waterboarding.

"As a former master instructor and chief of training at the U.S. Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School (SERE) in San Diego, I know the waterboard personally and intimately. Our staff was required to undergo the waterboard at its fullest. I was no exception."

Waterboarding, however, did not cause terrorists to torture and BEHEAD civilians and soldiers. It wasn't because they "B******" either. (Do you talk like that to your wife or daughter or other women?)

Maybe Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, “the principle architect of the 9/11 attacks” according to the 9/11 Report, and the head of al-Qaeda’s “military committee” should have been strapped with several grenades instead of waterboarded. Maybe a bomb should have been dropped on him (like what happens to soldiers in war). Maybe he should have been put in a room burning from jet fuel and his only escape is to jump out a window 70+ stories up.

...............

Jonah Goldberg (“Five Minutes Well Spent”): I don’t like waterboarding, and I hope we never use it again. I have respect for those who believe it should be banned in all circumstances. But I do not weep that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed spent somewhere between .03 and .06 seconds feeling like he was drowning for every person he allegedly helped murder on 9/11.

Then again, I think it would be horrific if we used that logic to justify waterboarding. It’s not a technique that should be used for punishment. Nor do I think that evidence obtained from forced confessions should be used in trial. Those are paving stones on the road to a torture state.

But, given the circumstances at the time, I think the decision to waterboard these three men was right and certainly defensible.

[Something to think about, especially as you LISTEN TO THIS and WATCH THIS.]

______________________

8-week fetus ("young one") -- Abortion ... The CHOICE no woman should make because it deprives the child of his/her RIGHT to LIFE.

You cite all these people on here that are for this or that so I can't help but think you agree with them, but when called on this you disavow them and say you never said you agree with them well which is it? do you agree or not? As for laughing at Richard's little joke I can only take it as written, maybe you should put as many disclaimer's on your posts as you you do link's.As for my language do you discuss anal sex around your daughter or son, you don't seem to have any qualms about it on here. We're not talking here about what they do, we can't control that, what we can control is what we do and I'm sorry if you can't see the difference. We can rationalize anything we do, but it all boils down to right or wrong and while you laugh about it, and joke with Ritchard remember it's wrong to torture and if we do it, we have right to complain when it's done to our guys and just because I'm sitting here safe in America is no reason to take additional chances with the safety of our people overseas. So let's sum this up, you've seen my opinion, no links no citing other people, just my humble opinion, so let's hear yours not the multitude of links you throw out or what all the other people think, let's hear what Denise Conner has to say and then we can sit around and joke about what our Marines should be able to take.

I yam what I yam....Popeye

have such a chip on your shoulder against me? Never mind.

I cite different opinions to stimulate THOUGHT. I've cited an excellent article strongly against torture and waterboarding in another post. There are very good arguments for and against WB as was used against the 4 terrorists. I didn't have to make those decisions and neither did you. It's so easy to say what you'd do until you're actually in that situation. You don't know how many lives were saved, or does that make a difference to you?

There will soon be another administration, and I guess we'll both have disagreements with at least some of the decisions. Waterboarding isn't being used now and won't be used by the new administration. So, go blow up at somebody else, preferably $$$$.

How could you possibly take seriously "Republican baby waterboarding lessons" (a play on baby swimming lessons) as a meeting place? We were in no way laughing at anyone being tortured.

BTW, you seem to forget that I was responding to BASMATI about anal sex, which I described medically as an unsafe, unsanitary practice. I call it sodomy, which should still be illegal. Take up your complaints with Sniffy Bas.

How do RATIONALIZE abortion? Think about. No need to answer.

Let me assure yo I have no chip on my shoulder for you, as for torturing someone I can assure you again I would never do that just like you would never abort a baby, or is that really up in the air for you. I haven't blown up at anyone I have just stated my opinion which I notice you still haven't on this subject, as for the anal sex thing are there different rules about what we can say, does it matter who we are responding to as to what we can say? Remember in the written word there are no tonal inflections to indicate humor, maybe reread what you write and see if it can be taken more then one way, I do although sometimes I fail anyway.

P.S. I'm still unsure which one of us susie was insulting.

I yam what I yam....Popeye

like Git a few days ago, that was the coffee being jettisoned from my nose after I read:

"Hutch, why do you have such a chip on your shoulder against me?

Don't cry denise.

