Torture - Page 2

Originally Posted by franksargent

See that little ! in the lower left hand corner. Go ahead, make my day.

Originally Posted by Taskiss

Done.

Have a good day.

Originally Posted by screener

Another thin skinner.

Like they say, "man up" and quit whining.

Originally Posted by screener

Another thin skinner.

Like they say, "man up" and quit whining.

Originally Posted by Taskiss

He literally asked for it. I obliged. What part of my behavior would you characterize as "whining"?

Originally Posted by Taskiss

He literally asked for it. I obliged. What part of my behavior would you characterize as "whining"?

How do you think things will ever become civil when folks attack the poster instead of the position outlined in the post?

I do assume that civility is something folks want, if I'm wrong about that please correct me.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Except when it comes to whining about a certain "thought experiment", right?

Just thought I'd clarify.

Originally Posted by Taskiss

He literally asked for it. I obliged. What part of my behavior would you characterize as "whining"?

How do you think things will ever become civil when folks attack the poster instead of the position outlined in the post?

I do assume that civility is something folks want, if I'm wrong about that please correct me.

Originally Posted by screener

Different action, I don't report anyone for anything.

Commenting on another's action in an open forum is completely different than complaining to the teacher.

See the difference?

Originally Posted by jazzguru

I was referring to your "man up" comment.

Originally Posted by screener

But I thought this was an anonymous, not reality based internet kind of non reality thing to you.

I mean if it's okay to misrepresent ones self without penalty, how is it wrong to not be civil?

No reality no foul kind of thing.

Originally Posted by screener

So what was wrong with the comment?

Originally Posted by Taskiss

I didn't say it was wrong, I said I thought folks wanted civility. In my opinion, the attacks against the poster instead of attempts to have civil discourse is childish and foolish. The "reality" of it is inherent in the medium - it's the ONLY thing that exists, virtual though it may be. That said, none here are obliged to meet my expectations, nor am I obliged to meet the expectations of others.

Again, I think it needs to be mentioned that he specifically asked to be reported. Doing so seemed quite proper, so I obliged. From my limited experience here, the site administrators haven't felt it necessary to discipline because of past examples of that kind of behavior so I don't believe anything will come from it. I would appreciate the irony if they did decide to intercede, but that's just me. I mean, come on! He ASKED for it! It would be classic if the shoe dropped.

The bottom line for me personally - however you want to look at it, my posts are an example. Same goes for all that post here. One way or the other, it's what I'll be known for, and I refuse to allow foolish and childish behavior change how I post.

Perhaps you, or others, can't appreciate civil discourse. That's doesn't give me an excuse to abandon my attempts to have such.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Nevermind. Not important.

Originally Posted by screener

But, according to you, it's not real, You aren't real to me, franks not real to you, Who cares about civil discourse.

Apparently you, who decided an unreal entity dissed you by making it about you, not real to frank, instead of the unreal, real argument.

Is that a paradox or am I being unreal.

I'm confused, I think, maybe I'm dreaming, maybe not.

Originally Posted by Taskiss

You're not "real", if you were I'd be forced to modify my written reaction to your posts, just as you'd be forced to modify yours to mine. The name calling, the personal attacks, perhaps that is allowed in social environments where you live, but I assure you, such behavior would not be tolerated in the places I frequent.

I didn't decide that I was dissed, I pointed out the fact that an attempt to discredit my position was made without addressing the position itself. Logically, that's a fallacy. Popularly, it's considered an attack.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html

Originally Posted by Taskiss

You're not "real", if you were I'd be forced to modify my written reaction to your posts, just as you'd be forced to modify yours to mine. The name calling, the personal attacks, perhaps that is allowed in social environments where you live, but I assure you, such behavior would not be tolerated in the places I frequent.

I didn't decide that I was dissed, I pointed out the fact that an attempt to discredit my position was made without addressing the position itself. Logically, that's a fallacy. Popularly, it's considered an attack.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html

Originally Posted by trumptman

Actually that would be true if the only agreement we had between Mexico and the U.S. was the GC but we have a number of agreements in place beyond that agreement.

Originally Posted by franksargent

Clinton got impeached for lying about a BJ.

Originally Posted by franksargent

Clinton got impeached for lying about a BJ.

I wonder what would have happened to Bush, Cheney, et. al., if these memos had been "discovered" during their term of office?

Originally Posted by tonton

Bullshit. I used Mexico as an example. Let's say North Korea. I murder a North Korean in international waters. Is that not prosecutable under US Law?

NEW YORK The debate over torture is getting personal for two of cable TV's prime-time hosts.

After Fox News Channel's Sean Hannity made a seemingly impromptu offer last week to undergo waterboarding as a benefit for charity, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann leapt at it. He offered $1,000 to the families of U.S. troops for every second Hannity withstood the technique.

