Here’s crypto-fascist Pat “Hitler Wasn’t So Bad” Buchanan on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” show, advocating torturing the NW 253 bomber by withholding pain medicine for his burns — despite the fact that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is apparently already talking to investigators very freely about his plans and training in Yemen.
1 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 10:54:50am |
As my grandmother useta' say, "He ain't got no raising."
| 2 |
brookly red Tue, Dec 29, 2009 10:56:46am |
/withholding pain killers? I was wondering how exactly you could tourture someone who just set their own junk on fire... sheesh.
| 3 |
theliel Tue, Dec 29, 2009 10:57:17am |
Once you've embraced torture as a productive method you HAVE to constantly defend it.
It's the only way to legitimize it.
| 4 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 10:59:47am |
re: #2 brookly red
/withholding pain killers? I was wondering how exactly you could tourture someone who just set their own junk on fire... sheesh.
You have a way with words.
| 6 |
lightspeed Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:00:09am |
Someone needs to withold Pat's medication...
| 7 |
JoyousMN Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:00:34am |
This is ridiculous. I heard it this morning and all I could think was that Pat Buchanan apparently has no belief in the major under-pining of our country: the rule of law.
How is it that this idea is debatable in our society? We don't just string-up and torture criminals. We prosecute them. This is such a fundamental part of our society that I cannot believe anyone finds it difficult to understand.
This contempt for the rule of law is a major consequence of Cheney's policies and it is terribly harmful to our country.
| 8 |
Killgore Trout Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:00:50am |
There are also a lot of calls from the right to try him as an enemy combatant. I don't think it's really practical and not necessary. He's talking and we will have no problem convicting him.
| 9 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:01:36am |
| 10 |
reine.de.tout Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:02:29am |
If the guy is talking to and cooperating with investigators - this is a call for torture for nothing more than the sheer "joy" it would bring to Buchanan to hurt this guy.
So wrong it's unbelievable.
| 11 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:02:30am |
My opinions on torture - and how it is morally repugnant are well established here.
Nazis, Norks, Stalinsts, NVA, Khmer Rouge and any rogues gallery from history from the dawn of time through the Inquisition have thought that torture is the way to do things. Of course they do. It is because they are evil.
So once again. It is wrong. It debases ourselves more than it ever gains information.
| 12 |
Cokezero Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:03:08am |
This, of course, would be the guy that Raimondo, Rothbard, and other paleo"libertarians" supported for president.
| 13 |
KingKenrod Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:03:14am |
re: #8 Killgore Trout
There are also a lot of calls from the right to try him as an enemy combatant. I don't think it's really practical and not necessary. He's talking and we will have no problem convicting him.
Targeting civilians is a war crime and would probably be punishable by death in a military trial.
A civilian trial, probably not. I don't know if there are civilian war crimes on the books.
Just speculation on my part.
| 14 |
Locker Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:03:16am |
I would be a lot happier if his yammer was confined to a little blog somewhere on the net. The fact that he's constantly given a nationally televised voice to spout this drivel is the frustrating part.
| 15 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:03:31am |
re: #10 reine.de.tout
If the guy is talking to and cooperating with investigators - this is a call for torture for nothing more than the sheer "joy" it would bring to Buchanan to hurt this guy.
So wrong it's unbelievable.
Just like a bunch of contractors in Iraq felt about things too... Or when Cheny said it was just a dunk...
May your ears hear what your lips are saying.
| 16 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:03:38am |
Sometimes torture is just for fun?
WTF?
| 17 |
_RememberTonyC Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:04:02am |
sounds like it could be time for another thread: "Why I broke from the Right exhibits B, I, M, and F"
Buchanan
Is a
Mother
Fu*ker
| 18 |
Racer X Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:04:03am |
re: #8 Killgore Trout
There are also a lot of calls from the right to try him as an enemy combatant. I don't think it's really practical and not necessary. He's talking and we will have no problem convicting him.
Agreed. This guy will never walk the streets again.
| 19 |
lightspeed Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:04:03am |
Barbara Walters: "Pat, if you were a tree, what kind of a tree would you be?"
Pat Buchanan: "I would be a tree that was cut down and fashioned into a cross......and then set on fire."
| 20 |
Vambo Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:04:34am |
I thought it said "Bachmann advocates torture"
not that Buchanan is any better than Bachmann. actually it's pretty sad that Buchanan is a mainstream pundit.
| 21 |
Ben Hur Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:05:02am |
re: #8 Killgore Trout
There are also a lot of calls from the right to try him as an enemy combatant. I don't think it's really practical and not necessary. He's talking and we will have no problem convicting him.
He is an enemy combatant.
Fact.
How you deal with him is another story.
It seems that in the US, it depends, or used to depend, on who catches you and where.
| 22 |
SixDegrees Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:05:08am |
re: #8 Killgore Trout
There are also a lot of calls from the right to try him as an enemy combatant. I don't think it's really practical and not necessary. He's talking and we will have no problem convicting him.
Tome Ridge advocated stripping him of his rights granted under the Constitution yesterday. Definitely not Ridge's finest hour.
And I'm not seeing the point. This guy isn't withholding anything, from what I've heard. And getting a conviction will be a slam dunk.
| 23 |
JoyousMN Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:05:34am |
re: #14 Locker
I would be a lot happier if his yammer was confined to a little blog somewhere on the net. The fact that he's constantly given a nationally televised voice to spout this drivel is the frustrating part.
Yes. That really is the worst part of this, views like this will always be part of any society. The fact that Buchanan isn't marginalized for these beliefs says a lot about the state of the media in this country.
| 24 |
Ben Hur Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:07:11am |
re: #22 SixDegrees
Tome Ridge advocated stripping him of his rights granted under the Constitution yesterday. Definitely not Ridge's finest hour.
And I'm not seeing the point. This guy isn't withholding anything, from what I've heard. And getting a conviction will be a slam dunk.
Why is his cooperation the key to naming him an enemy combatant?
What if the next guy doesn't cooperate?
| 25 |
brookly red Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:08:39am |
re: #24 Ben Hur
Why is his cooperation the key to naming him an enemy combatant?
What if the next guy doesn't cooperate?
What if the next guy succeeds?
| 26 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:08:43am |
re: #16 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
Sometimes torture is just for fun?
WTF?
You don't like stiletto heels?
| 27 |
Racer X Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:09:26am |
Enemy combatant, terrorist, criminal, asshole.
Call him what you like.
As long as he never walks around free, ever again in his life, I'm OK with it. He earned it.
| 28 |
Slap Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:09:44am |
re: #2 brookly red
No, force him to watch vids of proudly naked functionally erect men frolicking with some virgins, 24-hour loop.
| 29 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:09:47am |
re: #19 lightspeed
Barbara Walters: "Pat, if you were a tree, what kind of a tree would you be?"
Pat Buchanan: "I would be a tree that was cut down and fashioned into a cross...and then set on fire."
Point of order: the KKK doesn't set a cross on fire. They "light it up."
| 30 |
theheat Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:09:57am |
Pat's such an unhinged putz, it's hard to believe anyone puts his saggy flabby yap on television, yet there he is. Again. And again.
It might seem like an oversight if not for the fact every time Pat has a microphone, something absurd or hateful comes out of his mouth. For Pat, his latest brain fart isn't any less unexpected or preposterous than his last.
Please, STFU Pat. You're consistently, 100% disgusting.
| 31 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:10:10am |
re: #20 Vambo
I thought it said "Bachmann advocates torture"
not that Buchanan is any better than Bachmann. actually it's pretty sad that Buchanan is a mainstream pundit.
Only on MSNBC.
| 32 |
The Shadow Do Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:10:22am |
re: #26 MandyManners
You don't like stiletto heels?
and, and ....whips! and, and....leather! and, and,.....
/oops, got a little excited here.
sorry.
| 33 |
Racer X Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:10:26am |
re: #28 Slap
No, force him to watch vids of proudly naked functionally erect men frolicking with some virgins, 24-hour loop.
Wrong blog?
| 35 |
wrenchwench Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:10:35am |
It is a little nauseating the way they laugh and joke at the end. Some would see it as being able to get along while disagreeing. I see it as enabling a moral cripple. If they are going to give a forum to a moral cripple, they have to act as though he's a regular guy.
| 36 |
Lateralis Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:11:14am |
My question is since he is being prosecuted under criminal law can we interrogate him to find out what he knows or can he lawyer up and not say anything. If he is declared an enemy combatant I would think he could be interrogated by professionals who will find out what he does and does not know.
| 37 |
djughurknot Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:12:51am |
re: #34 Glen Davidson
Oh good, a WND link. I can feel the level of discourse rising already- along with the ocean levels.
/
| 38 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:12:58am |
re: #35 wrenchwench
It is a little nauseating the way they laugh and joke at the end. Some would see it as being able to get along while disagreeing. I see it as enabling a moral cripple. If they are going to give a forum to a moral cripple, they have to act as though he's a regular guy.
All the easier to paint him as a spokesman for conservatives.
| 39 |
SixDegrees Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:13:50am |
re: #24 Ben Hur
Why is his cooperation the key to naming him an enemy combatant?
What if the next guy doesn't cooperate?
Watch this scene, in particular it's conclusion and Thomas More's speech to Roper:
Where would you hide, with all the laws laid flat?
| 40 |
The Shadow Do Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:14:04am |
re: #36 Lateralis
My question is since he is being prosecuted under criminal law can we interrogate him to find out what he knows or can he lawyer up and not say anything. If he is declared an enemy combatant I would think he could be interrogated by professionals who will find out what he does and does not know.
Lately I have been watching "The First 48" on ID channel. I am amazed at how many perps, having been read their rights, go ahead and talk, talk, talk.
| 41 |
_RememberTonyC Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:14:25am |
re: #28 Slap
No, force him to watch vids of proudly naked functionally erect men frolicking with some virgins, 24-hour loop.
or he could come to LGF and watch "kittie porn."
| 42 |
zora Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:14:38am |
This situation is so similar to the "shoe bomber" who was tried in civilian court while Tom Ridge was at HS (if I am not mistaken).
| 43 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:14:46am |
re: #36 Lateralis
My question is since he is being prosecuted under criminal law can we interrogate him to find out what he knows or can he lawyer up and not say anything. If he is declared an enemy combatant I would think he could be interrogated by professionals who will find out what he does and does not know.
I can't get over how young he looks. He should be at home playing with a PS3.
| 44 |
Lateralis Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:16:26am |
re: #40 The Shadow Do
Lately I have been watching "The First 48" on ID channel. I am amazed at how many perps, having been read their rights, go ahead and talk, talk, talk.
It is one thing if the guy is a bank robber but when you are talking about national security do you want to give the guy the option not to say anything when he could have knowledge of other impending attacks.
| 45 |
Vambo Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:16:58am |
re: #31 MandyManners
Only on MSNBC.
and FOX, he shows up on O'Reilly once in awhile. IMO the reason he's not on FOX more often is because they consider him too left-of-center/dangerously independent. he was also critical of Bush when he was in office - very dangerous.
| 46 |
Slap Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:17:35am |
re: #33 Racer X
Perhaps. Sometimes I fall into overly crude mode. But since the question was a variant of "how do you torture someone who has already toasted his testes", my first though went to gee, what WOULD be torture, and to be forced to view intact men doing the thing he had hoped to find and could no longer do would be pretty significant torture, in my mind.
Clockwork Orange wasn't too far from my mind there, either.
Do we have a "poor taste" tag?
| 47 |
_RememberTonyC Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:18:14am |
re: #45 Vambo
and FOX, he shows up on O'Reilly once in awhile. IMO the reason he's not on FOX more often is because they consider him too left-of-center/dangerously independent. he was also critical of Bush when he was in office - very dangerous.
i never see buchanan on o'reilly. sometimes on hannity, but sean has backed off on using him lately.
| 48 |
Summer Seale Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:18:17am |
Umar Farouk sounds like a total dupe for the organization and handlers - just like Reid was.
He's talking freely because he doesn't know much aside from a few details. Torturing won't get anything out of him and, quite frankly, sounds like advocating the torture of a complete moron simply because he's a moron.
Yes, his act was completely evil and he should spend the rest of his life in jail. At 23, he knew full well what he was doing. But he's not the main problem and he doesn't appear to grasp fully what he tried to do. Apparently he was polite and even a bit cheerful when giving out the information. We're not talking about a mastermind who is covering anything up.
And even if we were, torture isn't the way to go.
We probably already know almost everything that we'll ever get from him. The best thing we can do is hunt down his handlers and fire nice precision missiles at them.
| 49 |
RogueOne Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:18:27am |
re: #39 SixDegrees
Watch this scene, in particular it's conclusion and Thomas More's speech to Roper:
[Video]Where would you hide, with all the laws laid flat?
Tossing him in a military cell is perfectly within our rights both within our law and our treaty obligations. Personally I believe the decision to hold him under civilian authorities is a mistake. I don't see how not giving him pain meds is equivalent to "torture". If he didn't want his junk hurt he shouldn't have set his boys on fire.
| 50 |
lawhawk Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:18:29am |
There are several ways to deal with the terrorists - all based on venue and jurisdiction:
Mutallab will be accorded the same treatment as other terrorists captured on US soil (Moussaoui, Sheikh Rahman) and will face federal court trials on terror charges (as I outlined yesterday).
KSM and others captured overseas for acts committed in the US; federal court trials, even though they could also be tried in military tribunals (and which the Administration is intent upon doing where the evidence isn't sufficient for federal trial).
Terrorists captured overseas for acts committed overseas should get tribunals as well.
None of this deprives the terrorists captured of rights. None of this exposes them to torture.
Once again, Buchanan shows how much of an blowhard he is for suggesting torture to elicit information that Mutallab is apparently giving freely.
| 51 |
Shiplord Kirel Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:18:50am |
".....is apparently already talking to investigators very freely about his plans and training in Yemen."
Y'all are just not thinking outside the box here. Maybe Pat is afraid of what Umar will reveal; say, Eurofascist complicity; and wants to torture the poor fool into shutting up.
/
| 52 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:18:52am |
re: #45 Vambo
and FOX, he shows up on O'Reilly once in awhile. IMO the reason he's not on FOX more often is because they consider him too left-of-center/dangerously independent. he was also critical of Bush when he was in office - very dangerous.
Left of center???
| 53 |
Sheila Broflovski Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:19:30am |
Why oh why is this putz given so much airtime and credibility?
| 54 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:19:42am |
re: #46 Slap
Perhaps. Sometimes I fall into overly crude mode. But since the question was a variant of "how do you torture someone who has already toasted his testes", my first though went to gee, what WOULD be torture, and to be forced to view intact men doing the thing he had hoped to find and could no longer do would be pretty significant torture, in my mind.
Clockwork Orange wasn't too far from my mind there, either.
Do we have a "poor taste" tag?
No but, many snickered.
| 55 |
_RememberTonyC Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:20:08am |
| 56 |
Killgore Trout Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:20:17am |
re: #21 Ben Hur
He is an enemy combatant.