I won't try and speak for Hutch, but I will anyway. Could it be that your arguments are idiotic? Or that you side with idiotic posters and then try to play innocent?

BTW - your posts seem unusually nasty this morning. Feeling a bit cranky and grumpy today?

Self-defense-a great conservative value!

You know it reminds me of the book of Esther (you'd like it as the heroine is a brave young lady)where innocent people (the Jews) were armed to defend themselves against the followers of Haman (not to be confused with Hamas). The Haman guys were the local terrorists of that time period.

This is the way to blog!

is packin' heat today.

I was thinking of printing up some of those yellow yield signs for my pregnant friends that read, 'Fetus On Board' so the girls could travel in the HOV lane to Atlanta.

I mean....y'all say the fetuses are babies so in actuality, there's two people in the car, right?

For a gracious rely on a topic that we all feel strongly about defending.
I’ll respond in the same spirit to your question.

Although there would be (after 18-21 days) two human hearts beating in the same car, (and two different sets of human DNA for that matter) I think it’s ok to have some administrative guidelines as we do in other areas. My kids didn’t pay adult fare in a restaurant until age 13 and I still (most of the time ) considered them as humans worthy of life.

We don’t count our young men and women as adults for voting or military service until 18. That’s an administrative convenience. So by the same logic, I thing we could require a child be 9 months + to qualify for the HOV lane.

Actually I have never said fetuses are babies and neither has Denise.

They are, however, by every standard of medical science human beings.

Is the fetus less developed than a teenager? Sure, but since when do we grant people the right to live based on how old or developed they are?

A four year old girl doesn’t have the fully developed reproductive system of a 14 year old girl, but we’d never say the 4 year old has less worth less just because she’s not as developed.

No fetus (based on current science) has self awareness, but neither does any 3 month newborn. We don’t ever (Peter Singer notwithstanding) question the newborn’s right to live so why should how fast and well we think determine whether society can authorize the ending of our life?

Like me, you probably know some Down’s syndrome kids. Neither you nor I would think of reducing their value because their mental development is less than ours.

In essence, any and every argument that is used to justify killing the unborn can be used to kill other groups of humans that are younger, or older, or in some way less developed than others.

If we had a sample of your DNA at conception plus one day, it would be the identical DNA you have today. Time and nutrition have helped you develop into the thinking person that you are now, but nothing genetically has been added to your physical humanity since conception.

But although science can prove that the fetus is fully human, it can’t determine our moral stance. Meta-physics and ethics do that. I can prove Canadians are human by using science, but I can’t empirically prove that you should respect them as equals.

My contention is that innocent human life should always be protected. Old or young, black or white, mentally advanced or not, every innocent life deserves a chance to live.

This is the way to blog!

In essence, any and every argument that is used to justify killing the unborn can be used to kill other groups of humans that are younger, or older, or in some way less developed than others.

I reread the above posts twice.

Finally- some calm reasoning and a civil tone!

You guys have logic that is convincing to me.

called them "children", haven't you? Referencing your below comment

"Actually I have never said fetuses are babies and neither has Denise."

Kevin "Hack" King

Actually, I frequently use the words child or baby when referring to a child during the earliest stages of development.

"You're having a fetus!" and "Come to the fetus shower" just do not have the same depth of feeling. I've never heard an expectant mother ask, "When is my embryo or fetus due?" Even "white coats" (those who aren't abortionists, that is) say "your baby."

Fetus is from the Latin, meaning offspring. A child is a son or a daughter (sex is determined at conception), the immediate progeny (offspring) of parents. The word is applied to the human race and chiefly to a person when young; but a person of any age, in respect to the parents, is a child.

Child is used when referring to an unborn infant, medically termed, a fetus, "the term used for the developing individual in the womb [with his/her own DNA present from conception, brain waves and heartbeat present at 4 weeks GA, blood type, fingerprints], by convention when it ceases to be called an embryo after about the first two months."

Embryo is from the Greek, meaning to be full to bursting, descriptive of the rapid cell division and growth that occurs. It is the medical term for "a developing human in his/her earliest stages of development in the womb," which occurs during the first seven or eight weeks after conception. "By the end of eight weeks, the embryo has grown to about 1 in. (2.5 cm) long and all subsequent change is limited primarily to growth and specialization of existing structures."

