This is Great Banana's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Great Banana's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Great Banana
Recent Activity
Semanticleo, You are joking right? First, I ALREADY pay more than 1/3 of my income in state, federal taxes, medicare and SS taxes. then sales tax and property taxes. My disposable income is nowhere near 40K a year. I am not going to give you a finance sheet to prove it, just accept that it is true. Libs have no real concept of money. $100,000 a year does not make anyone rich. You really don't live in reality do you? Even if i did have more disposible income, what gives you the right to take from me what I have EARNED through my hard work? Keep your dirty hands out of my wallet. I didn't work hard, go to law school, pay my way through college and law school so that people like you could take my money to spend on wealth redistribution. I don't have $3,000 per month to spend on frivolities, despite your ignorant beliefs, and it makes me sick that you are so cavalier about stealing my money to spend on your precious social engineering. I'm not any happier than anyone else with the runaway government spending. The answer is not to steal more of my hard-earned money, it is for the feds to spend less. I want to be able to purchase some luxuries in life. That is why I work hard - harder than any welfare loser or other entitlement getting idiot. I want to be able to buy my family a nicer house, nicer cars, in a better neighborhood. People like you want to steal my money and give it to those who don't deserve it rather than allow me to keep more of my own money. I want to be able to save more towards my retirement and hopefully my kids college education. You want to steal that money from me. If you hate america and capitism so much, there are plenty of other countries for you to move to that are closer to what you want. Why don't people like you simply move there and let me and my family and the money I earn alone? Just let me earn my living and make my family's life better. Stop trying to take from me. That is all I ask from you and libs - stop trying to take what I am trying to build. Why do you want to steal from me? It makes me sick.
Toggle Commented Jun 8, 2007 on The Rhetoric - Policy Mismatch at JustOneMinute
What kills me about this kind of thing is that they have no real understanding of money. I would probably be swept up in this tax net. However, I actually have less disposable income than people earning much less money than my wife and I. Our school loans are as much as our mortgage - and b/c of the level of our income none of the school loan interest is deductible. We live in a modest home, own 1 (2001) vehicle outright and make payments on another (2002) vehicle. Neither vehicle is luxury. AFter expenses (regular expenses - mortgage, insurance, taxes, utilities, groceries, gas, etc.) our disposable income is not much. We are trying to have kids and once we do, my wife wants to stay home, but we probably can't even really afford that at the moment. Yet, to a lib, I am rich and should be taxed to death. I know blue collar workers who live in nicer houses, have better cars, have boats, etc., b/c they chose not to go to expense college and/or graduate school, but instead worked and their income inreased while they had no real debt - thus more disposable income. They are considered "working poor" or somesuch by the libs b/c their yearly salary is much less than mine. It's insane. My hope is yes, that as I continue in my profession my income increases substantially, but I paid for that increased (hopefully) income with putting myself through college and then graduate school on GI bill and loans, then working long, long hours and taking a LOT of responsibility on at my jobs. But for that, I am to be penalized through higher taxes. I can't stand libs. They have no concept of reality.
Toggle Commented Jun 8, 2007 on The Rhetoric - Policy Mismatch at JustOneMinute
Double important sigh!!!
It is doubtless that it was determined early on by the CIA and the FBI that a covert operative had her cover blown. I've always thought this was the most ridiculous part of the 'there's no underlying crime!' angle; the idea that neither the FBI, the CIA, or Fitz could determine that Plame was not in fact under covert status. It was a trifling matter for them to determine that she was covert. Really? I have yet to see any proof that she was "covert" within the meaning of the IIPA. So, you make one untrue assertion and then move on - and keep making the same untrue assertion again and again, and base all you other arguments on that one untrue assertion. Interesting debate style.
While the Executive branch manages the DoJ, they do not control the DoJ per se. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and ignorant. The DOJ is an executive branch and, as such, is controlled by the Executive. The Rule of Law controls the DoJ. Really, who decides what the "rule of law is"? Who decides what the priorities are? Who decides what gets prosecuted and what doesn't? Who decides the budget for the various offices within the DOJ? This is an absurd and idiotic cliche that sounds great, but means absolutely nothing. When politicians seek to undermine the Rule of Law for political reasons, it cannot have positive outcomes for the society as a whole. What does "undermine the rule of law" mean? It is that glorious kind of phrase that can mean whatever the political hack bandying it about wants it to mean. In contrast, I will agree that if a politician does something illegal, then they should be prosecuted, impeached, removed from office, etc. If they do something that "undermines the rule of law", then maybe the electorate won't vote for them next time - but this phrase is meaningless otherwise.
