Politics & Propaganda

Fri Jul 30 2010 18:26:50 EDT from Rob Miller @ Uncensored Subject: Re:

 

Tue Jul 27 2010 08:01:44 PM EDT from Ragnar Danneskjold @ Uncensored Subject: Re:

Torture is illegal.  Torture is *not* an American Family Value.  If
you have been a soldier then you'd realize that torturing the enemy
gives them the excuse to torture our captives.  Torture violates the
Geneva Conventions.  And most imortantly Torture does not work.

Believe me, if torture didn't work, people wouldn't bother.

And again, what we do walks a VERY fine line, but we don't burn people with cigarettes, we don't put bamboo shoots under fingers, or pull fingernails out completely.

Right now, we are mostly fighting a non-uniformed enemy that hides behind women and children. Not signatories to the Geneva Convention.

You've ignored the cites.  If you make it a binary choice then I have no option but not to believe you.

Torture is for sadists.

I don't think I've ever agreed with Ragnar's position on torture.

The US deemed waterboarding as a form of torture long ago (during WW2, if I recall), yet we engaged in it ourselves a few years ago.  That's... well, that's fucked up.

Torture is unreliable (the victim will say anything, true or false, to avoid it), and exposes our soldiers to other dangers that could be avoided if we did not engage in torture (or, at the very least, if we didn't officially embrace it).  It has questionable merit, and serious moral consequences.

Fri Jul 30 2010 18:40:57 EDT from Rob Miller @ Uncensored Subject: Re:

 

Wed Jul 28 2010 10:50:34 AM EDT from athos-mn @ Uncensored

Ig, it's really hard to take your agruments seriously when you play childish games with Obama's name and invoke Birther arguments.

Icaught the "Osama" misrepresentation but oh, my, I thought I was communicating with rational people.  Birthers too?

IG loves to occasionally bait people.  I can't always tell when he really means what he writes, or is just stirring the pot to get things flowing.

That said, while I don't think I agree with the position that Obama should be disqualified for the presidency based on questions of his birth record, it annoys me to see someone ascribe a name to people who take an opposing position in this way.  It's an intellectually lazy tool for gathering up a bunch of people who you do not agree with and assigning a label to them so you can dismiss them as crazy.  Let their arguments show them as nuts, not a label.

Fri Jul 30 2010 18:58:46 EDT from Rob Miller @ Uncensored Subject: Re:

 

Tue Jul 27 2010 08:05:23 PM EDT from Ragnar Danneskjold @ Uncensored Subject: Re:

You seem to be under a misunderstanding, that I am a Democrat and
Obama supporter.  I am neither, I am for truth, justice and the
American Way.  Both gangs have nibbled at the Constitution but only
the Republicans have wiped their collective asses with it.

Sorry - the Patriot Act isn't to blame on Republicans for the Patriot Act....

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml

Written by the Republicans _prior_ to 9/11.  PNAC had both the war and Patriot Act planned in advance of even Bush's term.

Yeah, traitorous Democrats signed off.  They submitted to threats and pressure from the White House and Republicans, do you not remember the context of only 6 years ago?  Hold-outs were lambasted as "unpatriotic" and not given time to read the thousand-plus pages being told that we are at war, hurry up so we can win!

What did we win?  A devestated economy, loss of Constitutional rights and assumption of guilt.

And yet, the Democrats continued to sign off on it when it came up for renewal... even when they had a majority in Congress, and even after literally years of time to give the thing a closer look.

No, the damned Democrats are as guilty as the Republicans, in my eyes, for this horrible piece of legislation.  Oh, how I wish we could remove every damned politician that has been active for the past 10-20 years and replace them with people who actually seem to care about this country instead of their party.

Sat Jul 31 2010 14:06:38 EDT from Ragnar Danneskjold @ Uncensored Subject: Re:

Torture is unreliable (the victim will say anything, true or false,
to avoid it), and exposes our soldiers to other dangers that could be
avoided if we did not engage in torture (or, at the very least, if we
didn't officially embrace it).  It has questionable merit, and
serious moral consequences.

