Republicans propose retroactive bill that allows for CIA use of torture

[quote name='Metal Boss']I suggest putting him on ignore, he's vying for attention and has nothing substantial to say.[/quote]

Sorry to disappoint you metal, but myke has something called intellectual honesty. Unlike you, he allows alternate views to be shared without running away screaming at the first sight of disagreement.

I may disagree with his views, but at least he can stand up to alternate opinions without calling someone a "freeper" and putting them on ignore.

IOW, putting someone on ignore because you cannot deal with their opposing views = pussy.




hope that clears things up a little.
 
[quote name='dopa345']You introduced the constitutional issue so I was just giving my opinion. As far as I can tell, you are willing to extend constitutional rights to terrorists and I'm not. And again you're twisting the scope of the point. Nobody "likes" torture. I think most rational people can agree that torture is distasteful but if you are asking if I want to live in the country that has the stones to do what is needed to protect its citizens including torture as needed in selected cases? Absolutely. Would I condone torture as a routine interrogation method? Absolutely not.[/quote]

Well, maybe not full constitutional rights, but many the core beliefs behind them, such as defined by international law (many of which contain the same protections). Innocent until proven guilty, fair trial cruel and inhuman punishment, etc. I don't think it's a question of who has bigger balls, I think that's rhetoric. Enacting or extending our definitions of torture by means of state policy opens up the door to torture being a routine interrogation method.

But I dunno, say the guy who has the information you want is an American citizen, do you torture him? On something as basic as this i find it hard to justify seeing it abominable to torture a guy from Illinois but perfectly fine to torture a guy from Istanbul. We're supposed to believe that all men are created equal, does that not mean all men are afforded some basic rights?

It's obviously a metaphor to illustrate a point. And you're right, society had agreed on basic rules of conduct. But I don't see the terrorists following through with that. Forgive yet another metaphor but how can you expect someone to play the game fairly if the other side is cheating and not only that, you know they are cheating?

That's what separates us from them. That is what we're supposedly fighting against. Does not lowering ourselves to their level make our job harder? Maybe, but being the good guy often is harder, that's our burden to bear. To tear down one's societal beliefs in an effort to fight an enemy that is bent on tearing down our societal beliefs seems ass backwards.

The terrorists, as evidenced by 9/11, are very well in our midst. We're not a war with another nation, we're at war with fanatics that transcend nationality and borders. However, at least you are conceding that there are certain circumstances in which you would consider torture as an acceptable option (though you would wait until things got REALLY bad then think about it). That's a start.

I will concede that if we were in a situation similar to Israels and the rest of North America converted to Islam with the exception of say, New Jersey, and we were engaged in open warfare across the continent, ok, maybe then we'd have to rethink our policy on many things.

(edit - I wanted to add that while I understand Israel's belief that their rather extreme situation justifies a rather extreme response, i don't necessarily agree or condone it.)

So now are you conceding then if there was definitely proof that torture was an effective means for obtaining information then you would consider it? More progress.

I don't concede that at all. In the admittedly limited research I've done on the topic, I can't seem to find a single investigation or study that says that torture is a reliable interrogation technique, I see a lot of opinion to the contrary, but no evidence.

There is no full-proof way to extract information. But torture has a chance to work, how can you not take advantage of it when the stakes are so high?

If I took a guys 12 year old daughter and made him watch as I raped and tortured her, he might give up some information, how can we not take advantage of that when the stakes are so high?

Where do you draw the line? At what point have we gone to far? We've had this debate before as a culture, and we've come to the conclusion that torture isn't reasonable.

If we torture, what's to stop Iran from torture, or North Korea, or China, or any number of countries we may someday find ourselves in a conflict with? Dick (Nick?) Greggory asked this of the President yesterday and never got a real answer out of him: Say a US spy is captured in Iran or North Korea and they are tortured, tried, convicted and sentenced to death on classified evidence he wasn't allowed access to, we'd be ok with that?

So is that a yes? No? I'm still not sure what your answer would be. I'm just asking what you would do if it were your call. A simple "yes" or "no" would suffice. Just in case I didn't make myself clear since I don't like waffling on issues, put me down for a "yes".