Fact.
How you deal with him is another story.
It seems that in the US, it depends, or used to depend, on who catches you and where.
We've never prosecuted terrorists captured on us soil as enemy combatants. In this case there's no need to do so. Why open up all the legal and constitutional problems by doing it now? We have an easy case against him and there's no advantage to torturing him and putting him before a military tribunal? It serves no purpose and provides no advantage.
| 57 |
Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:20:32am |
re: #13 KingKenrod
Targeting civilians is a war crime and would probably be punishable by death in a military trial.
A civilian trial, probably not. I don't know if there are civilian war crimes on the books.
Just speculation on my part.
Some guy lighting his underwear on fire in a vain attempt to kill people isn't worthy of the phrase 'war crime'. Keep it simple, it's several hundred counts of attempted murder, and a darwin award to boot. This idiot deserves all the ridicule and mockery, and by extension so should the terrorists, taunt them, mock them. Really, this is the best you can do?
If the British can laugh at the nazis, then we surely can heap a ton of scorn onto the backs of these terrorists. Just make sure a picture of his undies is put all over the world. Heck put it on the internet as a LOLTerrorist... now what would be a good caption for his undies, maybe "somewhere 30 virgins pointed and laughed?" what else... any ideas?
| 58 |
Mocking Jay Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:20:48am |
re: #39 SixDegrees
I'd never seen that before. Excellent scene. I particularly liked:
Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
| 59 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:20:52am |
re: #49 RogueOne
Tossing him in a military cell is perfectly within our rights both within our law and our treaty obligations. Personally I believe the decision to hold him under civilian authorities is a mistake. I don't see how not giving him pain meds is equivalent to "torture". If he didn't want his junk hurt he shouldn't have set his boys on fire.
Ummm...isn't denial of medical care torture?
| 60 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:21:16am |
re: #53 Alouette
Why oh why is this putz given so much airtime and credibility?
Because the American right wing is less and less ashamed of being nazi.
| 61 |
SixDegrees Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:21:43am |
re: #49 RogueOne
Tossing him in a military cell is perfectly within our rights both within our law and our treaty obligations. Personally I believe the decision to hold him under civilian authorities is a mistake. I don't see how not giving him pain meds is equivalent to "torture". If he didn't want his junk hurt he shouldn't have set his boys on fire.
Of course it is within our rights.
But what we lose by acceding to those rights is worse than what we would gain. That's More's whole point in the scene above.
| 62 |
Digital Display Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:21:46am |
re: #11 LudwigVanQuixote
My opinions on torture - and how it is morally repugnant are well established here.
Nazis, Norks, Stalinsts, NVA, Khmer Rouge and any rogues gallery from history from the dawn of time through the Inquisition have thought that torture is the way to do things. Of course they do. It is because they are evil.
So once again. It is wrong. It debases ourselves more than it ever gains information.
This is why I love America..We are a light upon the hill to the world.
Sometimes we forget this....I stand with John McCain about torture..
We are America..We don't torture..
| 63 |
RogueOne Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:21:59am |
Lets get the "he's talking freely" stuff out of the way. We don't know what he's said and no one is going to tell us. All we know is he's admitted where he got the explosives and his intent and that's all we're ever going to know unless there is an actual trial. IANAL but I know the very first thing out of his atty's mouth...."stfu".
| 64 |
brookly red Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:22:05am |
re: #56 Killgore Trout
We've never prosecuted terrorists captured on us soil as enemy combatants. In this case there's no need to do so. Why open up all the legal and constitutional problems by doing it now? We have an easy case against him and there's no advantage to torturing him and putting him before a military tribunal? It serves no purpose and provides no advantage.
actually there were some Nazi saboteurs...
| 65 |
wrenchwench Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:22:07am |
re: #34 Glen Davidson
You have your blog linked in your nic. This precludes the need to add a link to it at the end of every single one of your comments. And you never make more than one comment per thread. I think you are looking for blog hits more than discussion.
| 67 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:22:17am |
re: #53 Alouette
Why oh why is this putz given so much airtime and credibility?
To paint Conservatives with the same brush.
| 68 |
Gus Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:23:13am |
re: #49 RogueOne
Tossing him in a military cell is perfectly within our rights both within our law and our treaty obligations. Personally I believe the decision to hold him under civilian authorities is a mistake. I don't see how not giving him pain meds is equivalent to "torture". If he didn't want his junk hurt he shouldn't have set his boys on fire.
That would be uniquely uncivilized regardless of his actions. That would make us no different than our enemies.
| 69 |
brookly red Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:23:15am |
re: #59 MandyManners
Ummm...isn't denial of medical care torture?
/some call it cost saving policies...
| 70 |
Vambo Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:23:23am |
| 71 |
theliel Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:23:27am |
re: #44 Lateralis
what about criminal enterprises, a/k/a gangs and the mob?
they could be plotting to kill americans.
We totally should determine they are enemy combatants as well, to better protect all americans.
| 72 |
Darth Vader Gargoyle Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:23:34am |
re: #6 lightspeed
Someone needs to withold Pat's medication...
I think he has been off his meds for some time.
//
| 73 |
RogueOne Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:23:37am |
re: #61 SixDegrees
Of course it is within our rights.
But what we lose by acceding to those rights is worse than what we would gain. That's More's whole point in the scene above.
You're interpretation of the scene is different than mine. If it's perfectly legal to toss him in a military cell then we aren't bypassing the "rule of law".
| 74 |
SixDegrees Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:23:44am |
re: #58 JasonA
I'd never seen that before. Excellent scene. I particularly liked:
I first saw A Man For All Seasons decades ago, in high school, and that scene has stayed with me ever since. Words to live by.
| 75 |
RogueOne Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:25:54am |
re: #68 Gus 802
That would be uniquely uncivilized regardless of his actions. That would make us no different than our enemies.
That's called moral equivalence and it's baloney. We didn't set his junk on fire, he did. Our moral obligation is to the hundred plus passengers on that plane and the next plane, not him.
| 76 |
The Shadow Do Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:26:39am |
re: #44 Lateralis
It is one thing if the guy is a bank robber but when you are talking about national security do you want to give the guy the option not to say anything when he could have knowledge of other impending attacks.
Yes, he will have the option in a civilian system, which is where he is headed. Unless specific anti-terror laws are enacted (never happen) it is what it is.
Military combatants abroad, I believe, should be subject to ROE's and accepted practice which should include harsher measures with top line approvals in advance; even then nothing beyond the dreaded waterboard - not torture from where I sit, by the way.
| 77 |
sagehen Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:26:56am |
In my experience, when you give a guy the good drugs, he'll talk and talk and talk and talk. All an "interrogator" has to do is gently nudge him back on track when his endless talk veers off on a tangent.
Does Pat really think you'll get more useful information from somebody in excruciating pain?
| 78 |
SixDegrees Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:27:53am |
re: #63 RogueOne
Lets get the "he's talking freely" stuff out of the way. We don't know what he's said and no one is going to tell us. All we know is he's admitted where he got the explosives and his intent and that's all we're ever going to know unless there is an actual trial. IANAL but I know the very first thing out of his atty's mouth..."stfu".
Absolutely; his attorney is already running interference against having him submit to DNA testing. That's an attorney's job.
It'll also be the attorney's job to evaluate any sort of plea agreement, involving deals like, "Tell us everything you know, anytime we ask, and you won't serve our your sentence buried deep inside a solitary confinement SuperMax cell without access to halal food, a Koran or much of anything else." Attorney's can be quite persuasive in getting their clients to accept such deals, and comply with them.
| 79 |
Gus Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:27:57am |
re: #75 RogueOne
That's called moral equivalence and it's baloney. We didn't set his junk on fire, he did. Our moral obligation is to the hundred plus passengers on that plane and the next plane, not him.
Our moral obligation would have been to stop him before he had the opportunity to attempt to blow up flight 253. Treating him as they would in a savage country would do nothing for the passengers of that flight but only serve to satisfy the primitive desires of men.
| 80 |
AK-47% Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:28:28am |
Torture is not just a means to an end for some people, it is an end in itself: a way of administering justice.
And although "cruel and unusual punishment" is forbidden by our Constitution, people like Buchannan are out to make it cruel but usual.
| 81 |
Mocking Jay Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:28:37am |
re: #75 RogueOne
Any other criminal held in custody would be given medication for his injuries.
| 82 |
SixDegrees Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:28:53am |
re: #77 sagehen
In my experience, when you give a guy the good drugs, he'll talk and talk and talk and talk. All an "interrogator" has to do is gently nudge him back on track when his endless talk veers off on a tangent.
Does Pat really think you'll get more useful information from somebody in excruciating pain?
Pat probably really does think that. An awful lot of his pronouncements have to do with inflicting pain and suffering on various people who aren't Pat Buchanan.
| 83 |
theliel Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:28:55am |
re: #64 brookly red
Teh nazi sub guys got a trail in front of the Supreme Court IIRC, and a goddmaned speedy one at that.
but seriously, the britsh have had people blowing shit up REGULARLY since before I was born and seem to manage a better response than all the bedwetting.
| 84 |
Lateralis Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:29:01am |
re: #71 theliel
what about criminal enterprises, a/k/a gangs and the mob?
they could be plotting to kill americans.We totally should determine they are enemy combatants as well, to better protect all americans.
Are you trying to say that gangs that are killing Americans is the same as a terrorist organization that is trying to destabilize our government is the same?
| 85 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:30:04am |
re: #77 sagehen
In my experience, when you give a guy the good drugs, he'll talk and talk and talk and talk. All an "interrogator" has to do is gently nudge him back on track when his endless talk veers off on a tangent.
Does Pat really think you'll get more useful information from somebody in excruciating pain?
using drugs is torture according to international law
| 86 |
JoyousMN Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:32:06am |
re: #75 RogueOne
That's called moral equivalence and it's baloney. We didn't set his junk on fire, he did. Our moral obligation is to the hundred plus passengers on that plane and the next plane, not him.
No, it's not moral equivalency. We were given moral obligations by the founders of our country in how they thought we should manage our democracy. They handed us a tool maintaining a society of people called the Constitution. It mandates that we uphold the rule of law, not vigilante justice. We may all want to hurt this guy for what he tried to do, but it's not right and it's not in our own best interests. Additionally we set the example for the world to follow and we need to follow our laws even (maybe especially) when it's hard.
| 87 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:32:08am |
re: #81 JasonA
Any other criminal held in custody would be given medication for his injuries.
witholding pain meds is ridiculous...what does that prove?...you cannot deny anyone medical attention
| 88 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:32:17am |
| 89 |
theliel Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:32:28am |
re: #76 The Shadow Do
Then you've never actually seen real waterboarding.
If you look there are multiple accounts (mostly on fetlife) of people trying it out.
Many 'broke' and safeworded in under 6 min.
These are people who get off on putting hooks through themselves and then suspending themselves.
Here's my personal rule: If it sounds like a description for a 'scene'/movie from a kink.com site (including waterbondage) or insex, or any other BDSM porn site, then it's probably torture.
I'm not saying anything, i'm just saying is all.
| 90 |
sagehen Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:32:37am |
re: #36 Lateralis
My question is since he is being prosecuted under criminal law can we interrogate him to find out what he knows or can he lawyer up and not say anything. If he is declared an enemy combatant I would think he could be interrogated by professionals who will find out what he does and does not know.
If we question him without a lawyer, his statements would be inadmissible at trial.
So what? There's bunches of eyewitnesses and physical evidence. It'll be easy enough to convict him without using anything he says, or anything we learn from following leads he provides.
| 91 |
avanti Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:33:15am |
re: #80 ralphieboy
Torture is not just a means to an end for some people, it is an end in itself: a way of administering justice.
And although "cruel and unusual punishment" is forbidden by our Constitution, people like Buchannan are out to make it cruel but usual.
In another era, Pat would be the guy tightened the rack on a heretic in the name of Christ.
| 92 |
Summer Seale Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:33:48am |
re: #89 theliel
You made me really curious about your web browsing habits and bookmarks folder just now.... =)
| 93 |
lawhawk Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:34:01am |
Devil's argument time:
What if, instead of Charles' notion that Mutallab is talking freely and without coercion, we later find out that because law enforcement and intel services believed further attacks were imminent based on Mutallab's own statements and from intercepted chatter, the US actually used coercive measures up to and including what everyone here would consider torture to extract said information.
Would that change anyone's impression of the following:
1) The Obama Administration and their national security stance?
2) Seeing that this is a ticking time bomb scenario (the prevention of follow on attacks), is such action by the US justified?
3) Would the price of getting that information be too great, or is the threat of further attacks sufficient to outweigh the torture of Mutallab?
| 94 |
brookly red Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:34:13am |
re: #83 theliel
Teh nazi sub guys got a trail in front of the Supreme Court IIRC, and a goddmaned speedy one at that.
but seriously, the britsh have had people blowing shit up REGULARLY since before I was born and seem to manage a better response than all the bedwetting.
True, but I am kinda thinking that prevention is better than response & therefore I would prefer that these matters are not handled by civilian courts.
| 95 |
theliel Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:34:18am |
re: #84 Lateralis
They're trying to kill americans and setup a shadow government (collecting 'rents' and 'taxes' on local landholders/buisnessmen), run an enterprise that they tax directly and in other ways presume to be the law of the land.
Once you've set the bar at 'trying to kill people' which is what the orignal poster did, then you've got to imagine some beuricratic asshole taking things to a natural conclusion.
| 96 |
SixDegrees Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:35:53am |
re: #73 RogueOne
You're interpretation of the scene is different than mine. If it's perfectly legal to toss him in a military cell then we aren't bypassing the "rule of law".
What set More off was his family's request that he use his own considerable powers of arrest and detention to serve his own immediate needs. More's rejection of such use of perfectly legal procedures is plain. He is revulsed by the very suggestion of bending the law to achieve political ends.
I'm entirely content to see this trial play out as it should, in a Federal court, as would be the case for anyone attempting murder or mass murder. We don't have one special set of laws for an arbitrary, nebulous class of people we really don't like, and another set for people we're more comfortable with.
These same people sawed off Dan Pearl's head on camera because he was an American, and for no other reason than that. I'd rather not become the people we're fighting.
| 97 |
The Shadow Do Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:36:04am |
re: #89 theliel
Then you've never actually seen real waterboarding.
If you look there are multiple accounts (mostly on fetlife) of people trying it out.
Many 'broke' and safeworded in under 6 min.
These are people who get off on putting hooks through themselves and then suspending themselves.
Here's my personal rule: If it sounds like a description for a 'scene'/movie from a kink.com site (including waterbondage) or insex, or any other BDSM porn site, then it's probably torture.
I'm not saying anything, i'm just saying is all.
Imparting fear is not the same thing as dispensing pain in my book. In fact fear is a necessary element in most interrogations e.g. possibility of general population for pedophile, etc. in a plea bargain situation.
| 98 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:36:17am |
re: #95 theliel
They're trying to kill americans and setup a shadow government (collecting 'rents' and 'taxes' on local landholders/buisnessmen), run an enterprise that they tax directly and in other ways presume to be the law of the land.