1) There isn't much statistical proof either way from what I can see. Each side has arguments to support them, but little scientific evidence.

Yeah, it might be tricky getting scientific evidence on this topic.

But it's still morally repugnant.

2) Muslims BEHEAD unbelievers. They cut hands off of thiefs, and tongues out of liars. You think that us applying a bit of torture makes a difference to them? Maybe to civilized people, not fanatics.

Americans apply their own standards to their own behavior. Why would we start to apply their standards to our behavior? That doesn't really make sense, any more than that they would apply our standards to their behavior.

Furthermore, I seem to recall the DoD had concerns about torture as it applies to our troops. It just isn't an American value.  It's not defensible.  Unless, of course, the general public hasn't a problem with it... but I'm not sure that's true.

3) I'd like for someone to HONESTLY answer my hypotheical question.

Well, that's why I haven't answered it. I'm am not, nor do I anticipate ever being in a position where I could answer that question without spouting complete bullshit. I'm just not the sort of person who has children in his life.  I'm not likely to ever be a father.

I know that in emergency situations, I do not necessarily react as most people might expect.  I tend to become more calm, more focused... I go into problem-solving mode, and think about the emergency logically.  I don't react with rage or other emotions.  So I suspect I wouldn't torture under any circumstance, preferring instead to use psychological tricks to get at the truth.  I wouldn't get angry enough to scare the person, and I know that.

But, again, I can't honestly say.  I can only guess.

4) As brain scans and lie detectors get better - torture may actually become MORE effective.... Especially on people who aren't trained to handle it.

Still doesn't really address the moral issue, and the concern about how it could impact soldiers in a POW situation.

In a nutshell, I just don't think it's American to torture people.  It has never been espoused to me as an American value in any way, shape, or form.  In fact, Americans seemed to pride themselves during the world wars for their restraint, and downright congenial treatment of prisoners of war.

Sat Jul 31 2010 08:43:33 AM EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored Subject: Re:

 

Fri Jul 30 2010 18:58:46 EDT from Rob Miller @ Uncensored Subject: Re:

 

Tue Jul 27 2010 08:05:23 PM EDT from Ragnar Danneskjold @ Uncensored Subject: Re:

You seem to be under a misunderstanding, that I am a Democrat and
Obama supporter.  I am neither, I am for truth, justice and the
American Way.  Both gangs have nibbled at the Constitution but only
the Republicans have wiped their collective asses with it.

Sorry - the Patriot Act isn't to blame on Republicans for the Patriot Act....

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml

Written by the Republicans _prior_ to 9/11.  PNAC had both the war and Patriot Act planned in advance of even Bush's term.

Yeah, traitorous Democrats signed off.  They submitted to threats and pressure from the White House and Republicans, do you not remember the context of only 6 years ago?  Hold-outs were lambasted as "unpatriotic" and not given time to read the thousand-plus pages being told that we are at war, hurry up so we can win!

What did we win?  A devestated economy, loss of Constitutional rights and assumption of guilt.

And yet, the Democrats continued to sign off on it when it came up for renewal... even when they had a majority in Congress, and even after literally years of time to give the thing a closer look.

No, the damned Democrats are as guilty as the Republicans, in my eyes, for this horrible piece of legislation.  Oh, how I wish we could remove every damned politician that has been active for the past 10-20 years and replace them with people who actually seem to care about this country instead of their party.

Yes, Democrats are guilty too however it was Republicans who designed the invasion of Iraq, the malfeasance of Afghanistan (now *that* is Obama's at this point), the "Patriot Act" and torture.  Yes, they're both corrupt but this, neither, is a binary choice of "guilty" or "innocent".  There are degrees of guilt and on a scale the Republicans are head and shoulders above the Democrats.