Then, no.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights were not meant to be a monolithic, unevolving docutment. The founding fathers had the foresight to understand that they could not envision every single circumstance and allowed a means to change it as society changed. Otherwise we would still be considering non-whites as only 3/5 of a person and women wouldn't be able to vote. It was obviously meant to be a dynamic document to adjust to the times.

Then go for a constitutional amendment to redefine the 8th Amendment. Good luck with that.

What scares me is the 'retroactive' part of the administrations bill. They've already done this, now they want to cover their asses before the elections because they know they're fvcked if the opposition gets investigative powers, or worse, when the 11 guys being transferred from the CIA secret prisons to Gitmo get a hold of a lawyer.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Um, I'm no lawyer but weren't ex post facto laws (which this is) deemed unconstitutional?[/QUOTE]

I think that's more in terms of not allowing punishment for something that was done at a time when the act wasn't considered a crime.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Um, I'm no lawyer but weren't ex post facto laws (which this is) deemed unconstitutional?[/QUOTE]

Better question: if the parties in question don't fall under the purview of the Constitution, does it matter?
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Better question: if the parties in question don't fall under the purview of the Constitution, does it matter?[/QUOTE]


There are people/institutions in this country that dont fall under the Constitution? You arent talking about W are you?
 
[quote name='Msut77']There are people in this country that dont fall under the Constitution?[/QUOTE]

Absolutely. Prisoners, for one, aren't entitled to at least parts of it. Non-US terrorists shouldn't be entitled to any of it.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Absolutely. Prisoners, for one, aren't entitled to at least parts of it. Non-US terrorists shouldn't be entitled to any of it.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, but prisoners are treated the way they are under the Constitution's guidance, not outside of it. Read:

[quote name='U.S. Constitution']Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[/quote]

Just for good measure, here is another one quite applicable to this topic:

[quote name='U.S. Constitution']Amendment VIII - Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.[/quote]
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Sorry, but prisoners are treated the way they are under the Constitution's guidance, not outside of it. Read:



Just for good measure, here is another one quite applicable to this topic:[/QUOTE]

Correct me if I'm wrong but even if we are going by the assumption that the Constitution extends protection to terrorists (which I vehemently disagree) the Fifth Amendment specifically says that it does not apply in cases involving times of war and public danger.

I quote:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger. "

Not only that, the Constitution recognizes that in specific times of public danger, habeas corpus does not apply.

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

The reiterate an earlier point, we don't (nor is it expected) to give due process to prisoners of war in legitimate conflicts so why a terrorist should somehow qualify, doesn't make sense to me at all.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Sorry, but prisoners are treated the way they are under the Constitution's guidance, not outside of it.
[/QUOTE]

Actually, that was an error on my part. I meant felons.
 
[quote name='Veritas1204']Sorry to disappoint you metal, but myke has something called intellectual honesty. Unlike you, he allows alternate views to be shared without running away screaming at the first sight of disagreement.

I may disagree with his views, but at least he can stand up to alternate opinions without calling someone a "freeper" and putting them on ignore.

IOW, putting someone on ignore because you cannot deal with their opposing views = pussy.




hope that clears things up a little.[/quote]


"So using that reasoning, none of your posts should be taken seriously. You are posting (similar to an editorial, just not published in a magazine), and you have shown clear allegiances to the left wing agenda. Therefore according to your reasoning, all your posts are nonsense."


This finger jab is what I was referring to, my comment wasn't even directed towards you... There is a line between trolling and debating, albeit a thin one for imbeciles of your calibur.
 
[quote name='Veritas1204']Sorry to disappoint you metal, but myke has something called intellectual honesty. Unlike you, he allows alternate views to be shared without running away screaming at the first sight of disagreement.

I may disagree with his views, but at least he can stand up to alternate opinions without calling someone a "freeper" and putting them on ignore.

IOW, putting someone on ignore because you cannot deal with their opposing views = pussy.




hope that clears things up a little.[/quote]



"So using that reasoning, none of your posts should be taken seriously. You are posting (similar to an editorial, just not published in a magazine), and you have shown clear allegiances to the left wing agenda. Therefore according to your reasoning, all your posts are nonsense."