Once you've set the bar at 'trying to kill people' which is what the orignal poster did, then you've got to imagine some beuricratic asshole taking things to a natural conclusion.
What in the world are you smoking?
| 99 |
Sheila Broflovski Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:36:36am |
re: #64 brookly red
actually there were some Nazi saboteurs...
| 100 |
Big Steve Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:36:38am |
How much more can you do to a guy who wears woman's panties and blow torches his own nads?
| 101 |
recusancy Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:36:47am |
re: #59 MandyManners
Ummm...isn't denial of medical care torture?
Yes. Per Article 12 Chapter 1 of the Geneva Conventions:
Art. 12. Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article, who are wounded or sick, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances
They shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Party to the conflict in whose power they may be, without any adverse distinction founded on sex, race, nationality, religion, political opinions, or any other similar criteria. Any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited; in particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated, subjected to torture or to biological experiments; they shall not wilfully be left without medical assistance and care, nor shall conditions exposing them to contagion or infection be created.
Only urgent medical reasons will authorize priority in the order of treatment to be administered.
| 102 |
lawhawk Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:37:22am |
re: #91 avanti
Torquemada - do not beg him for mercy. Torquemada - do not ask him for forgiveness. Let's face it - you can't Torquemada anything!
| 104 |
wrenchwench Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:38:23am |
re: #96 SixDegrees
These same people sawed off Dan Pearl's head on camera because he was an American, and for no other reason than that.
Except maybe also for being Jewish.
| 105 |
Lidane Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:38:50am |
re: #8 Killgore Trout
There are also a lot of calls from the right to try him as an enemy combatant.
There's also some concern trolling about President Obama's speech and his "detached" language when talking about Umar Farouk:
*sigh*
| 106 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:38:57am |
re: #100 Big Steve
How much more can you do to a guy who wears woman's panties and blow torches his own nads?
He was wearing women's undies? Really? Victoria's Secret?
| 109 |
Digital Display Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:39:38am |
re: #85 albusteve
using drugs is torture according to international law
I often wondered why we just didn't drug a terrorist and find out what he knows and then send him off to court...A simple solution.. But if it is against International war laws...I would have to back that.. Even though I think KSM would have preferred one night of a hot shot of China White after capture than being Waterboarded 882 times or whatever stupid number it was..
/Didn't you ever see all those Mission Impossible episodes where the bad guy wakes up after being drug enduced?
We could dress up Dennis Miller as OBL to interview him
/
| 110 |
sagehen Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:39:58am |
re: #85 albusteve
using drugs is torture according to international law
Painkillers to a guy with 3rd degree burns? Not against international law.
If it turns him into a chatty cathy, that's just an ordinary side effect of necessary medication.
| 111 |
Racer X Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:40:38am |
re: #106 MandyManners
He was wearing women's undies? Really?
Victoria's Secret?
Aisha's Shame.
Its a copycat store.
| 112 |
SixDegrees Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:40:56am |
| 113 |
EastSider Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:41:08am |
more related to the previous topic on security, but that thread is withering.
so:
[Link: gizmodo.com...]
FTA: "The TSA is saying clearly that they can't prevent terrorists from getting explosives on airplanes, but by god, they'll make sure those planes explode only when the TSA says it's okay."
| 114 |
RogueOne Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:41:16am |
re: #79 Gus 802
Our moral obligation would have been to stop him before he had the opportunity to attempt to blow up flight 253. Treating him as they would in a savage country would do nothing for the passengers of that flight but only serve to satisfy the primitive desires of men.
There is zero moral equivalency between not giving an asshat pain meds due to pain caused by his own actions and trying to blow up an airliner filled with holiday travelers. I understand we aren't allowed to withhold medical treatment due to treaty obligations and our own conscience but that doesn't make it the "moral" thing to do.
I guess my pet peeve is the downward decline of the word "torture". Anything short of giving a terror suspect an atty, reading him his miranda rights, putting him in a climate controlled facility and fed halal meals while watching old disney flicks is now considered torture.
| 115 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:41:34am |
re: #102 lawhawk
Torquemada - do not beg him for mercy. Torquemada - do not ask him for forgiveness. Let's face it - you can't Torquemada anything!
| 116 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:41:43am |
re: #110 sagehen
Painkillers to a guy with 3rd degree burns? Not against international law.
If it turns him into a chatty cathy, that's just an ordinary side effect of necessary medication.
you misrepresent the posts...pain killers was not the issue, sodium pentothal was
| 117 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:42:41am |
| 118 |
reine.de.tout Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:43:05am |
re: #93 lawhawk
Devil's argument time:
What if, instead of Charles' notion that Mutallab is talking freely and without coercion, we later find out that because law enforcement and intel services believed further attacks were imminent based on Mutallab's own statements and from intercepted chatter, the US actually used coercive measures up to and including what everyone here would consider torture to extract said information.
Would that change anyone's impression of the following:
1) The Obama Administration and their national security stance?
2) Seeing that this is a ticking time bomb scenario (the prevention of follow on attacks), is such action by the US justified?
3) Would the price of getting that information be too great, or is the threat of further attacks sufficient to outweigh the torture of Mutallab?
I am not particularly opposed to the use of coercive measures if and when they are used as defensive measures, as with KSM.
So in answer to you - I would actually need more information.
Is this guy placed highly enough in the organization to have extensive knowledge of future plans? It does not appear so to me. I would think the only information he has is who is own contacts are. He does not have the type of information, imo, that would satisfy me that using coercive measures would be a truly defensive move on our part.
| 119 |
Big Steve Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:43:35am |
re: #106 MandyManners
He was wearing women's undies? Really? Victoria's Secret?
not an expert on women's panties.......you tell me.....Bomber Underwear
| 120 |
webevintage Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:44:10am |
Of course he does...
(advocate torture, that is...Pat B, bringing the crazy for a long fuckin' time)
| 121 |
JoyousMN Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:45:23am |
re: #114 RogueOne
There is zero moral equivalency between not giving an asshat pain meds due to pain caused by his own actions and trying to blow up an airliner filled with holiday travelers. I understand we aren't allowed to withhold medical treatment due to treaty obligations and our own conscience but that doesn't make it the "moral" thing to do.
I guess my pet peeve is the downward decline of the word "torture". Anything short of giving a terror suspect an atty, reading him his miranda rights, putting him in a climate controlled facility and fed halal meals while watching old disney flicks is now considered torture.
But that's not what anyone is saying. We're saying that torture is immoral and probably counter productive. Then we're saying that "the rule of law" requires those other things. Don't confuse these two.
| 122 |
SasyMomaCat Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:46:06am |
It has always frustrated me to no end when PB was heralded by this media outlet or that one as a spokesperson for conservatism or for Christianity. IMO, he represents neither. (PB's a pretty good abbreviation - he's just that nutty)
| 123 |
brookly red Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:46:15am |
re: #119 Big Steve
not an expert on women's panties...you tell me...Bomber Underwear
/so his defense will be that he didn't know what his draws were stuffed with he was merely trying to enhance his appearance?
| 124 |
RogueOne Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:46:22am |
re: #86 JoyousMN
No, it's not moral equivalency. We were given moral obligations by the founders of our country in how they thought we should manage our democracy. They handed us a tool maintaining a society of people called the Constitution. It mandates that we uphold the rule of law, not vigilante justice. We may all want to hurt this guy for what he tried to do, but it's not right and it's not in our own best interests. Additionally we set the example for the world to follow and we need to follow our laws even (maybe especially) when it's hard.
You have that exactly backwards. We've grown civilized in our old age. 200 years ago this guy wouldn't have made it through the weekend before he would have been hanged.
| 125 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:47:02am |
| 126 |
Killgore Trout Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:47:58am |
More well reasoned commentary....
Ted Nugent: 'Obama Should Be Jailed'
Rocker Ted Nugent isn't a fan of U.S. leader Barack Obama - he thinks the President should be jailed.The Cat Scratch Fever hitmaker, a fervent Republican, insists America should be ashamed about voting in the Democrat, who took office in January (09).
He tells Royal Flush magazine, "I think that Barack Hussein Obama should be put in jail. It is clear that Barack Hussein Obama is a communist.
"(Former Chinese leader) Mao Tse Tung lives and his name is Barack Hussein Obama. This country should be ashamed. I wanna throw up."
| 127 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:48:32am |
| 128 |
Big Steve Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:48:57am |
Regarding the theme of this thread....when in doubt in this insane world, always go back to your first principles which in this case is the good old US Constitution. We collectively have in our souls the imprint of this document which clearly states that you cannot torture (cruel and unusual punishment), have a right to a speedy trial by a jury of your peers and fundamentally insists that it is better to let a guilty person go free than to imprison an innocent person.
| 129 |
SasyMomaCat Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:49:09am |
re: #127 SanFranciscoZionist
Agreed - he's been sorely in need of strong meds for a LOOOONG time now.
| 130 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:49:15am |
re: #8 Killgore Trout
There are also a lot of calls from the right to try him as an enemy combatant. I don't think it's really practical and not necessary. He's talking and we will have no problem convicting him.
Try him, lock him up, end of story. Use what information we get to take out the planners.
| 131 |
JoyousMN Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:49:19am |
re: #124 RogueOne
Vigilante justice was in the Constitution?
No, I do understand what you're saying. But I think your argument really ends up supporting my point.
| 132 |
Big Steve Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:50:11am |
| 133 |
Racer X Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:50:18am |
So the bigger question is:
Two former Gitmo detainees were involved in this terror plot. Do we still want to release more of these poor guys out into the world?
Or do we leave em on a plush tropical island to rot?
| 134 |
SixDegrees Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:50:19am |
re: #126 Killgore Trout
More well reasoned commentary...
Ted Nugent: 'Obama Should Be Jailed'
Unlike many politicians, The Nuge is, if nothing else, consistent in his positions.
| 135 |
Digital Display Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:50:44am |
re: #125 MandyManners
Pale green?
We are three years away from fake boobies filled with C4...*shutter*
| 136 |
Shiplord Kirel Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:50:56am |
Uh, where did Pat get the idea that non-citizens don't have Constitutional rights when they are arrested in this country?
| 137 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:51:01am |
| 138 |
Blueheron Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:51:04am |
| 139 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:51:43am |
re: #23 JoyousMN
Yes. That really is the worst part of this, views like this will always be part of any society. The fact that Buchanan isn't marginalized for these beliefs says a lot about the state of the media in this country.
The conventional wisdom around here seems to be that the liberal media aids and abets him to make conservatives look bad. I don't know what the conventional wisdom seems to be about why the conservatives of America haven't yet completely cut him off is.
He appeals to the fringe, and the fringe is growing. As the Neocon Spring dies down, he will appeal more.
| 140 |
Lidane Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:51:46am |
re: #136 Shiplord Kirel
Uh, where did Pat get the idea that non-citizens don't have Constitutional rights when they are arrested in this country?
He pulled it out of the same part of his anatomy that told him that Hitler wasn't all that bad. =P
| 141 |
Sheila Broflovski Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:51:59am |
re: #123 brookly red
/so his defense will be that he didn't know what his draws were stuffed with he was merely trying to enhance his appearance?
Is that some PETN in your jockeys or are you just glad to see me?
| 142 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:52:08am |
re: #135 HoosierHoops
We are three years away from fake boobies filled with C4...*shutter*
I need to sit on my hands for a minute.
| 143 |
brookly red Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:52:24am |
re: #135 HoosierHoops
We are three years away from fake boobies filled with C4...*shutter*
if you have thought of it, they have thought of it...
| 144 |
Racer X Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:52:37am |
re: #126 Killgore Trout
More well reasoned commentary...
Ted Nugent: 'Obama Should Be Jailed'
Ted is one rocker that I really wish would be taking recreational drugs. It would chill him out a bit.
| 145 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:53:00am |
re: #67 MandyManners
To paint Conservatives with the same brush.
Why would you even consider a monster like Pat to be a conservative? If you consider him part of your movement, then you invite getting painted with him. Don't even give him the false honor of calling him what he isn't. He is not a conservative. He's some abhorrent pseudo-nazi. Just call everything as it is, and you will have no problems with the brush.
| 146 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:53:01am |
re: #29 MandyManners
Point of order: the KKK doesn't set a cross on fire. They "light it up."
New info for me! Thank you.
| 147 |
Big Steve Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:53:17am |
re: #135 HoosierHoops
We are three years away from fake boobies filled with C4...*shutter*
I am so totally volunteering to work for TSA when it comes to screening for that!
| 148 |
recusancy Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:53:17am |
re: #126 Killgore Trout
More well reasoned commentary...
Ted Nugent: 'Obama Should Be Jailed'
He's a class act. Here he is in '07 waving machine guns and threatening Obama and Hillary at a show:
| 149 |
RogueOne Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:53:53am |
re: #96 SixDegrees
These same people sawed off Dan Pearl's head on camera because he was an American, and for no other reason than that. I'd rather not become the people we're fighting.
Daniel Pearl died because he was a jew, he could have been a canadian jew and it wouldn't have mattered.
Our system of government was put into place to protect us, no one else. When an actual threat materializes it's our governments job to do what is best to protect the populace. You have every right as an individial to be as pacifist and as pleasant with your enemies as you choose, our government has a much different obligation. We've already seen where the behavior that a lot of people in here would like us to continue leads, Art therapy. If that plane had gone down those American lives would have been laid at the feet of the people we elected who swore to protect us and chose not to.
| 150 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:53:57am |
re: #145 LudwigVanQuixote
Why would you even consider a monster like Pat to be a conservative? If you consider him part of your movement, then you invite getting painted with him. Don't even give him the false honor of calling him what he isn't. He is not a conservative. He's some abhorrent pseudo-nazi. Just call everything as it is, and you will have no problems with the brush.
It's the MFM who consider him a Conservative, not I. I think he's a reactionary asshole.
| 151 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:54:48am |
re: #146 SanFranciscoZionist
New info for me! Thank you.
I once attended a KKK rally when I was a reporter. I freaked them out when some smoke got in my eyes and I said, "Oy."
| 152 |
EastSider Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:55:22am |
re: #147 Big Steve
I am so totally volunteering to work for TSA when it comes to screening for that!
As someone already alluded to, for every 1 Megan Fox you'll be screening 100 Rosie O'Donnell's, and 500 John Goodmans.
You can have the job. I'll take my chances at the local watering hole.
| 153 |
Blueheron Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:55:22am |
re: #14 Locker
I would be a lot happier if his yammer was confined to a little blog somewhere on the net. The fact that he's constantly given a nationally televised voice to spout this drivel is the frustrating part.
I really think MSNBC could do a better job of finding a paid conservative pundit. It is almost as if MSNBC wants to deliberatly embarass conservatives with this worthless piece of dreck.
| 155 |
Racer X Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:55:38am |
re: #119 Big Steve
not an expert on women's panties...you tell me...Bomber Underwear
Not to get too gross here, but that packet of powder looks like it wasn't in his underwear for the entire ride. He pulled it out of his ass at some point.
| 156 |
jdog29 Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:55:44am |
re: #133 Racer X
So the bigger question is:
Two former Gitmo detainees were involved in this terror plot. Do we still want to release more of these poor guys out into the world?