I highly doubt that Fitz, an experienced prosecutor, doesn't know the law, and doesn't understand what is and isnt' appropriate for the judge to consdier when it comes to sentencing. Ahh, fitzy said so therefore it is correct! No bias there! It's nice to see the crazy left believing in prosecutors for the first time in 100 years!! I don't think that there is positive proof, IE, court-of-law proof, being offered that the IIPA was violated; but I do believe that there is a good amount of evidence that this is true, in the form of: Plame's assertion that she was undercover; Based on all of the proven lying she has done and her own civil suit - this is believable how, exactlY? The CIA's assertion that she was undercover; "undercover" and "covert" under the IIPA are two very distinct things, but so far your ability to understand that is questionable. I note that the CIA has flat out refused to answer specifically whether Plame was covert within the meaning of the IIPA, which is most telling to me. The CIA's assertion that she had served overseas. Nobody disputes that she served overseas at some point. The question is, when did she last serve overseas. I notice that nobody is willing to provide that info. Again, this is most telling, as if it had been within the 5-years required by the IIPA, such would have been provided. I have not seen evidence to counter any of these assertions, but mere speculation that they are not true based upon accusations of lying on someone's part. See my responses above. Your case is worse than circumstantial, it is self serving pap and would be laughed out of court. Again, probably the reason why Fitzy did not charge Armitage, or anyone else, with violating the IIPA.
Sorry, italics off.
GB, there are elements of the DoJ which are political ones, and elements which are non-political. When there is a concerted and far-reaching effort to politicize the traditionally non-political elements of the DoJ, it worries myself and others. No, there is a DOJ which is part of the Executive Branch of which the President is the boss. Period. This is something that the left fails to understand, b/c they believe in "beauracracy" and big government and want unaccountable beauracrats to control our lives. While some functions of the DOJ go on from admin to admin w/o changing in character, they ultimately serve whoever the president is - and if they don't want to follow the elected president's orders, should resign. If the president uses the agency in a way the electorate does not like then the electorate can vote against the president in the next election. If someone from the DOJ does something illegal, they should be prosecuted. But, there is NO SUCH THING as an independent, non-policitcally controlled, agency. It isn't a crazy thing - imagine if the same sort of actions were being undertaken during the upcoming Democratic presidency. You wouldn't be pleased to find out that the elements of our judiciary which should be impartial, are slowly being replaced with consistently Liberal viewpoints. And neither would I, even though this is the viewpoint I traditionally support. this is exactly what happens in every dem presidency. Indeed, there is a slew of careerists at CIA and DOJ who violate their ethical obligations, etc., to leak to the press in an effort to undermine the president's objectives. This is wrong and unethical regardless of who is president. It is not a healthy thing when one party gets too much power. Yeah, I remember the dems and libs arguing this in the past, when the Dems controlled the house, senate and presidency in the past. Please. The DoJ works for the people of America, not for whatever party is in power at the time. Ahh, you really have NO understanding of how our government works. This is factually wrong as well as theoretically wrong. the DOJ works for the executive who is elected by the electorate. The DOJ does not "work for the amereican people" except for in the abstract. Didn't you take high school civics?
This is an assertion and little more than an opinion on your part. If you were able to bring a factual argument to the table - and referring back to the 'weeks and weeks' of supposed argumentation is not the same thing as offering a clear and cogent wrap-up of one's position - then you would maybe have some validity to make this statement. Every argument made you state is an "assertion" and then, aside from that, you don't answer the argument. Thus, why do you expect anyone to take you seriously? If you have any understanding of the legal system, you would understand that it IS important that no court has interpreted the IIPA yet, as without court interpretation, we don't know exactly what the act actually means (i.e., it can be interpreted in different ways). THis is not true of cases such as Jefferson, where laws regarding bribery, etc., are well settled and thus we can look at facts and come to a reasonable conclusion. Now, in the case of the IIPA, we have someone who is an expert on the statute, having taken part in developing and writing the statute - Toensing, who you simply dismiss out of hand. It may be that she is biased, but her arguments as to the IIPA are solid - please explain your contention that they are not solid, and that the IIPA was in fact violated by Libby. Certainly, if Fitzy believed Libby violated the statute, he would have brought such a prosecution, no? How does it comply with Due Process to now claim that he violated the IIPA for purposes of sentencing when he faield to bring any charges under that Act. If your answer is that Libby's "lies" prevented a prosecution under the IIPA - I state so what? How does that make it appropriate to bring up the IIPA in sentencing, when nothing was presented or proven in regard to the IIPA? It is always the government's burden to prove a criminal violation beyond a reasonable doubt. Fitzy has not even come close with respect to the IIPA. And, why does Fitzy not give us a date range when Plame was allegedly serving outside the U.S.? Or, are you contending that she did not need to do so for IIPA to apply? Finally, please provide a citation to the statement by Waxmen that you believe "proves" that Plame was "covert" under the IIPA. If I recall correctly, that "known fact" was debunked a long time ago - that the statement was much, much too vague to prove any such thing.