To be "with child" means to be pregnant, or "carrying developing offspring within the body." Pregnancy is "the period from conception to birth."

_______________________________

PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN

The “Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004” or “Laci and Conner's Law” was passed “to protect unborn [in utero] children [‘a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb’] from assault and murder.” Indefensibly, this law was passed with the logically inconsistent disclaimer that it could not be used to “permit the prosecution of any person for conduct relating to an abortion” or “of any woman with respect to her unborn child.” The mother or the abortionist can “assault and murder” the “unborn child” with impunity, but anyone else is subject to punishment.

The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act was passed to "prevent the killing of infants who are born alive accidentally or during an attempted abortion," although it is not strictly enforced. (There is no neonatologist or even a pediatrician available at an abortion clinic to assess the medical condition and prognosis of the newly born infant, nor are the personnel required to have neonatal resuscitation certification.)

While in the womb (“an encompassing, protective hollow space”), the child has no protection and is unable to protect him/herself. However, if he or she survives the abortionist’s attempt to kill him or her, then he or she is allowed to continue to live and is to receive medical care.

“[‘Pro-choice’ Rep. Jerrold] Nadler [D-NY] said unequivocally that, under long-established legal principles, ‘if an abortion is performed, or a natural birth occurred, at any age, even three months, and the product of that was living outside the mother, and somebody came and shot him, I don't think there's any doubt that person would be prosecuted for murder.’" (Sen. Obama opposed similar legislation as a state senator; Sen. Clinton voted against BAIPA.)

“The law, signed by President Bush nearly [six] years ago, conferred legal rights [personhood] on fetuses ‘at any stage of development.’ It specifies that a fetus that is breathing, has a beating heart, a pulsating umbilical cord or [voluntary] muscle movement should be considered alive and entitled to protection under federal emergency medical laws and child abuse statutes.”

The pre-born child has all of the same signs of life:

*A beating heart pumping blood and a pulsating umbilical cord during week 5 (week 3 post-conception)

*Extensive muscle movement (such as curving his or her fingers around an object placed in the palm and touching fingers, toes, ears, and nose) by week 9 (week 7 post-conception)

*Breathing (inhaling and exhaling small amounts of amniotic fluid, which helps the lungs to develop and grow) by week 16 (week 14 post-conception).

I wonder if Dr. Rossiter covers such ambivalence and schizophrenic, illogical thinking in his book The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.

_______________________________

8-week fetus ("young one") -- Only 30-32 more weeks to go!

“Women who are experiencing an unplanned pregnancy also deserve unplanned joy.” (Feminists for Life)

What on earth makes "definitions" facts?

Definitions were made up by fallible people, usually with an agenda.

I know some must have specific and refined rules in order to exist (the Germans are notorious for this) but it doesn't make it accurate.

To impose such restrictions on others when it is not necessary is worthless!

Mind your own business.

what's coming out of your nose and mouth?

I FEEEEEL your concern, but no need. I'm not crying, except for tears of sadness when I look at the face of Baby Rowan. Tell his mother how he deserved to die.

It's sad he wasn't like the BABY in your avatar, with the ability to protect himself from the abortionist.

Tell Gianna that she should have died. She has cerebral palsy as a result of being born alive after an abortion attempt.

“I Survived an Abortion Attempt”

"Idiotic"? I know it's not.

____________________

8-week fetus ("young one") -- Only 30-32 more weeks to go!

“Women who are experiencing an unplanned pregnancy also deserve unplanned joy.” (Feminists for Life)

Don't cry denise.

Main,Trust me Denise (proper noun see quote above) would never pull a Hillary trick like that.

This is the way to blog!

Who are you trying to convince not to have an abortion?

I would suggest that you not ever have one if it bothers you!

Otherwise none of your business, only the law's.

you, Sir Sage, appear to be nuts.

That's like saying if murder bothers you --don't murder anyone!

Murder is illegal!
You don't make the law!

historically slavery was legal at one time. But that doesn't make it right does it?

The Courts used the same arguements then (black people were not fully human beings) as they use now (the unborn are not fully human beings).

Google "Wilberforce" and you'll be encouraged on how much of a difference a person can make on things that are legally permitted but morally wrong.

Good Day!

This is the way to blog!

It seems the "US keeps torture tactics on the table" waters are becoming quite diluted, yes?

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King