This finger jab is what I was referring to, my comment wasn't even directed towards you... There is a line between trolling and debating, albeit a thin one for imbeciles of your caliber.
 
[quote name='Cheese']Well, maybe not full constitutional rights, but many the core beliefs behind them, such as defined by international law (many of which contain the same protections). Innocent until proven guilty, fair trial cruel and inhuman punishment, etc. I don't think it's a question of who has bigger balls, I think that's rhetoric. Enacting or extending our definitions of torture by means of state policy opens up the door to torture being a routine interrogation method. [/quote]

The "slippery slope" argument is a fallacious one. You can't refute a point by saying something will inevitably happen without objective evidence. Other I could just counter by saying that by ruling out torture, we will encourage even more attacks since there will be a perception that there is relatively little to fear by being captured by Americans (which while I actually believe to be true, it is not an effective argument for this debate).

But I dunno, say the guy who has the information you want is an American citizen, do you torture him? On something as basic as this i find it hard to justify seeing it abominable to torture a guy from Illinois but perfectly fine to torture a guy from Istanbul. We're supposed to believe that all men are created equal, does that not mean all men are afforded some basic rights?

If he is an American citizen, he is entitled to the full protection of the Bill of Rights in that case and in my mind would not be subjected to torture. However, that guy from Istanbul, if he is affiliated with a terrorist organization and had time sensitive information that could save American lives, then yes I would condone torture if it came to that to get that information.

Everyone is entitled to basic rights but if you violate the law, they you forfeit those rights. We deprive liberty to criminals because they commit a crime. A terrorist, to put it mildly, has commited a crime and thus they forfeit those rights.

That's what separates us from them. That is what we're supposedly fighting against. Does not lowering ourselves to their level make our job harder? Maybe, but being the good guy often is harder, that's our burden to bear. To tear down one's societal beliefs in an effort to fight an enemy that is bent on tearing down our societal beliefs seems ass backwards.

We have a long way to go before we've "lowered" ourselves to their level. If we start sending suicide bombers to civilian targets or videotaping our soldiers decapitating innocent people we picked up at random then yes, we've "lowered" ourselves to their level.
If we ever sanction torture solely to exact revenge, then I would also agree we are lowering ourselves to their level. However, I still think that is a far cry from torture in a "ticking bomb" scenario in order to save lives which is perfectly defensible.

I don't concede that at all. In the admittedly limited research I've done on the topic, I can't seem to find a single investigation or study that says that torture is a reliable interrogation technique, I see a lot of opinion to the contrary, but no evidence.

As you say, the debate over the effectiveness of torture is almost completely speculative and any objective evidence is probably top secret. We don't hear any of the success stories of attack averted because of the use of torture (but I will concede it would be just an unlikely we would not hear of the "failures" as well).

If I took a guys 12 year old daughter and made him watch as I raped and tortured her, he might give up some information, how can we not take advantage of that when the stakes are so high?

That would be indefensible since you're involving a completely innocent party. However I have no problem making the suspect think we would/could do something like that.

Where do you draw the line? At what point have we gone to far? We've had this debate before as a culture, and we've come to the conclusion that torture isn't reasonable.

I've already put it at where I would draw the line. A terror suspect with time sensitive knowledge of an imminent attack.

If we torture, what's to stop Iran from torture, or North Korea, or China, or any number of countries we may someday find ourselves in a conflict with? Dick (Nick?) Greggory asked this of the President yesterday and never got a real answer out of him: Say a US spy is captured in Iran or North Korea and they are tortured, tried, convicted and sentenced to death on classified evidence he wasn't allowed access to, we'd be ok with that?

Nothing is stopping those countries from torturing anybody, they have their own policies on that. Anyway, the big difference is that if we were ever in a conflict with them, the Geneva Convention would apply so in theory, POW's on either side would be protected.


Then, no.

All I can say is that I just don't understand how you could put lives of your fellow citizens over the well-being of a terrorist. But you are entitled to your opinion.


Then go for a constitutional amendment to redefine the 8th Amendment. Good luck with that.