You are 100% correct on this one. This Plame incident is only a small part of a much larger effort to subvert the DoJ, on the part of the Republican party who is currently in power. Interesting. While I don't agree with the lame "KNown Facts" upon which you base this absurd opinion, I must ask - you do realize that DOJ is NOT an independent agency, but is under the Executive Branch, meaning that it works for the President? I'm asking b/c I have found that most on the left, in their idolization of beauracratic agencies, seem to beleive that the agencies are somehow independent of the Executive Branch and don't have to answer to the President or follow the president's orders. I'm just wondering if you are one of those nuts or if you actually understand how our government works?
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh italics off!
Toggle Commented May 23, 2007 on So Torture Me at JustOneMinute
Cleo, I think we are more in agreement than not on this issue - which appears to be a first. Seamus, As per Stewart's "I know it when I see it." Imagine if these techniques were applied to you or one of your loved ones. That's a mighty good way to test the principle. No, it is not. First, if my loved ones are engaged in terrorism, then they would likely deserve such techniques. Second, if using those techniques on one of my loved ones would save many lives, I would say go for it. Third, there are plenty of things done in war that I wouldn't want to happen to my loved ones, such as death, but that I still support doling out to the enemy. We need to take a clear stand against, it helps us as a civilized nation. <.i> Against what? Waterboarding? Sleep deprivation? Does that mean the U.S. Navy should stop its use of the watch system that I was subjected to? That new parents be allowed to sleep? How does it "help us as a civilized nation?" that is nothing more than a trite cliche. In the long run, our tolerance of torture will undermine our effort, not enhance it. How so? Please explain. If you can make this into a persuasive argument, you might get me to agree. Simply stating it, however, does not make it true. We won't win the war with brute force alone. Nobody said otherwise. Our "good guy" example will help us win friends and influence neighbors. it never has in the last 30 years, why do you think it will now? Nations have interests, not friends. France does not go against us b/c we are not "moral" enough, but b/c they think it is in their interest to do so. This belief that other countries count on "morality" for deciding whether or not to support the U.S. is foolish at best. Certainly, we are not going to win over islamic countries where wife beating is encouraged, honor killings are allowed and stoning gays is legal by not using waterboarding. That kind of argument is nonesense on stilts. I agree, as a free Democracy it's essential to have this debate without demonizing the other side. Romney's and Guiliani's catering to the pro-torture crowd certainly puts the debate front row and center for the coming election. I think it will also, and I welcome the debate. Hopefully we can debate the actual merits of the issue.
Toggle Commented May 23, 2007 on So Torture Me at JustOneMinute
Cleo, GB; You can't have it both ways. If you are making the determination WB is 'not torture' you must also be applying Stewart method. Otherwise, it is necessary for you to define it. Touche. I think you have a point there. I think the difference is that I am arguing about specific techniques, which I state are not torture, i.e. waterboarding, sleep deprivation, cold rooms, even long periods of standing. The other side simply states those techniques ARE torture, and as their only argument, point to a very vague definition of torture that makes "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental" torture. My argument is that sleep deprivation does not cause severe pain or severe mental anguish, nor does coldness, nor does long periods of standing, nor doew waterboarding. Now, we will have to argue over what "severe" means. I think it is easier to point to specific techniques and say - that is torture or that is not torture - and come up with a fairly bright line set of procedures that are allowed and those that are not allowed. Your side of the argument wants to simply state that such-and-such IS torture and therefore verbotten (sp?). I want to argue about why they believe waterboarding, sleep deprivation, et al., are torture. But, instead of being willing to argue the point, we are called names and the implication, if not outright expression, is that we are evil brutes. And arguments are used like - we'll lose our souls if we allow torture. Again, 1) that begs the question of what is torture, and 2) I don't believe we would necessarily lose our souls even if we engaged in real torture - not that I am advocating for the use of real torture.
