I can't believe this thread has devolved into arguing the merits of torturing human beings. Oh wait, yes I can.

So something is either right or wrong...no nuance. No gray area. Nothing. RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT

pacino wrote:So something is either right or wrong...no nuance. No gray area. Nothing. RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT

Sometimes, yes.

TenuredVulture wrote:

pacino wrote:So something is either right or wrong...no nuance. No gray area. Nothing. RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT

Sometimes, yes.

BobBarr is not an Elephant

Barr said neither McCain nor Barack Obama, the Democratic frontrunner, would rein in a government that he said has grown too powerful after the September 11 attacks.

"A vote for the status quo ... is really and truly a wasted vote, because it is not going to do anything," Barr said.

As a Georgia congressman between 1995 and 2003, Barr was a stalwart conservative and one of the leaders of the impeachment of Democratic President Bill Clinton.

But Barr has broken with the Bush administration in recent years over its domestic surveillance program and what he called its abuse of due process rights.

For the week or so (ending last Tuesday) when I thought the Clintons might really win the Democratic nomination, I kind of enjoyed the idea of voting for Barr over Hillary.

TenuredVulture wrote:The point of torture is to torture. Its advocates are evil.

B.b.b.but, torturing feels so good, like urinating on a Mets fan good.

Some electoral college fun...

EC map via latest polling data, etc...
http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Oooh! An interactive map...
http://www.270towin.com/

Video of Bill O'Reilly meltdown (from his Inside Edition days)

*** WARNING: F-bombs ***

Hee hee

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Video of Bill O'Reilly meltdown (from his Inside Edition days)

*** WARNING: F-bombs ***

Hee hee

No one hate Bill O'Reilly more than me, but I really fail to see how this is a big deal. (Unless it's to point out that he was once on Inside Edition--puts the whole Katie Couric thing in a new light.)

TenuredVulture wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Video of Bill O'Reilly meltdown (from his Inside Edition days)

*** WARNING: F-bombs ***

Hee hee

No one hate Bill O'Reilly more than me, but I really fail to see how this is a big deal. (Unless it's to point out that he was once on Inside Edition--puts the whole Katie Couric thing in a new light.)

Just pickin' on Bill O. Woulda put it in the YouTubes thread, but it ain't a YouTube (didn't know how to give it an embedded player winder).

This is beautiful
http://www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com/

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Video of Bill O'Reilly meltdown (from his Inside Edition days)

*** WARNING: F-bombs ***

Hee hee

No one hate Bill O'Reilly more than me, but I really fail to see how this is a big deal. (Unless it's to point out that he was once on Inside Edition--puts the whole Katie Couric thing in a new light.)

Just pickin' on Bill O. Woulda put it in the YouTubes thread, but it ain't a YouTube (didn't know how to give it an embedded player winder).

I just watched that. He's a seriously unwell guy.

It's hard to believe that anyone who treats colleagues like that is a particularly good person. On the other hand, as C&L points out, it does make the Andrea Mackris allegations that much easier to believe...

I was gonna write a little something up about the election tomorrow night in Mississippi, but this post and video by Chris Cilizza of The Fix from the Washington Post sums it up right nice.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/05/fixcam_week_in_preview_north_m.html

It's hard to over exaggerate how big of a deal this will be if Childers wins, as looks pretty likely. Everyone is going to be hyperventilating about Hillary waxing Obama, but Obama could lose WVa by 50 and it would be a good night for him if Childers wins. Ads have been run trying to tie Childers to Obama, on the Wright thing, on taxes. This would really send the GOP back to the drawing board on how we're going to try and survive November.

Mind you, if Davis wins, then THE story coming out will be the Obama ties killed Childers, considering Childers won by 3% a couple of weeks ago before these ads ran. Even though the Dems have done way better than they had any right to expect two months ago, winning is really the only good outcome for them since Childers came damn close to getting a majority in the first round of the general, and the combined Dem vote was over 50%.

As long as the CIA insists that they have stopped terrorist attacks because of information gained through torture and there is no evidence otherwise I am fine with using torture.

I do think it is the duty of the President to look into those things, but if they are telling the truth and I have no reason to believe they aren't, then keep up the good work.

If it saves one American life it is worth it.

THere are CIA, army, and other officials who say torture doesn't work.

mpmcgraw wrote:As long as the CIA insists that they have stopped terrorist attacks because of information gained through torture and there is no evidence otherwise I am fine with using torture.

I do think it is the duty of the President to look into those things, but if they are telling the truth and I have no reason to believe they aren't, then keep up the good work.

If it saves one American life it is worth it.

I'm not sure you really understand what the "it" is, here.

Suppose you torture fifty people. One of them yields information that saves some lives. (This is a really, really dubious proposition in itself, but no matter.) The other forty-nine are totally innocent, but they leave their place of detention burning with hatred of the United States.

Maybe three of those forty-nine actually start engaging in terrorism-related activities. Perhaps another two dozen give money to groups we've designated as terrorists. None of them are ever forthcoming with information that might help avert future attacks. And all their family members and friends know that someone close to them, who was innocent, was tortured by the great and powerful USA.

There's also the likelihood that, as with Abu Zubaydeh, some of those fifty people you torture tell you something, anything, just so you take the car battery off their junk. You're spending millions to verify (or actually disprove) their info, and wasting some number of man-hours spent by intelligence analysts, soldiers, diplomats, etc.

But the CIA and the Bush administration surely do appreciate your taking their word for it. That's pretty uncommon these days, based on their track record.

Yes, Bush and high ranking CIA officials are heartless devils that enjoy torture when it has no results! (who cares what these CIA guys say? They are a part of the Bush admin after all) Surely they would have plenty to gain through the redundant torturing of human beings!

I am not one who buys into the opinion that you and many others share that Bush is not a well intentioned man. I truly believe that Bush and the people who surround him are well intentioned albeit utterly incompetent. Thus I trust that he is not sadistic. Not exactly a leap of faith for me, but to each his own.

You can view Bush however you like, but I think your view of him is quite sensationalized. More like a character in a horror movie than an actual human being.

My point is if torture is as redundant as you say it is and Bush/CIA are lying as you say they are, what exactly do they stand to gain from all of this?

mpmcgraw wrote:As long as the CIA insists that they have stopped terrorist attacks because of information gained through torture and there is no evidence otherwise I am fine with using torture.

Yes, believe the CIA--an organization that didn't know that Pakistan and India had developed nuclear weapons until they tested them, an organization that insisted that the Castro regime would collapse when a bunch of Batista supporters landed on the beach, an organization that has repeatedly failed.

mpmcgraw wrote:Yes, Bush and high ranking CIA officials are heartless devils that enjoy torture when it has no results! (who cares what these CIA guys say? They are a part of the Bush admin after all) Surely they would have plenty to gain through the redundant torturing of human beings!

I am not one who buys into the opinion that you and many others share that Bush is not a well intentioned man. I truly believe that Bush and the people who surround him are well intentioned albeit utterly incompetent. Thus I trust that he is not sadistic. Not exactly a leap of faith for me, but to each his own.

You can view Bush however you like, but I think your view of him is quite sensationalized. More like a character in a horror movie than an actual human being.

My point is if torture is as redundant as you say it is and Bush/CIA are lying as you say they are, what exactly do they stand to gain from all of this?

wow
you're the guy that calls himself a moderate, aren't you

Well, socially liberal and economically conservative.

I think that's pretty moderate these days.

Although suggesting on here that Bush is anything less than a child porn producer/rapist/the plungerer of the middle east would make me about as right as you can get on here.

I suppose i might be an Obamacan. We'll see. I'm still learning.