I don't think that would be necessary since I don't think terrorists are entitled to Constitutional rights.

What scares me is the 'retroactive' part of the administrations bill. They've already done this, now they want to cover their asses before the elections because they know they're fvcked if the opposition gets investigative powers, or worse, when the 11 guys being transferred from the CIA secret prisons to Gitmo get a hold of a lawyer.

I wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry if that happened.
 
I was flipping through the channels the other night and saw a picture of 170 Taliban or al-Qaeda people at a funeral...with crosshairs. We didn't fire apparently, and the arguement was because 'he have a higher moral standard.'
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']I was flipping through the channels the other night and saw a picture of 170 Taliban or al-Qaeda people at a funeral...with crosshairs. We didn't fire apparently, and the arguement was because 'he have a higher moral standard.'[/QUOTE]
But then we blew up a wedding in Iraq...
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']But then we blew up a wedding in Iraq...[/quote]

And then later in the movie, a Jewish doctor rips the kidneys out of a healthy muslim and sells them on the black market.

Or can you provide a link with that slanderous shit you just wrote to prove that it wasn't a hollywood fantasy?
 
[quote name='Maklershed']Here are two:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/17/wafg17.xml

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/usworld/news-article.aspx?storyid=64801

And how is it slanderous to say that we have higher moral standards than terrorists?[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't say it's slanderous, but I hate that it's a crutch we use to justify not going after someone when we have the chance. They blow us up when we aren't ready, I think it's only fair to blow them up at a funeral. I mean, they are already at the cemetary...
 
Has anyone else come to the conclusion that Very and Cockcheese are nothing but a pair of moronic hysterical c*nts or is it just me?
 
ummm. no, the slander comment was for posting accusations that American soldiers were murdering Iraqi civilians at weddings, without providing links.

And since you have at least provided a link, I retract my statment, (although I strongly disagree with the insinuation that US soldiers indiscrimanately murder Iraqi civilians).

and Msut, do you ever get the feeling that continually posting one line flames at people you don't agree with politically makes you look like a fucking two year old?
 
[quote name='Veritas1204']ummm. no, the slander comment was for posting accusations that American soldiers were murdering Iraqi civilians at weddings, without providing links.
[/QUOTE]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2079565.stm

Actually, it was Afghani civilians, my bad.

But they were still at a wedding and the bombs were dropped by Americans and they had no ties to terrorists whatsoever.
 
[quote name='dopa345']Correct me if I'm wrong but even if we are going by the assumption that the Constitution extends protection to terrorists (which I vehemently disagree) the Fifth Amendment specifically says that it does not apply in cases involving times of war and public danger.

I quote:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger. "

Not only that, the Constitution recognizes that in specific times of public danger, habeas corpus does not apply.

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

The reiterate an earlier point, we don't (nor is it expected) to give due process to prisoners of war in legitimate conflicts so why a terrorist should somehow qualify, doesn't make sense to me at all.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I don't disagree with you about those things. I merely was responding to the false claim that prisoners are treated outside the Constitution's jurisdiction.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Actually, that was an error on my part. I meant felons.[/QUOTE]

Nope, still under the Constitution. Felons may be deprived rights (such as the right to vote), but these rights are taken away through due process of law as required by the Constitution. No American citizen can have constitutional rights taken away unless they are taken as described in the Constitution.
 
[quote name='Veritas1204']Msut, do you ever get the feeling that continually posting one line flames at people you don't agree with politically makes you look like a fucking two year old?[/QUOTE]

I dont make fun of you because we differ politically, I make fun of you because of your feeblemindedness.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2079565.stm

Actually, it was Afghani civilians, my bad.

But they were still at a wedding and the bombs were dropped by Americans and they had no ties to terrorists whatsoever.[/QUOTE]

That doesn't really support your point as I understand it. It clearly was a terrible mistake and not a deliberating targeting of the wedding in order to eliminate a specific target.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'] No American citizen can have constitutional rights taken away unless they are taken as described in the Constitution.[/QUOTE]

In some instances, at best, you're talking about rights that states act upon, especially with the 2nd Amendment. But even then, that's the ATF handling that issue and not the states. There is nothing in the Constitution that states felons cannot own or sell firearms, but they are denied almost 100% of the time. See United States v. Bean.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I dont make fun of you because we differ politically, I make fun of you because of your feeblemindedness.[/quote]

Wow. Somewhere, somehow, I must have given you the impression that I give a fuck what you think about me.