Toggle Commented May 23, 2007 on So Torture Me at JustOneMinute
You guys really think you have everyone over a barrel on this def of 'torture' thing, don't you? Remember when the SC was deciding 'obscenity' cases? No, the point is that we are stating that waterboarding, sleep deprivation and cold rooms are not torture. We ask others to explain why they believe such techniques are torture. the point that I am making about the definition is that the definitions others point to are so vague as to be almost meaningless. by the definition of "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental" almost anything can be argued to be torture. The whole point is to come up with what can be used and not be used. My argument against those on the other side of this debate is that they are attempting to skip the entire debate by merely asserting that waterboarding, et al. is "torture" and therefore we can't do it. In other words, your side of the debate is claiming to be Justice Stewart, being the person who gets to define what is and is not torture and the rest of us should just shut up. That is not a debate, nor is it an argument.
Toggle Commented May 23, 2007 on So Torture Me at JustOneMinute
Seamus, See, I can accept that argument. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. I don't think using waterboarding will "weaken us" and don't believe it is "appealing to our baser instincts." But, at least you admit that "reasonable people may disagree." That is what has been lacking the most on your side of the argument (not necessarily you - just others on your side of the argument). This is of course a slippery slope argument, for either side. We argue that your side is defining torture down further and further to the point where any interrogation or even imprisonment is "torture" and your side believes that allowing waterboarding and other techniques will lead to more and more agressive methods. I think it is good to have the debate and draw a fairly bright line as to what is and is not acceptable, I just disagree with you as to where the line is.
Toggle Commented May 23, 2007 on So Torture Me at JustOneMinute
Seamus, I do think waterboarding and sleep deprivation are torture. Chaining someone to a wall, and making them stand for hours and days sounds like torture to me too. Well, I disagree. Now explain by stating something other than "it sounds like" torture to you. Give me reasons why sleep deprivation (which I have experienced) is torture? Why is a cold room torture? Why is making someone stand for long periods of time torture? Simply stating it is is not an argument. Sullivan and Dejerian spell out what constitues torture quite eloquently. There is clarity on what constitutes torture. Asserting something is true and it being true are two different things. They have NOT spelled out what constitutes torture, but have offered vague wording about "mental anguish". I agree that there is clarity on what constitutes torture. Electric shock, severe beatings, pulling fingernails - these things are torture. Waterboarding, sleep deprivation, long periods of standing - these are clearly not torture. SEE Clarity!!! Yes, I'm against it. No, I don't want us to lose the war on terror. I'm a Catholic, an American, a Democrat. I love this country too. I don't think that forswearing torture weakens our nation or makes me un-American, or is aiding and comforting the enemy. Just the opposite. I never argue or intimated that. Another straw-man argument. As I have attempted to point out several times, aside from moral preening and bald assertions, I have yet to see an argument about a) why you consider water boarding or sleep deprivation torture or b) why such techniques should not be sparingly use. Again, assertions are not arguments.
Toggle Commented May 23, 2007 on So Torture Me at JustOneMinute
Seamus, Are you comfortable with them being able to declare anyone an enemy combatant, being able to detain them indefinitely without a fair hearing, and then to apply aggressive interrogation techiniques (this would be torture), with no oversight for as long as they wish? We have set up a shadowy, lawless, zone. the problem with this argument is that despite your paranoia, none of this is true. thus, your question is nothing but a straw-man with no persuasive affect. Again, instead of paranoid rantings, please feel free to offer debate as to why a) you consider sleep deprivation or waterboarding torture; and b) why you think they should not be allowed (and without the moral preening, but with real arguments).
Toggle Commented May 23, 2007 on So Torture Me at JustOneMinute
Seamus, Would that you held the position about limiting government more generally, and not just on this issue. I think you are arguing a straw-man. Nobody is arguing for every member of the military or CIA to have authority to use waterboarding any time they see fit. I agree that such techniques should be used sparingly, and there should be a process in place to ensure that such techniques are not abused. Again, you beg the question by simply claiming such techniques are "torture". I don't agree with you that they are, and I don't believe most people over here do. So, simply calling it torture and saying we shouldn't allow torture, is not arguing or making a rational point.