Olbermann repeated the offer on Monday's show and said in an interview Tuesday that he's heard no response. He said he'll continue to pursue it.

"I don't think he has the courage to even respond to this let alone do it," Olbermann said.

Fox News Channel representatives did not respond to requests for comment.

The two men are on opposite poles of a debate that has preoccupied the worlds of talk TV and radio. Hannity says waterboarding is a fair and necessary interrogation technique for suspected terrorists; Olbermann calls it torture, says it's ineffective and should not be done by Americans.

Charles Grodin was challenging Hannity on the issue on Fox last week, and asked whether he would consent to be waterboarded.

"Sure," Hannity said. "I'll do it for charity ... I'll do it for the troops' families."

It wasn't exactly clear how serious the conversation was, since Grodin joked, "Are you busy on Sunday?" and Hannity laughed.

"I'll let you do it," Hannity said.

"I wouldn't do it," Grodin said. "I'll hand you a towel when you come out of the shower."

Olbermann's offer was quick. Besides the $1,000 per second, Olbermann said he'd double it if Hannity acknowledges he feared for his life and admits that waterboarding is torture.

Olbermann's offer was quick. Besides the $1,000 per second, Olbermann said he'd double it if Hannity acknowledges he feared for his life and admits that waterboarding is torture.

"The idea of putting somebody in a position they have volunteered for, for charity, to respond to their own unsupportable claims, is in many ways priceless," Olbermann said.

Olbermann, who hasn't missed any chance to criticize his ideological enemies at Fox, concedes TV competition plays a part in his offer. But he said it was sincere, because he believes Hannity has had a damaging role in the debate.

"If you expose people to reality, even with someone who is denying reality, that can have a powerful and important impact," he said.

Originally Posted by trumptman

And well... with a lot of twisting and contorting and dust tossing, we think we might have something to fume over for a while.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

What do you mean? Should we just accept our government allows people to be brutally tortured to death? That's what at stake here.

Originally Posted by trumptman

I've not seen a credible source that has claimed we have tortured people to death. Released memos and opposition has stated we have engaged in torture that consists of methods like water boarding, and other similar methods.

What constitutes allowing? Endorsing, not enough oversight? Not prosecuting someone? Fill in the particulars.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

You'll find links to that in my earlier post in this thread that I titled Obama loves torture, do you? There's no doubt that Bush actively tortured, it's enough to make most people vomit.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

You'll find links to that in my earlier post in this thread that I titled Obama loves torture, do you? There's no doubt that Bush actively tortured, it's enough to make most people vomit.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Bush performed the torture himself, no doubt.

The report defines the 34 cases classified as homicides as "caused by intentional or reckless behaviour".

It says another 11 cases have been deemed suspicious and that between eight and 12 prisoners were tortured to death.

Originally Posted by trumptman

How is actively tortured the same as torturing someone to death?

Saying "that is what is at stake" is also called a strawman argument.

Originally Posted by screener

Felt like torture listening to him talk.

Originally Posted by mystic

no it is not. (most) murder is a state offense. No state has jurisdiction.

Originally Posted by Mystic

Wrong.

lying under oath.

AND obstructing justice by urging Ms. Lewinsky "... to to file an affidavit that the President knew would be false"

Or do you support lying under oath?
The object of his testimony is irrelevant. The only relevant FACT is , that he Lied AND asked others to Lie as well.

Originally Posted by screener

Report probes US custody deaths

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

Wow, I didn't think you'd deny that. You do know people are routinely tortued to death around the world. I suggest you read the links. Bush did torture people to death, I just hope Obama doesn't make the mistake, as at the moment there's that possibility.

Let's send 'em to....Jordan http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17043

This is worth reading http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/as...0052006en.html Secret rendition is just a way to escape blame, sadly Obama is using it too. Pathetic.

It comes at about the 5:50 mark. Cliff May asks Stewart whether Truman's use of the atomic bomb was a war crime, Stewart ruminates and then responds with an unequivocal "yes." He's certainly not the only American who would take that view, but it's a useful reminder that the most vocal and popular criticism of the Bush administration's war on terror policies comes from people who, if they were being as honest as Stewart, would also judge Lincoln (suspension of habeas), FDR (internment), and Truman (use of nuclear weapons) as war criminals or tyrants or worse.

The report defines the 34 cases classified as homicides as "caused by intentional or reckless behaviour".

It says another 11 cases have been deemed suspicious and that between eight and 12 prisoners were tortured to death.

Originally Posted by screener

Ask for a credible source and then get all grammatical.

And you wonder why I...

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

I couldn't work out trumptman's response to that either.