Allow me to correct that:

Msut, you couldn't matter to me less if your life depended on it.

every one line childish flame that spews forth from your ignorant ass does nothing but drive down the quality of debate, and we are all stupider for them.

I hope that clears any misconceptions you had about me actually caring what a fucking internet troll like you thinks about me.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Has anyone else come to the conclusion that Very and Cockcheese are nothing but a pair of moronic hysterical c*nts or is it just me?[/quote]

Well I cant come to any conclusions about Cochese but I imagine that Veritas is alright. Not only does he have a Boondock Saints avatar but his name is the name of a tattoo that one of the brothers have on their hands.
 
"NBC News claimed U.S. Army officers wanted to attack the ceremony with missiles carried by an unmanned Predator drone but were prevented under rules of battlefield engagement that bar attacks on cemeteries."

That was in the second article, and it is plain ridiculous. We have absolutely no chance of winning this war with this type of thinking. If it were American Soldiers at a Funeral the terrorists would have no problem sending suicide bombers in to blow everyone to pieces.

Screw higher morality. That doesn't matter in war. Anyone want to bet that some of these guys we "passed" on killing will come back to kill some of our soldiers? How's that for morality. Let them live so they can come back and kill some of us. Unbelievable
 
[quote name='Msut77']Has anyone else come to the conclusion that Very and Cockcheese are nothing but a pair of moronic hysterical c*nts or is it just me?[/QUOTE]

Who the fuck are you, and what learning deficiency do you claim that you can't spell my name right?

Or is that one of those 5th grade insults?

You know zero about me, or what I believe in. So until you do, feel free to keep your thoughts to yourself.
 
[quote name='Veritas1204']Sorry to disappoint you metal, but myke has something called intellectual honesty. Unlike you, he allows alternate views to be shared without running away screaming at the first sight of disagreement.

I may disagree with his views, but at least he can stand up to alternate opinions without calling someone a "freeper" and putting them on ignore.

IOW, putting someone on ignore because you cannot deal with their opposing views = pussy.




hope that clears things up a little.[/QUOTE]

Despite Veritas suggesting the opposite here (and for good reason), I do advocate putting Msut on your list. I know I have.

I think, and truly believe, that schuerm tries to have useful discourse, and really wants to be part of the conversation. He often comes across as a troll, but underlying it are some thoughtful points and ideas (sometimes). He's a reflection of what modern political discourse is on 24-hour news channels, books, and radio: a condensed version of ideas put into a highly combative discourse remniscent of a pro wrestling television show, and the depth of ideas is about that of a pro wrestling script. If he sticks around, I hope, he'll eventually learn discourse better than he currently does. The day he starts telling me how I'm overstepping boundaries of appropriateness in my posts (by calling him an asshole, for example), then I know I'll have helped in something worthwhile, whether or not I change his views in the slightest degree.

Msut, on the other hand, is not a part of the conversation I consider relevant or important. Your quotes of his posts indicate to me that he has not changed his single-sentence mockery of other people for thinking differently than him, and I feel that I made the right choice in putting him on the ignore list. It's not like I'm gonna accidentally miss some fleeting moment of brilliance. Right? I suggest you do the same.
 
[quote name='Veritas1204']Wow. Somewhere, somehow, I must have given you the impression that I give a fuck what you think about me.

Allow me to correct that:

Msut, you couldn't matter to me less if your life depended on it.

every one line childish flame that spews forth from your ignorant ass does nothing but drive down the quality of debate, and we are all stupider for them.

I hope that clears any misconceptions you had about me actually caring what a fucking internet troll like you thinks about me.[/quote]



i'll just go ahead and focus your easily swayed attention this way, over to my original point that you seem so hell bent on proving right, theres a thin line between trolling and debating here, you've chosen to take on trolling instead. All I have seen from you is spin and shit-slinging, you even spun my comments around to make them seem as though they were directed towards you...