Toggle Commented May 23, 2007 on So Torture Me at JustOneMinute
Of course, the problem with this debate is that they assume waterboarding, sleep deprivation and cold rooms are "torture" and proceed from there. I don't beleive any of those things are torture. Extremely uncomfortable, yes. Slightly painful, maybe. torture? No. AS I said on the last thread, I have been subject to sleep deprivation and extremely cold conditions. While not enjoyable, they are hardly torture. Now, even on these techniques, nobody is calling for their use willy-nilly on any and all prisoners. Even these techniques, which I don't believe are torture, are used sparringly on prisoners who the U.S. believes has very valuable info. So, the U.S. and we sado-masochists on the right, are hardling advocating rounding everyone up for a good torture-o-thon. I think in reality, most people, even us sado-masocists on the right, are against actual torture. But, these people who start from the position that every technique they disagree with is torture, are arguing in bad faith to begin with. They point to U.S. laws that say you can't be cruel or cause mental anguish. In reality, one could argue just about anything, including imprisoning people, is cruel and causes mental anguish (trust me, in civil litigation people sincerely claim extreme mental anguish over the silliest stuff). By the anti-waterboarding crowd's absurd logic, we can't even interrogate or imprison people for fear that they will feel "tortured". they are unwilling to have a debate on the issue, preening about America's loss of the "moral high ground", which in itself is ridiculous. The idea that a) the U.S. has not used these techniques or worse through its history already; b) that any other country (and even more specifically the islamofascists we are fighting) really cares whether we use these techniques or not aside from PR purposes; c) that it will affect the outcome of the war; or d) that it will destroy our national psyche, are all idiotic arguments. As others have observed, we survived slavery, jim crow, using atomic weapons, firebombing civilians, and many other moral outrages in the past - all of which are much, much worse than the alleged moral outrage of waterboarding or sleep deprivation. Thus, that argument is not only extremely weak, it is easily demonstrated as wrong. If the best argument your side has is that you believe waterboarding and sleep deprivation (not the vague and abstract "torture") are immoral, then say so, and explain why. Don't claim that america itself is going to collapse if we don't stop using the techniques. I'm sure those of you on the left scoffed (and rightly so) when people like Rev. Falwell said that God was going to take america down because of abortion and gays. Now you are basically making the same argument about torture. It was not persuasive by Falwell and is not persausive by you. If you have an argument as to why we should not use these techniques - outside of your moral preening, let's hear it. Thus far, I have heard no such argument. The only possible rational argument would be that we shouldn't use the techniques because then our own soldiers will be subject to such techniques. In this case, that argument is useless as we know that the enemy will subject our soldiers to much, much worse wether we use these techniques or not. Indeed, the enemy we are fighting does not abide by any laws of war, Geneva Conventions, international law, nor even what the West generally considers tradional morality. Thus, such an argument is not remotely persausive. To say merely that such techniques are against the law, begs the point. The law is vague and prohibits things like cruel treatment or causing mental anguish. Again, anything can be made to fit into that definition.
Toggle Commented May 23, 2007 on So Torture Me at JustOneMinute
Von, No, I was not saying that I went 48 hours straight, slept 6 hours and did another 48 hours for months at a time - I wrote that poorly. I did work 48 straight on more than one occassion, and usual sleep time was between 3 - 6 hours per night, depending on where you were in the watch rotation and what drills happened that night. So, I would work 48 hours straight, and then get a number of days or even weeks where sleep was between 3 and 6 hours a night. followed by another 48 hour straight work. And, this is not exageration but is true. We were on a 3-watch rotation. there was the 8 - 12 p.m. watch, the 12 - 2 a.m., the 2 - 4 a.m. and then the 4-8 a.m. If I stood the 8-12 I would also have the 4-8 watch. Thus, 4 hours sleep. If I had the 12-2, I could usually count on being allowed to bed by 9 a.m., woken up at about 11:30, stand watch, back to bed at 2, for reveille at abut 5:30. Now, if there is an underway replenishment, that usually happened in the early morning hours, say 3 a.m. So, I would not be allowed back to bed after my watch. Now, if there was also a man overboard drill or a general quarters drill the night before, around 8 or 9, I would not get that sleep from 9 p.m. until midnight. And, of course, you aren't allowed to go to sleep during the work day. This kind of thing happened frequently during a cruise and is a part of ship board life (not for everyone, depends on your job aboard ship). My overall point is simply that sleep depriviation is not torture and claiming it is torture is so far beyond ridiculous that I cannot take anyone seriously who actually posits that it is.