Or do we leave em on a plush tropical island to rot?
re: #149 RogueOne
Daniel Pearl died because he was a jew, he could have been a canadian jew and it wouldn't have mattered.
Our system of government was put into place to protect us, no one else. When an actual threat materializes it's our governments job to do what is best to protect the populace. You have every right as an individial to be as pacifist and as pleasant with your enemies as you choose, our government has a much different obligation. We've already seen where the behavior that a lot of people in here would like us to continue leads, Art therapy. If that plane had gone down those American lives would have been laid at the feet of the people we elected who swore to protect us and chose not to.
How is it possible that I am finding out just now through this post the fact that Daniel Pearl is a Jew?
| 157 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:55:54am |
Random aside:
I feel really sorry for this terrorist's father. This is a man who cared about his son, was paying attention, and did the right thing.
He's got to be hurting right now.
| 158 |
RogueOne Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:56:23am |
re: #156 jdog29
How is it possible that I am finding out just now through this post the fact that Daniel Pearl is a Jew?
Seriously or did you forget the sarc tag?
| 159 |
BlackFedora Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:56:41am |
Why the hell is Pat Buchanan still being interviewed on television where people might see it?
| 160 |
reine.de.tout Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:56:52am |
re: #114 RogueOne
. . .
I guess my pet peeve is the downward decline of the word "torture". Anything short of giving a terror suspect an atty, reading him his miranda rights, putting him in a climate controlled facility and fed halal meals while watching old disney flicks is now considered torture.
I sometimes think as you do, that that has happened to the definition of "torture".
But it isn't, really.
Basically - I think we all struggle with the point at which we are OK with hurting another person.
I think it's my obligation to other people to treat them courteously and respectfully, and that includes avoiding imposing any sort of physical or psychological hurt.
But I feel strongly that my obligation to treat other people that way ends the minute another person poses a threat to my life or safety, or the lives and safety of my family to whom I owe a greater obligation of protection.
Putting that into a bigger picture - I am against the harming of another person (torture) UNLESS that person is known to desire harm to harm myself and my fellow citizens, and is known to have knowledge that could prevent death or harm to me or my fellow citizens. Knowledge of that sort can reasonably be assumed to be in the possession of someone like KSM; however, can it be reasonably assumed to be in the possession of this guy? I think not.
re: #128 Big Steve
Regarding the theme of this thread...when in doubt in this insane world, always go back to your first principles which in this case is the good old US Constitution. We collectively have in our souls the imprint of this document which clearly states that you cannot torture (cruel and unusual punishment), have a right to a speedy trial by a jury of your peers and fundamentally insists that it is better to let a guilty person go free than to imprison an innocent person.
Big Steve - do we have the right to defend ourselves? If the question is to kill a person in the battlefield, OR to capture the person and use coercive measures to get information the person is known to have that must be made known in order for us to defend ourselves - which would you prefer?
| 161 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:57:06am |
re: #150 MandyManners
It's the MFM who consider him a Conservative, not I. I think he's a reactionary asshole.
The biggest bit of the MSM that paints him as a conservative, as in something that fits with the conservative movement that should be accepted by the typical American conservative is Fox.
Pretty much every liberal in the world saw Pat as some fringe of the fringe asshole before the right wing began to lurch into crazy and Fox began to pimp him.
If you are opposed to the MSM painting Pat as something you are not, then you need to reclaim your movement for the sane and not blame the liberals. The right wing knowingly pimped this whore. It is all on them.
| 162 |
Ben Hur Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:57:15am |
re: #56 Killgore Trout
We've never prosecuted terrorists captured on us soil as enemy combatants. In this case there's no need to do so. Why open up all the legal and constitutional problems by doing it now? We have an easy case against him and there's no advantage to torturing him and putting him before a military tribunal? It serves no purpose and provides no advantage.
Good points.
(Obviously it serves no purpose to torturing the guy)
| 163 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:57:40am |
re: #156 jdog29
How is it possible that I am finding out just now through this post the fact that Daniel Pearl is a Jew?
His captors were very, very clear on this point.
| 164 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:57:46am |
re: #50 lawhawk
Once again, Buchanan shows how much of an blowhard he is for suggesting torture to elicit information that Mutallab is apparently giving freely.
There's a group of people--and I include Dershowitz, who I by and large like, along with Buchanan and many others--who saw 9/11 as a chance to justify judicial torture.
Jack Bauer, Lord love the man, didn't help.
The eagerness strikes me as exceedingly unfitting to Americans, hinting at evil, and largely stupid as hell. But they persist. They really wanna.
| 165 |
brookly red Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:58:23am |
re: #155 Racer X
Not to get too gross here, but that packet of powder looks like it wasn't in his underwear for the entire ride. He pulled it out of his ass at some point.
I heard it was passed to him in Amsterdam, but that may not be true...
| 166 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:59:13am |
re: #46 Slap
Perhaps. Sometimes I fall into overly crude mode. But since the question was a variant of "how do you torture someone who has already toasted his testes", my first though went to gee, what WOULD be torture, and to be forced to view intact men doing the thing he had hoped to find and could no longer do would be pretty significant torture, in my mind.
Clockwork Orange wasn't too far from my mind there, either.
Do we have a "poor taste" tag?
No, although I have thought of petitioning Charles for a 'groan' dinger.
| 167 |
Darth Vader Gargoyle Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:59:27am |
re: #159 BlackFedora
Why the hell is Pat Buchanan still being interviewed on television where people might see it?
Not to worry, it was MSNBC.
//
| 168 |
wrenchwench Tue, Dec 29, 2009 11:59:55am |
re: #156 jdog29
How is it possible that I am finding out just now through this post the fact that Daniel Pearl is a Jew?
That means you didn't watch the beheading video. I don't recommend it, but you would have found out there.
| 170 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:00:22pm |
re: #59 MandyManners
Ummm...isn't denial of medical care torture?
Yes. And on a purely practical level, a man with third-degree burns and no pain meds is not going to be in any condition to talk to anyone.
| 171 |
SixDegrees Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:02:03pm |
re: #148 recusancy
He's a class act. Here he is in '07 waving machine guns and threatening Obama and Hillary at a show:
[Video]
Ted is certainly one crazy mofo. But an engaging one. Even Anthony Bourdain couldn't help but like him when he visited him on No Reservations:
| 172 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:02:03pm |
re: #164 SanFranciscoZionist
There's a group of people--and I include Dershowitz, who I by and large like, along with Buchanan and many others--who saw 9/11 as a chance to justify judicial torture.
Jack Bauer, Lord love the man, didn't help.
The eagerness strikes me as exceedingly unfitting to Americans, hinting at evil, and largely stupid as hell. But they persist. They really wanna.
And that is really the point. You can't be the good guys if you stop being the good guys.
Then there is the main point that torture does not work.
All of this talk about well "what about he knows where a bomb is and the clock is ticking..."
Well if you torture him the two most likely outcomes are...
1. He would rather die then tell you.
2. You hurt him so badly that he tells you what you think you want to hear. In other words, he lies. The militaries of the world would not have roundly condemned torture if it actually were such a viable mode of gaining intelligence. Civilized courts of law would likely still admit torture as evidence if it were reliable testimony.
The big elephant in the room that no one on the pro torture side ever seems to acknowledge is that it does not work.
| 173 |
Blueheron Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:02:12pm |
re: #45 Vambo
and FOX, he shows up on O'Reilly once in awhile. IMO the reason he's not on FOX more often is because they consider him too left-of-center/dangerously independent. he was also critical of Bush when he was in office - very dangerous.
I don't remember him being on O'Reilly. Can you tell us the last time he was?
| 174 |
Racer X Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:02:15pm |
re: #119 Big Steve
not an expert on women's panties...you tell me...Bomber Underwear
From the article linked:
Al Qaeda is said to have acquired the latest airport scanners and is training an 'army' of young terrorists how to bypass the latest security measures.
But "the system worked".
Just like the system worked after Lockerbie?
| 175 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:03:10pm |
re: #75 RogueOne
That's called moral equivalence and it's baloney. We didn't set his junk on fire, he did. Our moral obligation is to the hundred plus passengers on that plane and the next plane, not him.
No, that's not moral equivalence. We have a moral code, as a nation, and we live by it. That is what makes us great, that is what makes us just, and that is what makes us the United States of America. We do NOT abandon that code because we are frightened, or because we are angry, or because we are vengeful. We have things that we believe in, just as our enemies do, and ours are finer and more true. We do not abandon them.
| 176 |
abolitionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:03:19pm |
re: #83 theliel
Teh nazi sub guys got a trail in front of the Supreme Court IIRC, and a goddmaned speedy one at that.[snip]
Military Commission, not Supreme Court. Speedy indeed.
FBI History - Famous Cases
George John Dasch and the Nazi Saboteurs
Shortly after midnight on the morning of June 13, 1942, four men landed on a beach near Amagansett, Long Island, New York, from a German submarine, clad in German uniforms and bringing ashore enough explosives, primers, and incendiaries to support an expected two-year career in the sabotage of American defense-related production. On June 17, 1942, a similar group landed on Ponte Vedra Beach, near Jacksonville, Florida, equipped for a similar career in industrial disruption.
The purpose of the invasions was to strike a major blow for Germany by bringing the violence of war to our home ground through destruction of America's ability to manufacture vital equipment and supplies and transport them to the battlegrounds of Europe; to strike fear into the American civilian population, and diminish the resolve of the United States to overcome our enemies.
By June 27, 1942, all eight saboteurs had been arrested without having accomplished one act of destruction. Tried before a Military Commission, they were found guilty. One was sentenced to life imprisonment, another to thirty years, and six received the death penalty, which was carried out within a few days.
[snip]
| 177 |
Cineaste Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:03:32pm |
OT: Karl "We Must Preserve The Institution Of Marriage" Rove received a divorce today.
But hey, let's keep telling gay people it's all their fault... //
| 178 |
Sheila Broflovski Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:03:48pm |
re: #156 jdog29
How is it possible that I am finding out just now through this post the fact that Daniel Pearl is a Jew?
What plush tropical island are you living on?
| 179 |
jdog29 Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:03:59pm |
re: #163 EmmmieG
His captors were very, very clear on this point.
I knew he was a journalist and that's all. I remember his executioner's offering his family food rations similar to those being dropped on Afghanistan at the time, His being a Jew COULD NOT have been covered extensively in the repetitive loop most stories now receive or it would have been hardwired into my brain against my will, (much like Tiger Woods' escapades have)
| 180 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:04:09pm |
re: #82 SixDegrees
Pat probably really does think that. An awful lot of his pronouncements have to do with inflicting pain and suffering on various people who aren't Pat Buchanan.
That pretty much sums him up, don't it?
| 181 |
Big Steve Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:04:26pm |
re: #160 reine.de.tout
Big Steve - do we have the right to defend ourselves? If the question is to kill a person in the battlefield, OR to capture the person and use coercive measures to get information the person is known to have that must be made known in order for us to defend ourselves - which would you prefer?
What is the difference between this and any person who is caught by the police but may have knowledge of past or future crimes. There is no discernible line. If a person is arrested for a crime they have the right to shut up and not further incriminate themselves. While this sometimes maybe a short term incongruity with the safety of others, long term it protects us all.
| 182 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:05:23pm |
re: #84 Lateralis
Are you trying to say that gangs that are killing Americans is the same as a terrorist organization that is trying to destabilize our government is the same?
Gangs destabilize American society, and probably kill more Americans that al-Qaeda has managed to. Not 'the same' on a number of levels, but I'd say they're competitive in the evil department, if less well represented in the media.
| 183 |
Digital Display Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:05:55pm |
re: #147 Big Steve
I am so totally volunteering to work for TSA when it comes to screening for that!
This is why we need High Tech Software to control all airport Security..
Look you walk into a little tunnel...Take your laptop..Keep your shoes on..Carry-on encouraged...And some program checks your shit out and passes you or not...If Microsoft were smart they would redirect a thousand programmers. To the user you walk through a tunnel and programs check you out....@ Microsoft all rights reserved 2015
| 184 |
Blueheron Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:05:56pm |
re: #53 Alouette
Why oh why is this putz given so much airtime and credibility?
Because MSNBC doesn't know what a real conservative is?
| 185 |
Sheila Broflovski Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:06:26pm |
re: #165 brookly red
I heard it was passed to him in Amsterdam, but that may not be true...
I want to see the tapes of security screening in Amsterdam. I especially want to see where this guy just shuffles on through while diabetic grandpa in a wheelchair gets pulled aside for more thorough searching.
| 186 |
Cineaste Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:06:42pm |
re: #176 abolitionist
I think that case is a little more cut and dry since they were members of a regular Army.
| 187 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:06:46pm |
re: #184 Blueheron
Because MSNBC doesn't know what a real conservative is?
You mean Fox... It is Fox who pimps him tirelessly as a reasonable voice of conservatism. Get real.
| 188 |
recusancy Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:07:19pm |
re: #184 Blueheron
Because MSNBC doesn't know what a real conservative is?
Who should they have on? Who's a real conservative that they should replace him with?
| 189 |
SixDegrees Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:07:33pm |
re: #183 HoosierHoops
This is why we need High Tech Software to control all airport Security..
Look you walk into a little tunnel...Take your laptop..Keep your shoes on..Carry-on encouraged...And some program checks your shit out and passes you or not...If Microsoft were smart they would redirect a thousand programmers. To the user you walk through a tunnel and programs check you out...@ Microsoft all rights reserved 2015
I'm not sure which fills me with more fear: trusting my safety to the TSA, or trusting my safety to Microsoft.
| 190 |
brookly red Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:07:36pm |
re: #182 SanFranciscoZionist
Gangs destabilize American society, and probably kill more Americans that al-Qaeda has managed to. Not 'the same' on a number of levels, but I'd say they're competitive in the evil department, if less well represented in the media.
there was some guy on the radio today comparing the drug gangs in Mexico to AQ, & he made a good case.
| 191 |
reine.de.tout Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:07:37pm |
re: #181 Big Steve
What is the difference between this and any person who is caught by the police but may have knowledge of past or future crimes. There is no discernible line. If a person is arrested for a crime they have the right to shut up and not further incriminate themselves. While this sometimes maybe a short term incongruity with the safety of others, long term it protects us all.
Absolutely true.
It is a difficult struggle, for me, to try to figure out where our obligation toward others ends because our obligations to protect ourselves has begun.
I don't think there are easy answers.
| 192 |
RogueOne Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:08:26pm |
re: #131 JoyousMN
Vigilante justice was in the Constitution?
No, I do understand what you're saying. But I think your argument really ends up supporting my point.