Republicans are evil, Democrats are spineless, inept but well meaning.  Look at the unemployment benefit extention debate now going on.  Republicans have no difficulty letting families suffering from the depression lose their homes and go hungry but fight tooth and nail for tax cuts for the rich.

Sat Jul 31 2010 02:06:38 PM EDT from Ragnar Danneskjold @ Uncensored Subject: Re:

1) There isn't much statistical proof either way from what I can see. Each side has arguments to support them, but little scientific evidence.

Perhaps you should research the subject more before offering an uneducated opinion.  As before you speak in absolutes, "proof".  One must look at the evidence and studies by experts as to validity of torture-derived testimony.

Then there is the moral issue.  Cannibals still exist  in some parts of the world, should we adopt their ethos, or lack thereof, too?

Fri Jul 30 2010 09:01:41 PM EDT from Ragnar Danneskjold @ Uncensored

On the question of torture....

Are you a parent?

If so, let's imagine that your child has been taken by some pervert and an equally perverted accomplice.

The police catch the accomplice on a traffic violation, and discover your childs sweatshirt in the backseat of his car.

He refuses to answer as to the wearabouts of your child.

A kind and sympathetic policeman leaves you alone with one of the men who it looks like abducted your child.

Tell me, what do you do?

What I do personally is not in the name of our nation.  That extrapolation doesn't hold water.

Tue Jul 27 2010 11:20:25 PM EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored Subject: Re:

2- The national debt has not "quadrupled".  It went up from, I
believe $1.1^12 to $1.3^12 from Bush's last budget to Obama's first.

That's what's on the books at this very moment. How, though, is Mr. Osama going to pay for the $4.3 TRILLION in unfunded mandates that he and his socialist buddies have enacted? [source: http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB122480790550265061.html]

We are experiencing the largest and scariest expansion of government in American history. You can't just blame it on the last guy.

Obama's fiscal policy is an unmitigated failure. All you have to do is compare him to the last guy who "inherited" a shitty economy: our old friend Ronald Reagan. It took 17 months for Reaganomics to turn the economy around (8/1981 to 1/1983). Guess where we are this very month? It is now 17 months since Obama's plan was enacted. Where are we now?
The economy is worse than it was before, unemployment is worse, and all he can think to do is continue to blame the last guy [source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40242.html]

It is downright scary to think about how much more damage these criminals will do in their remainng time in office.

You are moving the goalpost.

If you want me to take you seriously then don't exaggerate.

Fri Jul 30 2010 08:52:20 PM EDT from Ragnar Danneskjold @ Uncensored Subject: Re:

Written by the Republicans _prior_ to 9/11.  PNAC had both the war
and Patriot Act planned in advance of even Bush's term.



Yeah, traitorous Democrats signed off.  They submitted to threats
and pressure from the White House and Republicans, do you not
remember the context of only 6 years ago?  Hold-outs were lambasted
as "unpatriotic" and not given time to read the thousand-plus pages
being told that we are at war, hurry up so we can win!

What did we win?  A devestated economy, loss of Constitutional
rights and assumption of guilt.

PNAC. What a joke. A one line mention of another Hiroshima type event, and that's all you have to go on.

Funny how you're quick to blame Bush for a devestated economy, yet you don't blame the Democrats for the last 4 years of their control of Congress, nor the unimaginable damage they've done since Obama took office.

You talk about ram rodding through 1000+ page legislation with the Patriot Act, yet, you make no mention of the wholesale takeover of 1/6th of the economy with the health care bill. A bill that Pelosi told us they had to pass "so we could find out what was in it."

Please.....

1- You cannot wave your paw and dismiss the genesis of events, players or special interests who precipitated today's catastrophes.

2- I do not consider the devestated economy funny in the slightest.

3-  "Quick" took years, I voted for Bush (I'm ashamed to say) in 2000.  Blame is placed on the deserved.