Toggle Commented May 22, 2007 on The Flim Flam Man at JustOneMinute
One practical argument against torture that gets little play: A policy or pattern of ill-treating prisoners discourages enemies from surrendering. For instance, this is one reason why the Germans showed fiercer resistance on the Eastern Front (i.e. to the Russians) in WWII. this is not historically accurate. it was not so much that prisoners were mistreated, as that the russians were not taking prisoners and were killing the germans who attempted to surrender. I don't believe for one moment that the vast majority, or even a sizeable minority, of people believe they will be tortured by the U.S. or that they will be killed if captured. Of course, if they do believe this, it is not due to our actual actions so much as the hysteria from the libs and the press. If we were fighting an enemy who observed any of the rules of law, the geneva conventions, or any other international norms, those types of arguments may be persuasive. We are not, and nothing we do is going to affect how this enemy acts.
Toggle Commented May 22, 2007 on The Flim Flam Man at JustOneMinute
Boris, They love "morality" when they can use it to bash the U.S. and conservatives. And, of course, when it can be equivalized (word?). For instance, we use sleep deprivation they claim it is the same as beheading and other kinds of barbaric acts by others. They see no difference in sleep deprivation and, say, electric shock or pulling off fingernails. Now, if our enemies worst technique were sleep deprivation, they would laud it as showing great civilized restraint. Because it is the U.S. using the technique, it is barbaric. They also love morality until it actually comes to responsibility and applying morality to anyone outside of conservatives - then they are against it. And, you are right, it would never occur to them to question where this "morality" they are so fond of comes from. That it derives entirely from christianity and that they despise christianity and try to delete christianity from all of our institutions, does not occur to them. They have no self awareness or ability to rationalize. Conservative/Bush for it - it is bad. Good for the U.S. - it is bad.
Toggle Commented May 22, 2007 on The Flim Flam Man at JustOneMinute
They claim sleep deprivation is "torture." When I was in the Navy, I went at times 48 or more hours in a row without sleep, going from watch, to a man overboard drill, to general quarters drill, to at-sea replenishment, to normal work hours when we were underway. Then we'd get the big 3 - 6 hours sleep and do it all again. For months at a time. Moreover, many of those watches were stood on the weatherdecks at sub-zero temperatures for 4 hours at a time (North Atlantic cruise). So, I also was subjected to prolonged "frigid temperatures" while being sleep deprived. People who can claim such things are "torture" have no grasp of reality, and have never dealt with serious physical discomfort in their lives. Anyone who can claim that such techniques are "torture" is a moron, plain and simple and deserves no further debate. Are new paretns being "tortured" by their child b/c of sleep deprivation? Please, get serious. I was willing to debate waterboarding and give some of these preening idiots the benefit of the doubt that they were arguing in good faith, but when I went over and saw that they consider sleep deprivation and "frigid temperatures" torture, I realized immediately that they are not intellectually serious and are simply using this topic for ridiculous moral preening.
Toggle Commented May 22, 2007 on The Flim Flam Man at JustOneMinute
Obviously Tom enjoys dancing around the issue, not taking a stand, just kind of sniping from the sidelines. I think Sullivan and Djerejian lay out the argument against torture quite eloquently. Torture is a "threshold" issue. It defines us as a country, a people. We cross it, we are a rogue nation. There is a divide here, civilization vs barbarism. We must throw ourselves into the civilization camp. Anything less demeans and demoralizes us as a nation. Please. First, define for us what you consider torture. Is water-boarding torture? How about playing loud music to interrupt sleep? Cold cells? Using fake menstraul blood? Prolonged interrogations? I don't believe any of these techniques is torture. I think electric shock, beatings, fingernail pulling, and the like is torture. It's easy to be against torture in any and all circumstances without ever defining what you believe is torture - which is what these people routinely do. Now, if you think techniques like loud music, disrupting sleep, and temperature variations are torture, then it is really, really tough to have a rational debate - as such an opinion is basiscally absurd.
Toggle Commented May 22, 2007 on The Flim Flam Man at JustOneMinute
I don't believe there will be a military coup any time soon, or that one is required. However, arguing that a military coup is "unconstitutional" is really missing the point, isn't it? I mean, a constitution is only as strong as the populace's belief in it. It does not have any "real" effect except for what society gives it. Thus, the left's viewpoint that the constitution can mean whatever they want it to mean. And, if there was a successful coup, I hardly think it would be rolled back by some court labeling it "unconstitutional" or am I missing something?
Toggle Commented May 2, 2007 on Take Sowell Out To The Ball Game at JustOneMinute