"hope that clears things up a little." I couldn't think of a more polar opposite expression when it comes to anything you bring to the table.
 
[quote name='Veritas1204']Wow. Somewhere, somehow, I must have given you the impression that I give a fuck what you think about me.

Allow me to correct that:

Msut, you couldn't matter to me less if your life depended on it.

every one line childish flame that spews forth from your ignorant ass does nothing but drive down the quality of debate, and we are all stupider for them.

I hope that clears any misconceptions you had about me actually caring what a fucking internet troll like you thinks about me.[/quote]
hey, moron! Yeah you with the face!

Ahh ok, now that I've got your easily swayed attention on me, back to my original point, theres a thin line between trolling and debating here, you've chosen to take on trolling instead. All I have seen from you is spin and shit-slinging, you even spun my comments around to make them seem as though they were directed towards you... Yet you've decided not to make any kind of retraction or explain why you had told me I was lacking "intellectual honesty", I think you're lacking basic reading & comprehension.

"hope that clears things up a little." I couldn't think of a more polar opposite expression when it comes to anything you bring to the table.
 
[quote name='Veritas1204']Wow. Somewhere, somehow, I must have given you the impression that I give a fuck what you think about me.[/QUOTE]

As further proof of your brain damage you think that matters.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Who the fuck are you, and what learning deficiency do you claim that you can't spell my name right?

Or is that one of those 5th grade insults?

You know zero about me, or what I believe in. So until you do, feel free to keep your thoughts to yourself.[/QUOTE]


I like to believe the insult cockcheese is a little advanced for fifth graders but whatever.

I have read enough from you to get a fair idea of what you believe in and who you are, I think the word scum suffices.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Actually, that was an error on my part. I meant felons.[/QUOTE]

I missed this part btw, you are reffering to a concept know as civil death.

Convicts/Felons dont always lose their rights (and it is limited to voting rights), also once lost many states allow them to be restored.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Actually, that was an error on my part. I meant felons.[/QUOTE]

I missed this part btw, you are reffering to a concept known as civil death.

Convicts/Felons dont always lose their rights (and it is limited to voting rights), also once lost many states allow them to be restored.

EDIT: Sorry for the triple posting.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']In some instances, at best, you're talking about rights that states act upon, especially with the 2nd Amendment. But even then, that's the ATF handling that issue and not the states. There is nothing in the Constitution that states felons cannot own or sell firearms, but they are denied almost 100% of the time. See United States v. Bean.[/QUOTE]

You're completely misunderstanding me. I never claimed that rights such as that to vote or the right to bear arms can't be taken away. Obviously, they are all the time. This is legal BECAUSE of the Constitution, not in spite of it. Read the part about rights and "due process of law" again.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Despite Veritas suggesting the opposite here (and for good reason), I do advocate putting Msut on your list. I know I have.

I think, and truly believe, that schuerm tries to have useful discourse, and really wants to be part of the conversation. He often comes across as a troll, but underlying it are some thoughtful points and ideas (sometimes). He's a reflection of what modern political discourse is on 24-hour news channels, books, and radio: a condensed version of ideas put into a highly combative discourse remniscent of a pro wrestling television show, and the depth of ideas is about that of a pro wrestling script. If he sticks around, I hope, he'll eventually learn discourse better than he currently does. The day he starts telling me how I'm overstepping boundaries of appropriateness in my posts (by calling him an asshole, for example), then I know I'll have helped in something worthwhile, whether or not I change his views in the slightest degree.

