magekillr

Torture advocates and evangelical Christians! Come one, come all, to be the first to torture Scott Roeder, a real domestic terrorist. He has committed a terrorist action of his own, and refuses to tell us where his friends are and what they're up to. Surely, in order to prevent ANOTHER attack, we need to water-board and indefinitely detain all pro-lifers to keep our country safe. We know an attack on our soil is imminent. He's promised this. He has committed an act already; he's not f*cking around. The only credible way to get information from him is to water board him; and then we need to round up all pro-lifers who protest abortion clinics, indefinitely detain them, and then we need to water board them for information. Why? Because they have sworn allegiance to the pro-life movement, which has a history of terrorism. Sure, not all of them committed terrorist acts, but they MIGHT commit them in the future. It's the only way to keep our country safe. That's the President's first duty, he said so himself. http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=22277

Most successful technique for getting information is water boarding: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 91,00.html Oh, I'm sorry. Did I say water boarding? I meant sugar-free cookies.

Source: http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/5/27/141229/276 Yep, exactly, Booman. Note: I oppose military intervention into Korea, but if they attack the South, we'll have no choice.

UK has nukes and we have no problem with that. But do YOU want countries like Iran and NK to have them? Personally I don't care if they do. And if I did, I would be equally concerned about USA having them What? The United States KNOWS not to use them, but NK and Iran have horrible leaders who want more power and might actually want to use them. You want them to have them? Then enjoy living in fear pretty soon! Remind me, what is the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons outside of testing? [/hide] The same nation that realized it could save lives in the long run; unfortunately, they killed more people then intended. Let's not have the whole 'was Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified' argument for the millionth time on tip.it - that wasn't my intention. My point is the the United States cannot lecture others on the issue of nuclear weapons while it is the only nation to have used them and still has a massive stockpile, it's hypocritical. Now don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of North Korea having nuclear weapons but the US isn't in a position to judge on this issue. But it's not just the US: it's Japan, it's China, it's Russia, it's the UN. I'm not worried about North Korea having the capacity of launching a nuclear war head. The worry comes down to them selling the information to other countries for money. There's evidence of this already happening in Syria. Syria supplies money to Hezbollah, and sorry, but I'd rather Hezbollah not have nuclear capability. Not to mention they could just go straight to the terrorist groups and ignore Syria altogether. I'm not really that worried about Iran having the capability because I don't think they're after bombs; it just doesn't make sense with the evidence at hand besides Israel's distrust. Nonetheless, every country needs to work to reduce their stock piles, and the US and Russia should be the first.

Not really that persuasive, especially when you're using one rhetorical device; horribly, might I add. Never mind that both logos and pathos both defeat your argument on more than one front that, "they're terrorists, and we should therefore torture them for fun...because they're terrorists." Just think of that for a second: "they're terrorists." They're not all terrorists, actually. In fact, many haven't been involved in any terrorist activities at all; a few were tortured and released, as I stated in my first post. And secondly, many held in detention are "thought" to be dangerous because of hearsay about their sworn allegiance to Bin Laden. This doesn't make them terrorists unless they've acted in a terrorist fashion.

Did you see my first post on this topic? Go read it again. Second, that's what people do when they write articles. They provide sources to back up their claims, and analyze the sources. I've already done the analyzing in the first post, and now I'm providing source after source to back it up. Here, I'll help you out. Here's a source that claims Jesus would have tortured: http://www.redstate.com/roetenks/2009/0 ... -response/

You're so full of it. It's like you have to build the biggest strawman to knock down in order to stay at all relevant. http://www.slate.com/id/2217583/ You're so irrelevant on every issue; evolution, the age of the Universe, your obsession with zygotes at conception, and now torture. It's amazing how any Christian person could support torture, but it seems they're the biggest advocates; especially if the people being tortured are Muslims. Go be waterboarded, Sly, and tell us it's not torture. Put your water where your mouth is.