4- Democrats has a slim majority in 2007/8, insufficient to override the multiple faux-filibusters of Republicans.  Programs set in motion when Bush had Republican control could not be halted.  Even now Democrats are stymied by faux-filibusters.

5- The thread has been the assertion that this economy is "Osama's" fault, there was no need to speak about the health care bill.

Returning to that thread, we are now seeing the result of Republicans cutting taxes for the rich, conducting two constitutionally illegal wars simultaneously, without budgeting costs and off-shoring of jobs.  Are those the programs you and the other guy want to return to?

Sun Aug 01 2010 05:36:01 EDT from Rob Miller @ Uncensored Subject: Re:

Fri Jul 30 2010 08:52:20 PM EDT from Ragnar Danneskjold @ Uncensored Subject: Re:

Funny how you're quick to blame Bush for a devestated economy, yet you don't blame the Democrats for the last 4 years of their control of Congress, nor the unimaginable damage they've done since Obama took office.

2- I do not consider the devestated economy funny in the slightest.

Okay, if I felt like continuing this game, I would say, "Since you don't see anything at all peculiar about the economy, you have no problem with it.  So why are you going on about it?"

Or, I might react with something like, "Funny how you can't discern when someone means funny-peculiar vs. funny-amusing.  Which do I mean right now?"

But, instead, I'll just suggest that your acidic attempt at word play curried no favor with me, and makes me less-inclined to take you seriously.  But, I'm still holding out hope.  It's at least an interesting conversation, so far.  But if you're truly interested in debate and not just trashing people with a different point of view, you might avoid doing stuff like that.

As for the topic itself, the economy is not 'devastated'.  It's suffering, badly, but it isn't destroyed by a long shot.  If it were truly destroyed, I think you'd see some really radical changes going on in this country, along the lines of what happened to the Roman Empire after Constantine separated the rich half from the poor half (and took the rich half).  That's about the time Europe devolved into a feudal society, with lords and vassals.

I would argue that the economy is correcting itself from previous abuses, and will be stable in a few more years, regardless of who is at the helm of the country.  Unless, of course, some new form of abuse fucks it up.

Which kind of makes me worry about the Democrats.  This foray into social medicine (if by another name) is disturbing, and doesn't look to me as if it actually solves the underlying problem of skyrocketing medical costs.  It seems more like it's making the ridiculous costs of medicine somewhat more affordable to certain people without actually doing anything to prevent them from getting further out of control.  It's... well... stupid.  Right at a time when we need smart.  We've already had about eight years of stupid... it sucks that we're enduring four more.

Much as I love bashing the Democrats ballooning of expenses, I don't view the Republicans as having helped in the matter.  They have been following the lessons of Reagan for too many years, in spending more than the country takes in through taxes (kind of like a reverse Robin Hood... they want to rob from the poor, and give to the rich).  They've taken our military and expanded it beyond reason.  It's sick, really.

And both of those parties don't even blink about saying some of the most fucked up things I've ever heard in my life, as it relates to public policy.  I never thought Americans would become so ... I dunno ... stupid?  That both sides of the political fence can say and do whatever the fuck they feel like, it seems, and get away with it.  Like they're some kind of damned lord or something.  I would not be at all surprised if Congress eventually enacted legislation saying that some people are more equal than others (a la Animal Farm).

Yeah, what the Democrats don't seem to realize is that the Tea Party folks are composed of both sides of that political divide.  People who were formerly Republicans and formerly Democrats are kind of jumping on that bandwagon.

Problem is, of course, that the media makes them look silly.  The media chooses some of the worst representations of the movement and puts the camera on them, while ignoring the ones that make sense.

But then, I think the media is kind of culpable here.

Although, honestly, I still hold out hope for the Libertarian party.  They've made more sense than the other two, and have been at it longer than the Tea Party.  While, sure, there are some nutbars in the Libertarian party, it doesn't seem any less silly than the Democrats or the Republicans.