My point is when this nation was founded saboteurs and spies were taken out and hanged. They weren't given legal council, the right to an atty and a speedy trial. If they were caught red handed they were dealt with in a matter of minutes. The argument that foreign nationals caught on american soil plotting destruction are immediately granted constitutional rights is a much newer interpretation, as a matter-of-fact during WW2 the german saboteurs were given a secret military trial and then put in the electric chair.
| 193 |
Blueheron Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:08:56pm |
re: #60 LudwigVanQuixote
Because the American right wing is less and less ashamed of being nazi.
This American right winger does not appreciate the broad brush used. We are smarter than Buchanan and the idiots who have given him a soap box as their expert.
| 194 |
Cineaste Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:09:16pm |
re: #189 SixDegrees
I'm not sure which fills me with more fear: trusting my safety to the TSA, or trusting my safety to Microsoft.
How about Apple! ///
| 195 |
Blueheron Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:09:34pm |
re: #187 LudwigVanQuixote
You mean Fox... It is Fox who pimps him tirelessly as a reasonable voice of conservatism. Get real.
You are wrong but then again maybe you watch more FOX than I do.
| 196 |
wrenchwench Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:09:40pm |
re: #187 LudwigVanQuixote
You mean Fox... It is Fox who pimps him tirelessly as a reasonable voice of conservatism. Get real.
Did you watch the clip? Or look at the still in the post above? Or read what Charles wrote?
Here’s crypto-fascist Pat “Hitler Wasn’t So Bad” Buchanan on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” show,
| 197 |
SixDegrees Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:10:13pm |
| 198 |
reine.de.tout Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:10:15pm |
re: #188 recusancy
Who should they have on? Who's a real conservative that they should replace him with?
Me.
| 199 |
Digital Display Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:10:18pm |
| 200 |
Big Steve Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:10:18pm |
re: #183 HoosierHoops
This is why we need High Tech Software to control all airport Security..
Look you walk into a little tunnel...Take your laptop..Keep your shoes on..Carry-on encouraged...And some program checks your shit out and passes you or not...If Microsoft were smart they would redirect a thousand programmers. To the user you walk through a tunnel and programs check you out...@ Microsoft all rights reserved 2015
like this.....Total Recall
| 201 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:10:20pm |
re: #119 Big Steve
not an expert on women's panties...you tell me...Bomber Underwear
I still don't think so.
| 203 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:11:30pm |
re: #124 RogueOne
You have that exactly backwards. We've grown civilized in our old age. 200 years ago this guy wouldn't have made it through the weekend before he would have been hanged.
You think that in 1809, we would not have jailed this guy and given him a trial with representation before hanging him? I believe you are mistaken.
| 204 |
JoyousMN Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:11:55pm |
re: #192 RogueOne
So your bottom line is that you would prefer to live in a US where we simply took people out and killed them when they committed crimes. No due process, no presumption of innocence, no trial.
Well OK then. Not the country I want to live in, but to each his own I guess.
| 205 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:11:56pm |
re: #195 Blueheron
You are wrong but then again maybe you watch more FOX than I do.
Well it seems that Pat is actually a commentator for Fox which pimps itself as the voice of American conservatism... Connect the dots.
| 206 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:12:20pm |
re: #136 Shiplord Kirel
Uh, where did Pat get the idea that non-citizens don't have Constitutional rights when they are arrested in this country?
He so wishes it were true, that he's convinced himself.
| 207 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:12:39pm |
re: #196 wrenchwench
Yes he shows up at MSNBC. He shows up more on Fox.
| 208 |
wrenchwench Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:12:41pm |
| 209 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:13:32pm |
re: #156 jdog29
How is it possible that I am finding out just now through this post the fact that Daniel Pearl is a Jew?
You live under a rock?
//Sorry.
| 210 |
Vambo Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:13:32pm |
re: #173 Blueheron
I don't remember him being on O'Reilly. Can you tell us the last time he was?
I think around the time Obama got the Democratic nomination... which is quite some time ago. oops.
| 211 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:13:43pm |
re: #193 Blueheron
This American right winger does not appreciate the broad brush used. We are smarter than Buchanan and the idiots who have given him a soap box as their expert.
Then please for the love of G-d, reclaim your movement. There are all sorts of respectable conservatives whom I admire. They are not the ones speaking for you however. This should be obvious.
| 212 |
abolitionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:14:17pm |
re: #186 Cineaste
I think that case is a little more cut and dry since they were members of a regular Army.
Sort of. From my link,
Both groups landed wearing complete or partial German uniforms to ensure treatment as prisoners of war rather than as spies if they were caught in the act of landing.Having landed unobserved, the uniforms were quickly discarded, to be buried with the sabotage material (which was intended to be later retrieved), and civilian clothing was donned.
At that point they were spies, according to the Geneva Conventions.
| 213 |
Randall Gross Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:14:43pm |
| 214 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:15:38pm |
re: #168 wrenchwench
That means you didn't watch the beheading video. I don't recommend it, but you would have found out there.
One of my coworkers discovered that one of her students had watched that. Her brother forwarded it to her, and she just opened it. Fifteen-year-old girl, loves kittens. She was a wreck.
| 215 |
RogueOne Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:15:57pm |
re: #175 SanFranciscoZionist
No, that's not moral equivalence. We have a moral code, as a nation, and we live by it. That is what makes us great, that is what makes us just, and that is what makes us the United States of America. We do NOT abandon that code because we are frightened, or because we are angry, or because we are vengeful. We have things that we believe in, just as our enemies do, and ours are finer and more true. We do not abandon them.
It is moral equivalence and a whitewashing of how we as a nation have dealt with enemies. We may have come a long way in the last 40 years but there is nothing wrong with treating people who try to blow up planes like people who want to blow up planes. Our constitution wasn't written to protect foreign nationals from us and to grant them the rights that we as a people have shed blood to achieve.
Like I said, as an individual you have every right to decide what moral compass you choose when dealing with a threat, our government doesn't have that right. It has one job and one job only, to protect the populace. Allowing terrorists that have failed in their missions to kill hundreds to lawyer up is an abdication of their duty to do what it takes, within our laws and treaty obligations, to protect us.
| 216 |
celticdragon Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:16:02pm |
re: #49 RogueOne
Withholding medical treatment from a prisoner is a serious violation of international treaties that we are signatories unto, as well as numerous federal statutes and applicable Constitutional concerns regarding equal protection and cruel & unusual punishment.
| 217 |
SixDegrees Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:16:21pm |
re: #200 Big Steve
like this...Total Recall
Months later, you receive an email:
Dear sir or madam,
We note that you passed through our MicroSoft PeopleScan 2.7 station at Detroit Metropolitan Airport on March 12, 2013. We have recently learned that, due to a feature of our scanning software that was inadvertently set "On" at the time, you may have received a dose of X-rays 3000 times greater than what it normally recommended on an annual basis. You may wish to consult with your physician regarding this matter.
Please note that the shrinkwrap agreement signed by the airport when purchasing this product, and which you implicitly agreed to when you purchased your ticked, exempts MicroSoft Corporation from any legal or financial liabilities related to this matter. Please contact our legal campus if you have further questions.
| 218 |
The Sanity Inspector Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:16:31pm |
re: #124 RogueOne
You have that exactly backwards. We've grown civilized in our old age. 200 years ago this guy wouldn't have made it through the weekend before he would have been hanged.
Him and no few innocent others, who just happened to be the wrong color in the wrong place at the wrong time.
| 219 |
RogueOne Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:16:52pm |
re: #187 LudwigVanQuixote
You mean Fox... It is Fox who pimps him tirelessly as a reasonable voice of conservatism. Get real.
he's on Morning Joe a few times a week. For some reason they love him.
| 220 |
Charles Johnson Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:16:55pm |
re: #184 Blueheron
Because MSNBC doesn't know what a real conservative is?
It's not limited to MSNBC, unfortunately. Buchanan also appears frequently on Fox News, and Sean Hannity has introduced him as "the great Patrick J. Buchanan." And Buchanan's columns are published at every right wing news site -- Townhall, Human Events, World Net Daily -- all of them.
William F. Buckley would be appalled to see Buchanan still so influential on the right.
| 221 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:18:01pm |
re: #190 brookly red
there was some guy on the radio today comparing the drug gangs in Mexico to AQ, & he made a good case.
for sure...each want's to destabilize and each is perfectly ruthless, well armed and certainly well funded...the narcos down there are a huge threat to Mexico, which, of course, will have no effect on us
| 222 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:18:13pm |
re: #190 brookly red
there was some guy on the radio today comparing the drug gangs in Mexico to AQ, & he made a good case.
Oh, hell, in Mexico it's really bad.
| 223 |
SasyMomaCat Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:18:20pm |
re: #211 LudwigVanQuixote
Then please for the love of G-d, reclaim your movement. There are all sorts of respectable conservatives whom I admire. They are not the ones speaking for you however. This should be obvious.
Could you tell us who some of these are? No sarc, seriously curious. Would like to know which current conservative thinkers have earned your respect.
| 224 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:18:46pm |
re: #203 SanFranciscoZionist
You think that in 1809, we would not have jailed this guy and given him a trial with representation before hanging him? I believe you are mistaken.
Iin the absence of ballistics testing, chemical testing, blood testing, DNA testing, etc, they would have gone with the accounts of eyewitnesses, which are pretty clear in this case.
They did use to hang people pretty quickly, by our standards.
| 225 |
Cineaste Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:18:55pm |
re: #212 abolitionist
At that point they were spies, according to the Geneva Conventions.
Granted - but spies, according the 4th Geneva Convention, get treated like other soldiers.
| 226 |
Ugly John Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:19:39pm |
re: #213 Thanos
Man only 13/20. I'm really out of the loop on the latest in astronomy.
| 227 |
Surabaya Stew Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:19:49pm |
Sorry Kilgore, am having iPhone coordination problems and didn't mean to flag your post 56. Sorry about that, will bemore careful in the future.
| 228 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:19:57pm |
re: #170 SanFranciscoZionist
Yes. And on a purely practical level, a man with third-degree burns and no pain meds is not going to be in any condition to talk to anyone.
All he'd be able to do is moan and groan.
| 229 |
RogueOne Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:19:58pm |
re: #203 SanFranciscoZionist
You think that in 1809, we would not have jailed this guy and given him a trial with representation before hanging him? I believe you are mistaken.
No, I'm sure of it. At most he would be in jail long enough for a gallows to be constructed. He's an enemy combatant and we've always dealt harshly with people like that. Spies and saboteurs were dealt with quickly and harshly.
| 230 |
Cineaste Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:20:49pm |
re: #215 RogueOne
Allowing terrorists that have failed in their missions to kill hundreds to lawyer up is an abdication of their duty to do what it takes, within our laws and treaty obligations, to protect us.
How so? I don't understand why everyone is so afraid of civilian courts for terrorists. We're really, really good at convicting them and making sure they stay locked up in super-max facilities for a long, long time.
| 231 |
SixDegrees Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:21:07pm |
re: #216 celticdragon
Withholding medical treatment from a prisoner is a serious violation of international treaties that we are signatories unto, as well as numerous federal statutes and applicable Constitutional concerns regarding equal protection and cruel & unusual punishment.
It's also cruel and wrong.
| 232 |
SasyMomaCat Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:21:21pm |
re: #214 SanFranciscoZionist
I think, even as adults, we are far too often oblivious to the lasting impression a visual can leave. Shocking images leave indelible impressions in our psyche. Especially something like that.
| 233 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:21:45pm |
re: #213 Thanos
I will be happy when these quizzes require actual understanding of concepts rather than science trivia.
What I mean is, it is much less important to know that Cassini HHuygens was the name of a probe to Saturn, or that Subaru uses the Seven Sisters as a logo, than it would be to understand that the mass and composition of a star determine its temperature or that orbitals are all the results of central forces.
| 234 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:21:46pm |
re: #215 RogueOne
Like I said, as an individual you have every right to decide what moral compass you choose when dealing with a threat, our government doesn't have that right. It has one job and one job only, to protect the populace.
Nonsense. The government does not have 'one job, and one job only', nor is it free to disregard our own legal structure. Take it up with the Supreme Court, or leave it alone, but the government of the United States is not our Rottweiler.
| 235 |
RogueOne Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:21:50pm |
re: #204 JoyousMN
So your bottom line is that you would prefer to live in a US where we simply took people out and killed them when they committed crimes. No due process, no presumption of innocence, no trial.
Well OK then. Not the country I want to live in, but to each his own I guess.
That isn't what I said. What I said was our government has a responsibility to protect the populace and they cannot achieve that goal to it's utmost by deciding to put this guy in the federal legal system. This is why Gitmo should be left open so that people like this who are caught red handed, and red crotched, have zero chance of ever seeing the light of day again.
| 236 |
Cineaste Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:22:01pm |
re: #215 RogueOne
and ps: this person was taken into custody on US soil which, personally, I feel raises the ethical bar as well. It's not like we picked him up in a hut in Afghanistan. He was taken into custody by police at Detroit airport.
| 237 |
celticdragon Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:22:04pm |
re: #192 RogueOne
My point is when this nation was founded saboteurs and spies were taken out and hanged. They weren't given legal council, the right to an atty and a speedy trial.
Cite? Where in any sense did colonial military law allow for summary execution? There were reprisal killings against the Tory Legion in South Carolina after Bannastre Tarleton massacred American prisoners. That was not official policy.
This sounds like Colbert style "truthy" BS to me.
“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775
| 238 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:22:36pm |
re: #224 EmmmieG
Iin the absence of ballistics testing, chemical testing, blood testing, DNA testing, etc, they would have gone with the accounts of eyewitnesses, which are pretty clear in this case.
They did use to hang people pretty quickly, by our standards.
True enough.
| 239 |
_RememberTonyC Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:22:41pm |
| 240 |
Digital Display Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:22:51pm |
re: #227 Surabaya Stew
Sorry Kilgore, am having iPhone coordination problems and didn't mean to flag your post 56. Sorry about that, will bemore careful in the future.
Dude..We need a Blackberry app for LGF.. It used to work great on my 7520...
Now I use a World edition and nothing renders correctly on the screen..
Calling all programmers!
| 241 |
_RememberTonyC Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:23:04pm |
re: #219 RogueOne
he's on Morning Joe a few times a week. For some reason they love him.
he's on their payroll
| 242 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:23:12pm |
re: #187 LudwigVanQuixote
You mean Fox... It is Fox who pimps him tirelessly as a reasonable voice of conservatism. Get real.
Which segment?
BTW, the video above is from MSNBC.
| 243 |
abolitionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:23:22pm |
re: #225 Cineaste
Granted - but spies, according the 4th Geneva Convention, get treated like other soldiers.