Oh boy, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read, comparing Al-Qaeda to "the CIA". I'm sure the CIA would gladly rip off the head of a reporter, send kids out to die in mine fields and kill gays simply because they're gay. GREAT COMPARISON. Btw, huff post & a blog? :lol: The CIA does an estimated 100,000 extremely illegal things every year. They've tortured people in the past, and anyone who thinks this is the US's first taste of torture is naive. I wouldn't say it's far fetched at all. What makes her incompetent? Frankly, she's been doing a splendid job since there's a Dem in the White House; a big change since Bush left. Harry Reid is still a quivering old fool, afraid that the GOP might call him a terrorist sympathizer or something for housing them on our soil in our prisons. Second, if you don't want a blatant liar in the White House, why do you support any politicians? They're all liars; it's what politicians do, get used to it. There's not a soul on Capitol Hill that I trust besides Dennis Kucinich and Russ Feingold. For what? She didn't do anything wrong. As opposed to a "lesser hypocrite of them all?" I really don't see where these arbitrary labels are going, or what they're trying to prove. Wait wait wait, are you Newt Gingrich? That's who you sound like lol. Yep, because Jesse Ventura is such a far leftie. Because people who respect the law are far lefties, and they're all morons. Yep, sounds about right. I guess 2/3 of America who favor an investigation are all just raging far lefties: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Almost_40 ... _0212.html Read it carefully, and not just the first few paragraphs. Iunno, I've been wondering that, too. Change would be hanging these bastards out to dry in a court of law. Well, I know you must be upset that those torture photos weren't released like I was, but we must be patient for the court order to be followed through. The photos will be released in due time, don't worry. Lolwut? Depends what kind of change you're talking about. Engaging Iran? Change. Addressing climate change? Change. Getting a public option in health care reform? Change. Giving a speech in Cairo on June 4th addressing the Muslim world? Change. Not prosecuting these [bleep]ers for [cabbage]ting on the Constitution (although that's Eric Holder's job), and then trying to detain people indefinitely? Not change.

[hide=] Having morals would be a good start. Also using torture, from a purely tactical point of view, is counter-productive as it serves to recruit many more extremists who will attempt to attack and kill westerners. We can't be so easily bowed by the fear tactics of both extremists and politicians, that we go from 21st century democracies back towards the dark ages. And even beyond that, it endangers our men on the battlefield. Does anyone think anyone who wages war with America in the future will ever surrender now? Hell no, they'll go out blazing. They'd rather die a quick death than be tortured by a torture state; and that's how America will now be seen for the rest of time. That is of course unless we prosecute [bleep] Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the other [bleep] that created the program to show that America follows the rule of law like every other country who signs Geneva and International Treaties. They should but it'll never happen. America is to polarized for such a prosecution to be possible - the right would be up in arms and it would kill any politicians prospects of electability. Plus, even if it did happen the presidential pardon system (which should be reformed) would make it too easy for the next Republican president to pardon them. [/hide] If there's anything Obama is always concerned with, it's the long term and precedent. This is why I'm so surprised about his propositions for "indefinite detentions," but also why I'm willing to hear him out first. The beautiful thing about the right as of late is, they're obsessed with Pelosi about "what she knew." Frankly, who cares "what she knew when she knew it;" if she did something illegal, prosecute her as well. This sideshow is embarrassing, just like the prosecutions of Clinton were embarrassing. However, it keeps the idea of releasing more information and declassifying more stuff to give more evidence for abuse and to prosecute. Speaking of which, why has [bleep]ey been so excited and coming out as of late?: http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/22/ ... tion-fear/ I think there's some evidence that there will be a prosecution/trial somewhere, even if for show. While there's also evidence against it, like I said, Obama's focused on long term precedent. He doesn't want to be bogged down with all of this, and that's understandable, but the law and precedent is more important than any reform. As a law professor, he understands this. I hope he allows Holder to follow through with whatever is needed to be done, or we are, indeed, a nation of cowards.

Having morals would be a good start. Also using torture, from a purely tactical point of view, is counter-productive as it serves to recruit many more extremists who will attempt to attack and kill westerners. We can't be so easily bowed by the fear tactics of both extremists and politicians, that we go from 21st century democracies back towards the dark ages. And even beyond that, it endangers our men on the battlefield. Does anyone think anyone who wages war with America in the future will ever surrender now? Hell no, they'll go out blazing. They'd rather die a quick death than be tortured by a torture state; and that's how America will now be seen for the rest of time. That is of course unless we prosecute [bleep] Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the other [bleep]s that created the program to show that America follows the rule of law like every other country who signs Geneva and International Treaties.

Erm, it's not torture. It produces the feeling of torture, which sucks for the person being tortured,but really if the government is doing it it's for a damn good reason, and besides, there's no risk. Still, good to see this guy actually went and did it instead of just being an armchair politician. False claims: 1.) If the government is doing it for a good reason 2.) No risk 3.) Only terrorists are tortured (this came in a later statement) 4.) It's not torture because there's no "harm." 1.) The government never has a good reason to torture anyone. It produces bad information, and if the person is guilty of terrorism and we need to try them in a court, any information gained through torture is tainted. It's kind of how if you bust someone for drugs but you went in without a warrant, all of your evidence goes out the window. If the court says to let them off, sorry, but they should be let off. Obama is being boxed in politically, but I don't care, and I will criticize him until he gets "indefinite detention" off of the table and tries every single one of them in a federal court. 2.) There is a risk: you create more terrorists, and the information you "gain" is tainted. We have 240 or so terrorists detained; Guantanamo created at minimum three times that many. A lot of terrorists say they joined the fight because of it, and Abu Ghraib. It's like the bat signal for terrorism. Lastly, I want to quote you something from page 427 of General Heinz Guderian's Panzer Leader Get that? Hitler knew that Geneva was hurting him, and hurting him badly. Our ability to treat our prisoners with respect and human dignity over the Russians made the Germans much more willing to surrender rather than "tough it out" and "fight to the death." Sounds kinda crazy that a guy who ran death camps saw how "damaging" Geneva was to his army. Even Hitler didn't revoke the Geneva Conventions, but Cheney and Bush did. And they're proud of it. And they stupidly think it made us safer; just like you, I assume. 3.) Only terrorists are tortured. I love this argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_Mustafa_Osama_Nasr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benyam_Mohammed What about them? 4.) Well considering everyone else told you that there WAS harm beyond physical, we tortured beyond water boarding, and over 100 suspects have died in our custody. I wonder how they died...perhaps they were tortured to death?