Msut, on the other hand, is not a part of the conversation I consider relevant or important. Your quotes of his posts indicate to me that he has not changed his single-sentence mockery of other people for thinking differently than him, and I feel that I made the right choice in putting him on the ignore list. It's not like I'm gonna accidentally miss some fleeting moment of brilliance. Right? I suggest you do the same.[/QUOTE]

This is why I respect you.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I think, and truly believe, that schuerm tries to have useful discourse, and really wants to be part of the conversation. He often comes across as a troll, but underlying it are some thoughtful points and ideas (sometimes). He's a reflection of what modern political discourse is on 24-hour news channels, books, and radio: a condensed version of ideas put into a highly combative discourse remniscent of a pro wrestling television show, and the depth of ideas is about that of a pro wrestling script. If he sticks around, I hope, he'll eventually learn discourse better than he currently does. The day he starts telling me how I'm overstepping boundaries of appropriateness in my posts (by calling him an asshole, for example), then I know I'll have helped in something worthwhile, whether or not I change his views in the slightest degree.[/quote]


I didn't suggest ignoring him because of his political views, mind you, I suggested it because it was clear he wasn't making any more points on the subject and had just taken to run of the mill partisan slags.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I like to believe the insult cockcheese is a little advanced for fifth graders but whatever.

I have read enough from you to get a fair idea of what you believe in and who you are, I think the word scum suffices.[/QUOTE]

Why don't you enlighten us?
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Why don't you enlighten us?[/QUOTE]

On the myriad of ways of why you are scum or how cockcheese is at least a jr high insult?

Anyway do you know just how old the concept of civil death is?
 
[quote name='Msut77']On the myriad of ways of why you are scum or how cockcheese is at least a jr high insult?

Anyway do you know just how old the concept of civil death is?[/QUOTE]

The first one. And don't forget to show your work!

And yes I do.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']The first one.[/QUOTE]

Your pro torture views and your insistence on sinking down to the Talibans level.

That is more than enough.

I wonder if you are going to say torture is a political view?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Your pro torture views and your insistence on sinking down to the Talibans level.

That is more than enough.

I wonder if you are going to say torture is a political view?[/QUOTE]

No. It's a job description. It's always been reserved for the most extreme of circumstances, and never done lightly. And if you're even thinking of referring to Abu Garab, go to Rush Week at a major fraternity.

I'm not exactly pro-torture, I'm pro-information. If I can't get the information I need through normal means, and if it means people's lives are at stake, yeah, I'm gonna have to vote for some 'extreme measures.' If you want to call all of the things done torture, then that's your prerogative.

Sinking down to the Taliban's level would be denying women education, making them wear burkhas and veils and killing them for being anything other than a Muslim.

All I'm advocating is killing/capturing them before they kill us. I could risk a handful of SpecFor to go capture them, or I could use the Predator drone (that already had a Hellfire at it's disposal) to kill them.

Or, you know, we could do it your way and try to arrest them after they blow up an Army camp...Oh wait, they killed themselves in the process.

I'd love for someone to think of me as scum, but that's a pretty weak arguement you have there. Try some more.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']And if you're even thinking of referring to Abu Garab, go to Rush Week at a major fraternity.[/QUOTE]

And yet you get mad when you get called scum.

There are worse and still accurate words to use, but this is a family website.

You a fan of Rush btw?
 
You keep asking nonsensical questions, but still haven't provided any factual evidence to corroborate your opinion. If you choose to have baseless opinions, fine. You'd fit in with a couple other posters around here, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

WTF does the band have to do with this conversation? Reaching for things to talk about?
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']And if you're even thinking of referring to Abu Garab, go to Rush Week at a major fraternity[/QUOTE]

I had decided to drop out of this thread, as I'm trying to take load o' notes, and this discussion got my head hot; it wasn't helping my productivity, you see.

I have to point out, however, that as much as I resent a lot of the opinions of people in here, and the lengths to which people will accept uncivilized behaviors for the purpose of protecting civilization, I abhor the above comparison. Abu Ghraib was not play time, it wasn't exploitation or abuse in the "we're just having a good time" kinda rush way. There was no finite time frame in which the inmates there were "rushed," and then later let into the frat.

It's a dreadful, dreadful analogy. If you want to compare it to anything related to college, perhaps Philip Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment may be more appropriate.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']You keep asking nonsensical questions[/QUOTE]

Not really, what you said was pretty much an exact quote of Rush Limbaugh.

BTW the point (which zoomed right over your furrowing brow) is that your support of torture is Prima facie evidence of your all around douchebaggery and scumbaggedness.
 
bread's done
Back
Top