Sorry, I should not have said spies, as those are often non-military, but combatants out of uniform.
| 244 |
RogueOne Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:23:50pm |
re: #216 celticdragon
Already said that, except I don't think it's a "serious" violation. I know we have to give him meds, what we don't have to do is give him a lawyer and a nice place to stay while he awaits a civilian trial.
| 245 |
_RememberTonyC Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:24:06pm |
re: #153 Blueheron
I really think MSNBC could do a better job of finding a paid conservative pundit. It is almost as if MSNBC wants to deliberatly embarass conservatives with this worthless piece of dreck.
bingo
| 246 |
Charles Johnson Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:24:08pm |
re: #227 Surabaya Stew
Sorry Kilgore, am having iPhone coordination problems and didn't mean to flag your post 56. Sorry about that, will bemore careful in the future.
You can reverse a mistaken ding -- just click the other button. Clicking once undoes your rating, clicking the other button twice switches from plus to minus or vice versa.
| 247 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:24:12pm |
re: #205 LudwigVanQuixote
Well it seems that Pat is actually a commentator for Fox which pimps itself as the voice of American conservatism... Connect the dots.
I watch quite a bit of Fox and I've not seen him on for a long, long time.
| 248 |
Cineaste Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:24:13pm |
re: #220 Charles
It's not limited to MSNBC, unfortunately. Buchanan also appears frequently on Fox News, and Sean Hannity has introduced him as "the great Patrick J. Buchanan." And Buchanan's columns are published at every right wing news site -- Townhall, Human Events, World Net Daily -- all of them.
William F. Buckley would be appalled to see Buchanan still so influential on the right.
Absolutely right. I'm not sure what Fox's obsession is with Nixon-era staffers. My stomach turns every time we see G. Gordon Liddy allowed on the air to talk about anything. Wasn't this guy convicted of organizing watergate? He should be put out to pasture but no, Fox has him on as a commentator.
| 250 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:24:28pm |
Ludwig
who are your admired conservatives?....for the love of G-d, reveal them
| 251 |
rwmofo Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:24:42pm |
re: #205 LudwigVanQuixote
Well it seems that Pat is actually a commentator for Fox which pimps itself as the voice of American conservatism... Connect the dots.
I'll connect a couple:
From his web-site:
"Mr. Buchanan is currently a columnist, political analyst for MSNBC, chairman of The American Cause foundation and an editor of The American Conservative."
From wikipedia:
"He is currently a political commentator on the MSNBC cable network including the show Morning Joe and a regular on The McLaughlin Group."
Don't see a paycheck coming from FOX...
| 252 |
recusancy Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:25:45pm |
re: #248 Cineaste
Absolutely right. I'm not sure what Fox's obsession is with Nixon-era staffers. My stomach turns every time we see G. Gordon Liddy allowed on the air to talk about anything. Wasn't this guy convicted of organizing watergate? He should be put out to pasture but no, Fox has him on as a commentator.
They also have Oliver North.
| 253 |
Killgore Trout Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:26:17pm |
Ugh, I have bookkeeping stuff and paperwork to do today. I really don't want to do it.
| 254 |
Charles Johnson Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:26:27pm |
re: #153 Blueheron
I really think MSNBC could do a better job of finding a paid conservative pundit. It is almost as if MSNBC wants to deliberatly embarass conservatives with this worthless piece of dreck.
So what's Townhall's excuse? What's Sean Hannity's excuse? What's Human Events's excuse?
Sorry, this doesn't work. Buchanan is very well accepted on the right wing, and it's not enough to just say that MSNBC uses him to discredit the right.
I think that probably is one motivation for MSNBC, by the way -- but it can only work because Buchanan has plenty of support from other right wing sources.
| 255 |
lawhawk Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:28:04pm |
re: #213 Thanos
18/20 (thank goodness for taking astronomy in college)...
| 256 |
celticdragon Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:28:08pm |
re: #244 RogueOne
Already said that, except I don't think it's a "serious" violation. I know we have to give him meds, what we don't have to do is give him a lawyer and a nice place to stay while he awaits a civilian trial.
What nice place would that be?
I have heard prisons called many things, but "nice" is not an appellation I would choose. Also, since laws concerning treatment of prisoners are by their very nature concerned with just that, it would seem that deliberately withholding medical treatment for sadistic pleasure would be a de facto serious violation of said laws.
Just sayin'...
| 257 |
Surabaya Stew Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:28:09pm |
re: #240 HoosierHoopsre: #246 Charles
You can reverse a mistaken ding -- just click the other button. Clicking once undoes your rating, clicking the other button twice switches from plus to minus or vice versa.
Thanks Charles, I apprechate learning that. However, I hit the exclaimation mark, and hitting it again didn't. Remove the flagged comment. Will just have to be more careful from now on.
| 258 |
Randall Gross Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:28:28pm |
re: #233 LudwigVanQuixote
Me too, but I dinged you for giving away some of the answers thus spoiling it for folks who have not yet taken it.
I think a certain amount of trivia can serve as an "introduction" and draw to non scientists, so I'm probably not as concerned about it as you are. Scientists need to do a better job at getting the public interested and it if takes trivia quizzes, so be it.
| 259 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:28:41pm |
| 260 |
Cineaste Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:28:55pm |
re: #244 RogueOne
Already said that, except I don't think it's a "serious" violation. I know we have to give him meds, what we don't have to do is give him a lawyer and a nice place to stay while he awaits a civilian trial.
Personally I don't consider isolation in a jail cell (he will certainly be held in isolation) to be a "nice place to stay".
| 261 |
RogueOne Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:29:15pm |
re: #230 Cineaste
How so? I don't understand why everyone is so afraid of civilian courts for terrorists. We're really, really good at convicting them and making sure they stay locked up in super-max facilities for a long, long time.
I'm not afraid he'll get out or be found innocent. The problem is the rules are very different on what exactly are his "rights". For one, in a military trial he can be held as long as we feel there is any threat. That isn't including the massive differences between what we're allowed to do just in questioning him. In a civilian court he can claim rights against self-incrimination and the right to only be questioned with his atty present something not available to people deemed "enemy combatants".
| 262 |
AK-47% Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:29:37pm |
re: #148 recusancy
He's a class act. Here he is in '07 waving machine guns and threatening Obama and Hillary at a show:
[Video]
If we wish to retain a certain consistency in Nuge's reasoning that Obama should be jalied, then it would only make sense to also jail all those who voted for him, i.e., a majority of the US voting population.
ergo: He is more-or-less advocating a coup against the legally elected government of this country.
Who should be jailed?
| 263 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:29:39pm |
re: #244 RogueOne
Already said that, except I don't think it's a "serious" violation. I know we have to give him meds, what we don't have to do is give him a lawyer and a nice place to stay while he awaits a civilian trial.
Uh, yes, we do have to give him an attorney if he's indigent.
| 264 |
Cineaste Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:30:14pm |
| 265 |
RogueOne Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:30:19pm |
re: #231 SixDegrees
It's also cruel and wrong.
You're a nicer person than I am. Personally I figure if he didn't want his junk to hurt he wouldn't have set it on fire. Just because we have to give him his meds doesn't mean I have to like it.
| 266 |
Randall Gross Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:30:38pm |
re: #248 Cineaste
Absolutely right. I'm not sure what Fox's obsession is with Nixon-era staffers. My stomach turns every time we see G. Gordon Liddy allowed on the air to talk about anything. Wasn't this guy convicted of organizing watergate? He should be put out to pasture but no, Fox has him on as a commentator.
Let's not forget religious right plumber Chuck Colson either.
| 267 |
drcordell Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:30:43pm |
re: #263 MandyManners
Uh, yes, we do have to give him an attorney if he's indigent.
So he gets a lawyer, and then is put to trial and found guilty due to the sheer overwhelming amount of evidence against him. Where is the problem with this?
| 268 |
_RememberTonyC Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:30:53pm |
re: #247 MandyManners
I watch quite a bit of Fox and I've not seen him on for a long, long time.
buchanan is paid by MSNBC. he appears there regularly because they PAY him. he appears on FOX occasionally, but as a "guest" and not as an employee. both networks are wrong for having a nazi sympathizing antisemite on their air.
| 269 |
RogueOne Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:32:53pm |
re: #263 MandyManners
Uh, yes, we do have to give him an attorney if he's indigent.
I was talking about the differences between a civilian and military detention. As an enemy combatant we can hold and question him as long as we choose before deciding to put him on trial and give him a lawyer.
| 270 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:33:27pm |
re: #263 MandyManners
Uh, yes, we do have to give him an attorney if he's indigent.
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), upheld the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment and the right to due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
| 271 |
celticdragon Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:33:37pm |
re: #267 drcordell
So he gets a lawyer, and then is put to trial and found guilty due to the sheer overwhelming amount of evidence against him. Where is the problem with this?
Exactly.
| 272 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:33:52pm |
re: #267 drcordell
So he gets a lawyer, and then is put to trial and found guilty due to the sheer overwhelming amount of evidence against him. Where is the problem with this?
Why are you asking me?
| 273 |
rwmofo Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:34:09pm |
re: #268 _RememberTonyC
buchanan is paid by MSNBC. he appears there regularly because they PAY him. he appears on FOX occasionally, but as a "guest" and not as an employee. both networks are wrong for having a nazi sympathizing antisemite on their air.
As a rock-hard right-winger, I fully agree. The man is an idiot with and only idiots would follow him anywhere.
| 274 |
Cineaste Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:34:27pm |
re: #263 MandyManners
Uh, yes, we do have to give him an attorney if he's indigent.
I think Rogue was saying we shouldn't give him a civilian trial (and thus legal representation). Where Rogue is wrong is that avoiding a civilian trial does not remove legal representation. Military Tribunals have lawyers for defendants and even prisoners at Guantanamo have legal defenders - to whit: see the Hamdam case.
| 275 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:34:32pm |
re: #269 RogueOne
I was talking about the differences between a civilian and military detention. As an enemy combatant we can hold and question him as long as we choose before deciding to put him on trial and give him a lawyer.
Does the USMC address the right to counsel?
| 276 |
Blueheron Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:35:16pm |
re: #188 recusancy
Who should they have on? Who's a real conservative that they should replace him with?
Newt Gingrich although I am pissed at him right now. George Will, Cal Thomas, John Bolton, Mitt Romney.
| 277 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:35:25pm |
re: #223 SasyMomaCat
Could you tell us who some of these are? No sarc, seriously curious. Would like to know which current conservative thinkers have earned your respect.
Around today, in the media, in a position of prominence, none.
Once someone goes anti-constitutional - and invading your privacy, reading your e-mails, torturing people or spying in your bedroom is certainly that, I can not support them.
Once someone goes anti-science, I can not support them. Creationists are throwbacks to a less civilized age in all too many ways and AGW deniers are honestly helping to endanger us all.
Once someone thinks that folksy and stupid is better than educated and measured, I can not support them. Find me one "conservative" of note that is actually pro education to the extent that they will put actual dollars behind good public education. The voucher program as a sap to religious schools does not count.
Once someone has no compassion for the poor, I can not support them.
Once someone panders to the base instincts of vengeance rather than justice in the courts, I can not support them. Sorry, but mandatory sentences only means you are making a show for the crowd. It has nothing to do with what is fair, sane of just - and note, I am not at all opposed to harsh sentences for those who deserve them. I am opposed to a system where some 18 year old kid who had sex with his 16 year old HS sweetheart is not on the sex offender registry. I am opposed to a first time non-violent offender getting some 5 year minimum sentence for a crime that did not deserve it.
Once someone tells me that gay people are a threat - of any kind - I can not support them. They are crazy.
Once someone assumes that the only way to fix the economy is to increase spending while cutting taxes - I begin to wonder if they understand the concept of a negative number.
Once someone assumes that all regulation of any kind is bad, it is code for, I am pimping my corporate sponsors more often than not.
Once someone replaces fear with fact and intolerance with reason - nirthers, deathers, black helicopters etc... I can not support them.
And I fucking hate racists.
So the short form is, as soon as someone says any of these things, I really can't respect them. If they say two or more, I detest them. There are none of them today who do not do this. Most of the "leaders" and mouth pieces of the right do all of these things.
In the past though, there were conservatives I admired. Winston Churchill would be a prime example.
| 279 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:35:37pm |
re: #268 _RememberTonyC
buchanan is paid by MSNBC. he appears there regularly because they PAY him. he appears on FOX occasionally, but as a "guest" and not as an employee. both networks are wrong for having a nazi sympathizing antisemite on their air.
I stayed far away from him once I dropped my affiliation with the CPUSA and joined the GOP.
| 280 |
JeffM70 Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:35:45pm |
It's unfathomable how any outlet outside of WorldDailyNet or Townhall or the Washington Times gives this guy's opinion any credence.
| 281 |
Digital Display Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:35:45pm |
re: #257 Surabaya Stew
re: #246 Charles
Thanks Charles, I apprechate learning that. However, I hit the exclaimation mark, and hitting it again didn't. Remove the flagged comment. Will just have to be more careful from now on.
Don't worry about it.. When I first got here I dinged everything available...
*Charles* Don't ding that...
*Hoopster* So what happens when I ding this?!
*Charles* Hoopster I swear I'll...
*Hoopster* Charles..Why can't I ding myself?
*Charles* Hoopster!!
*Hoopster* Just asking Charles..
*wink*
| 282 |
SixDegrees Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:35:47pm |
re: #265 RogueOne
You're a nicer person than I am. Personally I figure if he didn't want his junk to hurt he wouldn't have set it on fire. Just because we have to give him his meds doesn't mean I have to like it.
FWIW, I've been wondering whether he took anything before torching himself. Witnesses said he just sat there impassively while flames lept higher than the seat backs. Now, if it were me, I think I probably would have said something like "AAAGGH! AAAGGH! I'M ON FIRE!!! IT BURNS!!! IT BURNS!!!" if my dick were engulfed in flames. Or at least screamed incoherently. Just sitting there watching yourself go up in flames without comment sort of suggests that he self-medicated beforehand.
| 283 |
Randall Gross Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:36:06pm |
re: #261 RogueOne
The problem with your arguments is that they don't pass constitutional muster. He's committed a crime over US soil, and ergo. The only way I can see around this dilemma is for Congress to created historic precedent and actually declare war on a non state organization. If congress were to declare war on an extra national entity such as Al Qaeda, it might make some things easier and lend focus to our battle.
At some point in the fast approaching future I expect that most militant groups will be Non-state organizations, so I do not fear that precedent.
| 284 |
_RememberTonyC Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:36:22pm |
re: #276 Blueheron
Newt Gingrich although I am pissed at him right now. George Will, Cal Thomas, John Bolton, Mitt Romney.
victor davis hanson
| 285 |
SasyMomaCat Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:36:36pm |
re: #223 SasyMomaCat
Could you tell us who some of these are? No sarc, seriously curious. Would like to know which current conservative thinkers have earned your respect.
LVQ, in case you missed my request, I'm re-posting it ... which current conservative thinkers/pundits/politicians/statesmen, etc. have earned your respect?
| 286 |
Dancing along the light of day Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:37:16pm |
re: #253 Killgore Trout
Ugh, I have bookkeeping stuff and paperwork to do today. I really don't want to do it.