Oh hi. False. Anyone that disagrees with the legality for gay marriage is a bigot. Stark difference to, "if you disagree with me, you're a bigot." It's the great seal of the United States, it really has nothing to do with religion. There's no endorsed religion here, so the separation still stands. Second, "In god we trust" was added onto money many years later in the 1860's, and it was added in the pledge because we were "fighting da commies" and had to promote American nationalism; you know, God must favor us because everything that we do is correct. I don't see how anything you said interferes with separation of church and state.

Yes it does, just in the same way that genocide denial of historically accepted genocides almost undoubtedly means that you're a racist. You have no reason to deny a certain genocide when the facts are plainly obvious...except that you have an underlying dislike for the race that was victimized. See: David Irving. No, marriage ceremonies are "done" in a church in front of a priest, if the couple so chooses. The actual marriage happens in a courthouse, like when my friend Hali was married. There was no ceremony, they were married by a judge. Not legally. The church doesn't have to accept their marriage, the state does. Is religious doctrine law? And? No it's not. The churches aren't forced to perform marriage ceremonies. Separate but equal has already been thrown down, champ. So you just don't like gay people because....? At least the religious folk have a ridiculous dogma to try and justify their bigotry. What? Uh...you clearly don't have any understanding of the issue at hand. Separate but equal. Do you have an issue with black people having the same water fountains, but lawfully they can't be used by white people? No, they're civil rights advocates, arguing against injustices about bigots like yourself. [/hide] Because the best way to get progress is to accuse everyone of homophobia and bigotry we have magekillr Nope, the best way to progress is to allow free speech to reign free, while idiots like Michael Savage, Bufoman, and ragmar make themselves look like fools.

Yes it does, just in the same way that genocide denial of historically accepted genocides almost undoubtedly means that you're a racist. You have no reason to deny a certain genocide when the facts are plainly obvious...except that you have an underlying dislike for the race that was victimized. See: David Irving. No, marriage ceremonies are "done" in a church in front of a priest, if the couple so chooses. The actual marriage happens in a courthouse, like when my friend Hali was married. There was no ceremony, they were married by a judge. Not legally. The church doesn't have to accept their marriage, the state does. Is religious doctrine law? And? No it's not. The churches aren't forced to perform marriage ceremonies. Separate but equal has already been thrown down, champ. So you just don't like gay people because....? At least the religious folk have a ridiculous dogma to try and justify their bigotry. What? Uh...you clearly don't have any understanding of the issue at hand. Separate but equal. Do you have an issue with black people having the same water fountains, but lawfully they can't be used by white people? No, they're civil rights advocates, arguing against injustices about bigots like yourself.

Sorry? When I see someone making unapologetic homophobic statements, I'm going to call you out on it. It's not a character attack, it's calling a spade a spade. You are a bigot, there's no mincing words here. Lol, harassing you? Yeah, I guess that's the common bigoted defense these days: those evil liberals are intolerant of my bigoted views! Yep. Just as Jim Crow was a racist for his separate but equal laws. False. I presented why you're idea is tripe, and why your ideas make you a bigot. My premises + conclusion: 1.) Separate but equal proponents are bigots. 2.) If marriage was not recognized by the state and we only recognized civil unions, then it would not be separate but equal because heterosexual "joinings" would be recognized the same as homosexual: as civil unions. 3.) Civil unions are separate but equal because marriage is recognized by the state. 4.) Civil unions are not even equal because they're not awarded the same rights as marriages, nor are they recognized in states where civil unions aren't recognized like Virginia, Texas, or Ohio. 5.) Therefore, because civil unions are proven to be separate but equal, because proponents of separate but equal are bigots, and because Bufoman is arguing in favor of civil unions + marriages as state-recognized, Bufoman is a bigot. Typical bigoted spin. I'm intolerant of intolerance, but I still let you speak your mind, just as I said earlier in this thread. They want to be given equal rights for the equal amount of taxes that they pay. Lol. You are segregating them. How can you say it's not segregation? You're talking about separate but equal, the definition of segregation. That would make you an idiot, too, because marriages are not issued out by religious institutions, but by the state. Maybe you'd be correct if marriages weren't licensed by the state, but they are. Second, many churches in the Christian faith recognize homosexual marriage, what about their religious freedom? You're not just discriminating against homosexuals, you're discriminating against other religions and churches. You listen to Michael Savage. I know Rush Limbaugh listeners that think Michael Savage is a lunatic. There's no maybes about it. That's fair, then stop proposing civil unions for just homosexuals. People like you say that, but you don't mean it. You'd cry bloody murder if the government refused to recognize your marriage. I can see it now: "The government is after us good-hearted Christian folk by no longer recognizing marriage!" You hide your bigotry in your religion. It's sad. No, they're not. What basis are you saying that they're unconstitutional? Marriage is nothing more than a legal document.