If it'll get the bills paid, is usually my motivation....
| 287 |
celticdragon Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:37:32pm |
re: #276 Blueheron
Newt Gingrich although I am pissed at him right now. George Will, Cal Thomas, John Bolton, Mitt Romney.
Cal Thomas is a homophobic blowhard. He advocated for the criminalization of gay people when Lawrence V Texas was litigated. He is a theocratic social "conservative".
| 289 |
_RememberTonyC Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:37:42pm |
re: #281 HoosierHoops
Don't worry about it.. When I first got here I dinged everything available...
*Charles* Don't ding that...
*Hoopster* So what happens when I ding this?!
*Charles* Hoopster I swear I'll...
*Hoopster* Charles..Why can't I ding myself?
*Charles* Hoopster!!
*Hoopster* Just asking Charles..
*wink*
dinging yourself used to be called something else :)
| 290 |
Charles Johnson Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:37:49pm |
re: #273 rwmofo
As a rock-hard right-winger, I fully agree. The man is an idiot with and only idiots would follow him anywhere.
Buchanan at Human Events: Patrick J. Buchanan: Conservative Articles - HUMAN EVENTS
His most recent article has more than a hundred comments, and they're ALL supportive.
Pat Buchanan at Townhall.com. Again, thousands and thousands of comments, all supportive. And his articles are rated very highly with their rating system.
| 291 |
SixDegrees Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:38:14pm |
re: #244 RogueOne
Already said that, except I don't think it's a "serious" violation. I know we have to give him meds, what we don't have to do is give him a lawyer and a nice place to stay while he awaits a civilian trial.
Yes, we certainly do. Everyone has the right to an attorney, and one will be appointed by the court if you don't have one. If you can't afford it, the cost will be borne by the state to ensure that justice has been served.
In fact, he already has court-appointed representation. And his attorney just this morning filed a motion to block a Federal request for a DNA sample.
| 292 |
Cineaste Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:38:16pm |
re: #276 Blueheron
Newt Gingrich although I am pissed at him right now. George Will, Cal Thomas, John Bolton, Mitt Romney.
Newt was tweeting about God's irony at having a snow storm (in December) during a conference on so-called global warming so count him out as a religious denier of global warming.
George Will can't bother to fact check his own statements and doesn't correct his articles when his own sources say that he was wrong.
John Bolton, well John Bolton is just a war-mongering moron in my book.
No objections from me to Thomas or Romney.
| 293 |
SasyMomaCat Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:38:41pm |
re: #285 SasyMomaCat
Oops - should have hit refresh instead of re-asking - I see you've answered. Mea culpa!
| 294 |
freetoken Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:39:27pm |
re: #292 Cineaste
Newt tends to go in any direction he thinks the crowd will move... which is why he is currently hanging out with the theocratic crowd, and why he has apparently reversed his opinion of AGW.
| 295 |
Ben Hur Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:39:33pm |
Grandma freezing under the bridge!
You forgot Grandma freezing under the bridge!
| 296 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:39:37pm |
re: #277 LudwigVanQuixote
PIMF
Around today, in the media, in a position of prominence, none.
Once someone panders to the base instincts of vengeance rather than justice in the courts, I can not support them. Sorry, but mandatory sentences only means you are making a show for the crowd. It has nothing to do with what is fair, sane of just - and note, I am not at all opposed to harsh sentences for those who deserve them. I am opposed to a system where some 18 year old kid who had sex with his 16 year old HS sweetheart is on the sex offender registry. I am opposed to a first time non-violent offender getting some 5 year minimum sentence for a crime that did not deserve it.
| 297 |
Darth Vader Gargoyle Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:39:39pm |
re: #275 MandyManners
Does the USMC address the right to counsel?
Believe you mean UCMJ and the answer is yes.
| 298 |
subsailor68 Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:39:48pm |
re: #267 drcordell
So he gets a lawyer, and then is put to trial and found guilty due to the sheer overwhelming amount of evidence against him. Where is the problem with this?
Hi drcordell! I suppose my concern - in a civilian court - would be the case where he was found not guilty by reason of a legal technicality (not likely, I grant you, but possible nonetheless). IIRC, Attorney-General Holder, in response to a similar question about one of the Gitmo detainees proposed to be tried in NYC, noted that even in that case, the defendant would be retained.
I'm not sure that's a particularly good way to go - as it seems to me to be in opposition to the very fundamentals of our civilian legal system. You're found not guilty, you go free.
I'm not a legal expert by any means (lawhawk probably has a better take on this), but perhaps a military tribunal, with its own set of rules, might be a better way to proceed in cases like this?
(Yeah, I know, that opens the "is he a combatant or not" can of worms. I just don't know the answer.)
| 299 |
Cineaste Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:40:38pm |
re: #277 LudwigVanQuixote
And I fucking hate racists.
I hate Illinois Nazis!
ps: agreed with all of what you wrote
| 300 |
lawhawk Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:40:46pm |
re: #275 MandyManners
You're referring to the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice), and yes, there is a right to counsel: 827. ART. 27
Trial counsel and defense counsel shall be detailed for each general and special court-martial. Assistant trial counsel and assistant and associate defense counsel may be detailed for each general and special court-martial. The Secretary concerned shall prescribe regulations providing for the manner in which counsel are detailed for such courts- martial and for the persons who are authorized to detail counsel for such courts-martial.
| 301 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:42:08pm |
re: #275 MandyManners
Does the USMC address the right to counsel?
In my wallet I have a USMC card with the rights of a suspect spelled out.
According to the third rule, "You have the right to talk privately to a lawyer before, during, and after questioning and to have a lawyer present with you during questioning. However, you must make your own arrangements to obtain a lawyer and this will be at no expense to the government. If you cannot afford a lawyer and want one, arrangements will be made to obtain a lawyer foryou in accordance with the law."
| 302 |
SixDegrees Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:42:14pm |
re: #298 subsailor68
Hi drcordell! I suppose my concern - in a civilian court - would be the case where he was found not guilty by reason of a legal technicality (not likely, I grant you, but possible nonetheless). IIRC, Attorney-General Holder, in response to a similar question about one of the Gitmo detainees proposed to be tried in NYC, noted that even in that case, the defendant would be retained.
I'm not sure that's a particularly good way to go - as it seems to me to be in opposition to the very fundamentals of our civilian legal system. You're found not guilty, you go free.
I'm not a legal expert by any means (lawhawk probably has a better take on this), but perhaps a military tribunal, with its own set of rules, might be a better way to proceed in cases like this?
(Yeah, I know, that opens the "is he a combatant or not" can of worms. I just don't know the answer.)
If the government can't obtain a conviction in this case, he deserves to go free. Seriously. This is about as slam-dunk of a case as it's possible to imagine.
| 303 |
Blueheron Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:42:26pm |
re: #220 Charles
It's not limited to MSNBC, unfortunately. Buchanan also appears frequently on Fox News, and Sean Hannity has introduced him as "the great Patrick J. Buchanan." And Buchanan's columns are published at every right wing news site -- Townhall, Human Events, World Net Daily -- all of them.
William F. Buckley would be appalled to see Buchanan still so influential on the right.
Well then I stand corrected and I guess I need to watch more FOX commentary. NOT!
| 304 |
Cineaste Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:42:37pm |
re: #283 Thanos
The problem with your arguments is that they don't pass constitutional muster. He's committed a crime over US soil, and ergo. The only way I can see around this dilemma is for Congress to created historic precedent and actually declare war on a non state organization. If congress were to declare war on an extra national entity such as Al Qaeda, it might make some things easier and lend focus to our battle.
At some point in the fast approaching future I expect that most militant groups will be Non-state organizations, so I do not fear that precedent.
Somehow congress has no problem with the annoying "War On Drugs" or the even more inane concept of the "War On Terror"....
| 305 |
Blueheron Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:43:11pm |
re: #287 celticdragon
Cal Thomas is a homophobic blowhard. He advocated for the criminalization of gay people when Lawrence V Texas was litigated. He is a theocratic social "conservative".
Okay rule him out.
| 306 |
SasyMomaCat Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:43:42pm |
re: #277 LudwigVanQuixote
Thanks for the response. You indicated that there were all sorts whom you admire with the suggestion that they would make good spokespeople and would move toward rational folk reclaiming the "conservative" movement. From your response, I presume that means none of any prominence, as those long gone would not be effective as spokespeople. Could you suggest some names of individuals who are not prominent? If rational people become aware of them, they have the strong potential of actually becoming prominent ...
| 307 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:43:57pm |
re: #297 rwdflynavy
Believe you mean UCMJ and the answer is yes.
I found my USMC card with the rights spelled out and posted the rule in No. 301.
| 308 |
The Sanity Inspector Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:44:05pm |
re: #230 Cineaste
How so? I don't understand why everyone is so afraid of civilian courts for terrorists. We're really, really good at convicting them and making sure they stay locked up in super-max facilities for a long, long time.
National security secrets will be outed by fancy-pants defense lawyers, as happened in the 1993 WTC bombing trials.
| 310 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:44:55pm |
re: #300 lawhawk
You're referring to the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice), and yes, there is a right to counsel: 827. ART. 27
No fair. I had to type mine out and I hate little print.
| 311 |
rwmofo Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:44:57pm |
re: #290 Charles
Buchanan at Human Events: Patrick J. Buchanan: Conservative Articles - HUMAN EVENTS
His most recent article has more than a hundred comments, and they're ALL supportive.
Pat Buchanan at Townhall.com. Again, thousands and thousands of comments, all supportive. And his articles are rated very highly with their rating system.
So there are 300 million people here and I'm sure he has a small following. However, I don't think he could get elected dog catcher in Lizard Lick, UT. Sure, there are those who agree with him, but Keith Olbermann also has an audience. Buchanan represents true, well-meaning conservatives about as much as miniature golf relates to the PGA.
| 312 |
Slap Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:45:16pm |
| 313 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:45:26pm |
re: #304 Cineaste
Somehow congress has no problem with the annoying "War On Drugs" or the even more inane concept of the "War On Terror"...
Those aren't real declarations of war, though, they're just slogans...
| 314 |
coachbob Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:45:34pm |
re: #140 Lidane
He pulled it out of the same part of his anatomy that told him that Hitler wasn't all that bad. =P
Which he never actually said in the first place
| 315 |
subsailor68 Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:45:46pm |
re: #302 SixDegrees
If the government can't obtain a conviction in this case, he deserves to go free. Seriously. This is about as slam-dunk of a case as it's possible to imagine.
Hi SixDegrees! Yeah, I do agree with ya. My concern was more hypothetical, in a situation where - as AG Holder said - a defendant could be retained even in the case of a not-guilty verdict.
| 316 |
Surabaya Stew Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:45:59pm |
re: #240 HoosierHoops
Dude..We need a Blackberry app for LGF.. It used to work great on my 7520...
Now I use a World edition and nothing renders correctly on the screen..
Calling all programmers!
Some sort of mobile app would be nice. As per a previous request from Charles, am looking for iPhone programers. But what would an LGF app look like and be able to acomplish? Ideas, anybody?
| 317 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:46:08pm |
| 318 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:46:19pm |
re: #314 coachbob
Which he never actually said in the first place
Why don't you tell us what he actually did say.
| 319 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:46:20pm |
define terrorism and terrorist...
make a list of organizations/people that fit the description...
try them by tribunals at Gitmo regardless of where they get busted...
incarcerate them wherever seems most fit...
problem solved
| 320 |
Charles Johnson Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:46:36pm |
Just did my recording for Bloggingheads.tv, arguing with Conn Carroll of the Heritage Foundation -- he ended up saying I was "pro-death, pro-euthanasia, and pro-suicide," because I believe women should have the legal right to choose abortion.
| 321 |
Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:46:44pm |
re: #183 HoosierHoops
You forgot to add the bit where it scans your laptop and then queries you whether you'd like to set Windows Explorer as your default browser.
| 322 |
Blueheron Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:46:57pm |
re: #289 _RememberTonyC
dinging yourself used to be called something else :)
Yeah but what did Charles call it? :))
| 323 |
Sheila Broflovski Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:47:00pm |
JTA is sending me spam emails from Sarah Silverman's co-partner of "The Great Shlep." They want me to give money to JTA. Fuck them.
| 324 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:47:27pm |
re: #323 Alouette
JTA is sending me spam emails from Sarah Silverman's co-partner of "The Great Shlep." They want me to give money to JTA. Fuck them.
JTA?
| 326 |
Ben Hur Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:47:41pm |
re: #320 Charles
Just did my recording for Bloggingheads.tv, arguing with Conn Carroll of the Heritage Foundation -- he ended up saying I was "pro-death, pro-euthanasia, and pro-suicide," because I believe women should have the legal right to choose abortion.
Well, everyone's got their LVQ on.
| 327 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:47:45pm |
re: #277 LudwigVanQuixote
who are these conservatives you admire?
| 328 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:47:47pm |
re: #320 Charles
Just did my recording for Bloggingheads.tv, arguing with Conn Carroll of the Heritage Foundation -- he ended up saying I was "pro-death, pro-euthanasia, and pro-suicide," because I believe women should have the legal right to choose abortion.
You expected otherwise?
| 329 |
recusancy Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:48:18pm |
re: #320 Charles
Just did my recording for Bloggingheads.tv, arguing with Conn Carroll of the Heritage Foundation -- he ended up saying I was "pro-death, pro-euthanasia, and pro-suicide," because I believe women should have the legal right to choose abortion.
Welcome to the left. We've been called traitors, baby killers, terrorist appeasers, etc. for the last decade or so. All for holding a different policy view.
| 330 |
Charles Johnson Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:48:36pm |
re: #311 rwmofo
So there are 300 million people here and I'm sure he has a small following. However, I don't think he could get elected dog catcher in Lizard Lick, UT. Sure, there are those who agree with him, but Keith Olbermann also has an audience. Buchanan represents true, well-meaning conservatives about as much as miniature golf relates to the PGA.
Sure, keep repeating that, even as Sean Hannity praises him on Fox News and every conservative website carries his columns.
It's wrong to dismiss this as unimportant. It says something very disturbing about the modern right wing that a person like Buchanan, once marginalized and pushed out of the mainstream, has become a voice for many right wingers.
| 331 |
Darth Vader Gargoyle Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:48:45pm |
| 332 |
Ben Hur Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:48:54pm |
re: #320 Charles
Just did my recording for Bloggingheads.tv, arguing with Conn Carroll of the Heritage Foundation -- he ended up saying I was "pro-death, pro-euthanasia, and pro-suicide," because I believe women should have the legal right to choose abortion.
Seriously though, pro-suicide?
How so?
| 333 |
SasyMomaCat Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:49:01pm |
re: #290 Charles
That's one of the reasons I rarely go to Townhall now . . . I used to visit nearly daily.
| 334 |
Cineaste Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:49:16pm |
re: #294 freetoken
Newt tends to go in any direction he thinks the crowd will move... which is why he is currently hanging out with the theocratic crowd, and why he has apparently reversed his opinion of AGW.