I can quote the Bible about many things to justify many other things. Who cares what the Bible says? We're not a theocracy, our law is not based around the Bible. And my religion of worship of the magical space duck says that forum users named Bufoman should be tortured for having bigoted views, but does that justify it? No. I heard that term a long time ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws Separate but equal isn't equal, bigot. And second, civil unions aren't equal because they're not recognized in every state, and they don't have the same rights.

It hasn't lost its meaning, its meaning has been twisted by sexists like Rush Limbaugh. And I would. There's no reason to oppose gay marriage other than bigotry.

Lol, Chained, I appreciate the fact that you gave a thoughtful post...but to call FOX News as "biased" as CNN is only correct in that CNN is a right-wing news channel. Fox isn't news, they're a circus. Shep Smith goes on shows like "Freedom Watch;" he is not a liberal. News flash, you are a sexist if you oppose feminism because feminism means equality for women. You are a homophobe if you don't want to give homosexuals equal rights. That's why I love free speech: when you say your disgusting racist, sexist and homophobic things out in public, the public will know that you're a racist, sexist homophobe. If we ban it with "hate-speech laws," you will say these things in private, making it harder to track bigoted people like yourself. As Oliver Willis noted, "If you ban certain types of speech, as the UK, Canada, and Germany do in one form or another, all it does is lend strength to the hatemongers. It tells them and their supporters that their speech is so powerful the government has to specifically restrict it."

If only life was an episode of 24, then torture might actually be justified... :lol: Justifiable*. I don't care if it worked (it clearly doesn't), it's wrong. It's never justified, but they would have a "justifiable" argument for it. I think most Americans really think 24 is how the real world operates lol.

Breaking news: Criminals don't think they'll get caught when they commit a crime! Surprise Surprise! Smoking kills, more at 11! This is why the death penalty is not an effective deterrent. And jails should be about rehabilitation, not warehousing individuals. Getting off topic now. Death penalty isn't as effective because it isn't as bad as torture. If I was going to go on a massacre, and knew that I will get the death penalty, then I will be pretty happy; a not too painless death. On the other hand torture is very painful, and is worse then death in my opinion. I would rather be killed then get tortured. Rehabilitation is a waste of money, if the prisoner has done a more severe crime then they should just be thrown in a ditch with little food.... I'm serious. You don't even know what you're saying. How old are you?

Torture is a net negative. People already explained many of the other points, but one they've clearly forgotten is what it does to your nation's image. Torture serves as a recruitment tool for extremists, only causing more harm overall. Also, I don't know why people debate this crap: torture is illegal by international law.

Michael Savage is a sick and twisted human being, promoting hatred and xenophobia day in and day out on his radio show. He views anyone that's not white and male as sub-human, and that they should treat their white male corporate masters with the utmost admiration and respect. However, free speech is something that I will always defend, and this is a horrible move by England.

"Pay attention in class." What? You act like classes teach about the Chinese/Indian/Mid-East contributions...and besides, Einstein can be considered the father of physics depending on how relative you're speaking. He could be considered the father of "modern" physics.

Right, but it continued to be appealed. As I said, what drove me nuts was Scalia's reasoning...I mean, I don't know how much more twisted an answer anyone could give :? I'm not sure what you meant by youthful idealism, but this shouldn't have happened. It's almost as bad as that women who was forcibly stripped searched by those male police officers not long ago. What should have happened six years ago after this happened is what would have happened in any other normal industrialized nation: fire the officials involved, and force them to apologize (although I don't think something quite this ridiculous and appalling would have happened in those countries in the first place). I don't think any law suit is in order, at least one about money; America is far too sue-happy as it is. I didn't really post this for shock purposes...I posted it mainly because it finally has reached the Supreme Court, and I'd like for them to rule in favor of the ACLU/the girl. This is an important court case and an important precedent that will be set.

I added the links to title post, if its ok with you... Fine with me, but you need to edit the post because there's ". . ." instead of actual hyperlink.