Which is even more repulsive. So rather than being an idiot with a spine, he's an coward with no spine...
| 335 |
Hawkins Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:49:28pm |
re: #57 bloodstar
Just make sure a picture of his undies is put all over the world. Heck put it on the internet as a LOLTerrorist... now what would be a good caption for his undies, maybe "somewhere 30 virgins pointed and laughed?" what else... any ideas?
Ignitey-whiteys
| 336 |
recusancy Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:49:47pm |
re: #334 Cineaste
Which is even more repulsive. So rather than being an idiot with a spine, he's an coward with no spine...
What's that make Romney?
| 337 |
celticdragon Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:50:03pm |
re: #333 SasyMomaCat
That's one of the reasons I rarely go to Townhall now . . . I used to visit nearly daily.
Me too. I used to have a regular blog there myself. I eventually got to where I just couldn't stomach the hate.
| 338 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:50:09pm |
re: #285 SasyMomaCat
LVQ, in case you missed my request, I'm re-posting it ... which current conservative thinkers/pundits/politicians/statesmen, etc. have earned your respect?
Please see my 277. I repeat, today, in a position of prominence of any kind, none of them.
If there were educated, deeply thinking conservatives, who were more in the mold of Buckley or Goldwater, I could respect them even if at times I totally disagreed with them. When I think that I miss Buckley, who started out being a shill for HUAC, it says a lot about how much I have come to despise the modern form of "conservative."
Sometimes a tough and pragmatic approach to foreign affairs is needed. I do not buy into the Kumbaya view of the world. History teaches me differently. It is possible to have a pragmatic view of fiscal responsibility and a muscular, yet measured and deeply thought out, foreign policy without being a shill to the most ignorant and backwards elements of America.
We simply do not currently have that in prominence. However, there are a number of conservatives here, who I do respect and admire.
Someone like DF or Gus or many others thinks hard. There are actually too many lizards to name who fit that. They have taught me things and pointed out things I did not know.
However, none of them are in power or are particularly heard in the GOP or the conservative movement at large.
| 339 |
Randall Gross Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:50:25pm |
re: #311 rwmofo
So there are 300 million people here and I'm sure he has a small following. However, I don't think he could get elected dog catcher in Lizard Lick, UT. Sure, there are those who agree with him, but Keith Olbermann also has an audience. Buchanan represents true, well-meaning conservatives about as much as miniature golf relates to the PGA.
He and his populist followers have the ability to scuttle any moderate nominee in 2012 Republican primaries, that's power.
| 340 |
_RememberTonyC Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:50:43pm |
| 341 |
The Sanity Inspector Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:51:54pm |
re: #320 Charles
Just did my recording for Bloggingheads.tv, arguing with Conn Carroll of the Heritage Foundation -- he ended up saying I was "pro-death, pro-euthanasia, and pro-suicide," because I believe women should have the legal right to choose abortion.
Sounds like you deserved a more thoughtful counterpart.
| 342 |
Blueheron Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:51:55pm |
re: #290 Charles
Buchanan at Human Events: Patrick J. Buchanan: Conservative Articles - HUMAN EVENTS
His most recent article has more than a hundred comments, and they're ALL supportive.
Pat Buchanan at Townhall.com. Again, thousands and thousands of comments, all supportive. And his articles are rated very highly with their rating system.
Which is why I don't read Townhall. Geez Louise Charles I can't abide someone like Buchanan. When I find a good Conservative blog I will let you know.
If you know of one that would pass muster here please let me know.
| 343 |
Cineaste Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:52:06pm |
re: #308 The Sanity Inspector
National security secrets will be outed by fancy-pants defense lawyers, as happened in the 1993 WTC bombing trials.
The courts have been taking an increasingly hard line on what lawyers can & can't do.
[Link: www.reuters.com...]
We're getting better at this.
| 344 |
SixDegrees Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:52:11pm |
re: #315 subsailor68
Hi SixDegrees! Yeah, I do agree with ya. My concern was more hypothetical, in a situation where - as AG Holder said - a defendant could be retained even in the case of a not-guilty verdict.
Statements like Holder's ought to scare the shit out of people; they do for me. What he's saying is that the government has the power to lock people up indefinitely, without giving a reason, even if a court of law reviews the evidence and finds the person not guilty.
People used to whine about the Bush Administration's "Star Chambers" and "secret courts," and those were purely delusional. Here, we have the nation's top justice official making the most chilling statement imaginable when it comes to curtailing personal freedoms, and I'm hearing very little opposition.
| 345 |
Charles Johnson Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:52:16pm |
It's not a coincidence that along with the rehabilitation of Pat Buchanan, we're also seeing a resurgence of the John Birch Society and the universal acceptance of despicable people like Robert Stacy McCain in the right wing blogosphere.
| 347 |
rwmofo Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:52:40pm |
re: #330 Charles
Sure, keep repeating that, even as Sean Hannity praises him on Fox News and every conservative website carries his columns.
It's wrong to dismiss this as unimportant. It says something very disturbing about the modern right wing that a person like Buchanan, once marginalized and pushed out of the mainstream, has become a voice for many right wingers.
You and I have the same opinion of Pat Buchanan, we just disagree on the level of his influence on Republican voters. I'M OK with that.
Thanks for letting me play in your yard.
| 348 |
lawhawk Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:52:43pm |
re: #298 subsailor68
Hi drcordell! I suppose my concern - in a civilian court - would be the case where he was found not guilty by reason of a legal technicality (not likely, I grant you, but possible nonetheless). IIRC, Attorney-General Holder, in response to a similar question about one of the Gitmo detainees proposed to be tried in NYC, noted that even in that case, the defendant would be retained.
I'm not sure that's a particularly good way to go - as it seems to me to be in opposition to the very fundamentals of our civilian legal system. You're found not guilty, you go free.
I'm not a legal expert by any means (lawhawk probably has a better take on this), but perhaps a military tribunal, with its own set of rules, might be a better way to proceed in cases like this?
(Yeah, I know, that opens the "is he a combatant or not" can of worms. I just don't know the answer.)
Holder's claim that he would hold someone like KSM indefinitely regardless of the trial outcome in the SDNY reeked and was yet more evidence that it was a poorly considered decision when a military tribunal could have been used under the circumstances.
As I outlined previously, terrorists captured on US soil have been tried successfully for their crimes in federal court in the past (particularly in SDNY that includes Lower Manhattan), so there is no new precedent there. Mutallab should be tried in federal court - it is the proper venue particularly as he was taken into custody in Detroit by federal law enforcement. Reid is the closest analog to Mutallab (and were trying to do virtually the same act) and that's how his case was treated.
Terrorists captured overseas presents a different issue - where to try them; particularly if they were captured on a battlefield and not under typical law enforcement conditions that we in the US take for granted (You have a right to remain silent... (Miranda)).
On the basis of the evidence about Mutallab so far, it would appear to be a pretty straightforward case given the evidence found on his person (the explosives, the injuries, witnesses) would alllow for him to be tried and convicted in federal court on a variety of terrorism related charges. His own testimony would be unnecessary to prosecute.
That compares with those who were captured on the battlefield in the heat of battle and who might claim that they were simply peasants in the wrong place at the wrong time (which some detainees will likely attempt in their trials - either before tribunals or in federal court).
| 349 |
Cineaste Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:53:11pm |
re: #316 Surabaya Stew
Some sort of mobile app would be nice. As per a previous request from Charles, am looking for iPhone programers. But what would an LGF app look like and be able to acomplish? Ideas, anybody?
FYI - we do iPhone apps - I'd be interested in talking about an iPhone app for LGF...
| 350 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:53:21pm |
re: #306 SasyMomaCat
Thanks for the response. You indicated that there were all sorts whom you admire with the suggestion that they would make good spokespeople and would move toward rational folk reclaiming the "conservative" movement. From your response, I presume that means none of any prominence, as those long gone would not be effective as spokespeople. Could you suggest some names of individuals who are not prominent? If rational people become aware of them, they have the strong potential of actually becoming prominent ...
The two that most strongly spring to mind have no desire to be in politics anymore or at all.
Powell and Schwartzkopf. Though it is not clear to me that they could rise to prominence in todays arena as politicians without selling their souls.
| 351 |
Big Steve Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:53:41pm |
re: #320 Charles
Just did my recording for Bloggingheads.tv, arguing with Conn Carroll of the Heritage Foundation -- he ended up saying I was "pro-death, pro-euthanasia, and pro-suicide," because I believe women should have the legal right to choose abortion.
Did your NY Times article ever come out? If so is there a link.
| 352 |
Cineaste Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:54:32pm |
re: #330 Charles
Sure, keep repeating that, even as Sean Hannity praises him on Fox News and every conservative website carries his columns.
It's wrong to dismiss this as unimportant. It says something very disturbing about the modern right wing that a person like Buchanan, once marginalized and pushed out of the mainstream, has become a voice for many right wingers.
He also was, IIRC, a big part of the Bush v. Gore dispute in Florida.
| 353 |
Blueheron Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:54:45pm |
| 354 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:54:52pm |
re: #338 LudwigVanQuixote
Then please for the love of G-d, reclaim your movement. There are all sorts of respectable conservatives whom I admire. They are not the ones speaking for you however. This should be obvious.
so you did not mean this?....just ragging on conservatives to find leadership, as if they can snap their fingers and make it happen?
| 356 |
Charles Johnson Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:55:39pm |
re: #344 SixDegrees
Statements like Holder's ought to scare the shit out of people; they do for me. What he's saying is that the government has the power to lock people up indefinitely, without giving a reason, even if a court of law reviews the evidence and finds the person not guilty.
People used to whine about the Bush Administration's "Star Chambers" and "secret courts," and those were purely delusional. Here, we have the nation's top justice official making the most chilling statement imaginable when it comes to curtailing personal freedoms, and I'm hearing very little opposition.
I agree -- it was a very creepy thing to say. But in the real world, it's extremely unlikely that this will happen. Holder was really just mouthing off, trying to avert political fallout from the decision to try Gitmo inmates in the criminal justice system. He was throwing a sop to the right wing.
| 357 |
cosmo Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:56:12pm |
I'm probably going to get skewered here, but someone mentioned "the rule of law" something in which I believe strongly. With that in mind, my question is this:
Is there a Michigan law (or appropriate federal statute) mandating dispensing pain killers to terror suspects in federal custody? I can't even get my kid's school nurse to give my child an Advil while at school. Why should I think the Michigan office of the FBI should be allowed to give "pain killers" to a radical terrorist in custody?
I'm not defending Buchanan here, just wondering aloud what "law" would be violated if pain killers were suddenly "in short supply" at the detention location.
| 358 |
Cineaste Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:56:17pm |
re: #336 recusancy
What's that make Romney?
Romney, in my book, at least has some serious business credentials as the head of Bain for a long time. I think he is smart and he has executive experience both in Government and the Private sector. I worry deeply about his Mormon faith and how that would influence him and I worry about the directions he would have to tack in to get a Republican nomination but I find him, generally, to be more reasonable than most.
| 359 |
recusancy Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:56:21pm |
re: #355 wrenchwench
Many of those are not good.
Yea... I don't love the guy. He's just reasonalbe when it comes to foreign policy. He did back Paul in '08 though. I'm not sure what that means but it probably isn't good.
| 360 |
Charles Johnson Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:56:27pm |
re: #351 Big Steve
Did your NY Times article ever come out? If so is there a link.
Not yet. I'll post it when it does, of course.
| 361 |
Sheila Broflovski Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:57:04pm |
re: #324 MandyManners
JTA?
JTA.org, a leftist Jewish news service. Of all the news services around the world, well except for Al-Jazeera, they were the only ones who did not mention the person responsible for rebuilding the Mumbai Chabad, even while running an article of the one-year anniversary of the Mumbai attacks. It just so freaking kills them that an Orthodox Jew should actually be seen doing something positive.
| 362 |
drcordell Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:57:25pm |
re: #356 Charles
I agree -- it was a very creepy thing to say. But in the real world, it's extremely unlikely that this will happen. Holder was really just mouthing off, trying to avert political fallout from the decision to try Gitmo inmates in the criminal justice system. He was throwing a sop to the right wing.
I agree, he had no choice. If he acknowledges the possibility that a terrorist could in fact, go free, the political shitstorm would be neverending.
| 363 |
recusancy Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:57:29pm |
re: #358 Cineaste
Romney, in my book, at least has some serious business credentials as the head of Bain for a long time. I think he is smart and he has executive experience both in Government and the Private sector. I worry deeply about his Mormon faith and how that would influence him and I worry about the directions he would have to tack in to get a Republican nomination but I find him, generally, to be more reasonable than most.
Not spineless going wherever the wind blows?
| 364 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:57:35pm |
re: #358 Cineaste
Romney, in my book, at least has some serious business credentials as the head of Bain for a long time. I think he is smart and he has executive experience both in Government and the Private sector. I worry deeply about his Mormon faith and how that would influence him and I worry about the directions he would have to tack in to get a Republican nomination but I find him, generally, to be more reasonable than most.
Why does his religious belief worry you? Do you think he'd try to impose it on the rest of us?
| 365 |
Digital Display Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:58:10pm |
re: #316 Surabaya Stew
Some sort of mobile app would be nice. As per a previous request from Charles, am looking for iPhone programers. But what would an LGF app look like and be able to acomplish? Ideas, anybody?
iPhone has it covered.. BlackBerry is lacking in rendering the page..
| 366 |
drcordell Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:58:17pm |
re: #364 MandyManners
Why does his religious belief worry you? Do you think he'd try to impose it on the rest of us?
Short answer. Yes.
| 367 |
SasyMomaCat Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:58:29pm |
re: #337 celticdragon
It's sad to see what has become of many mainstream conservative venues, eh?
| 368 |
SixDegrees Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:58:44pm |
re: #357 cosmo
I'm probably going to get skewered here, but someone mentioned "the rule of law" something in which I believe strongly. With that in mind, my question is this:
Is there a Michigan law (or appropriate federal statute) mandating dispensing pain killers to terror suspects in federal custody? I can't even get my kid's school nurse to give my child an Advil while at school. Why should I think the Michigan office of the FBI should be allowed to give "pain killers" to a radical terrorist in custody?
I'm not defending Buchanan here, just wondering aloud what "law" would be violated if pain killers were suddenly "in short supply" at the detention location.
It is strictly illegal to withhold reasonable medical care from those in custody. It is also morally repugnant.
| 369 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:58:50pm |
re: #361 Alouette
JTA.org, a leftist Jewish news service. Of all the news services around the world, well except for Al-Jazeera, they were the only ones who did not mention the person responsible for rebuilding the Mumbai Chabad, even while running an article of the one-year anniversary of the Mumbai attacks. It just so freaking kills them that an Orthodox Jew should actually be seen doing something positive.
He's praised where and by whom it counts, Alouette! (IIRC, you know him very well, right?)
| 370 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:59:19pm |
re: #357 cosmo
I'm probably going to get skewered here, but someone mentioned "the rule of law" something in which I believe strongly. With that in mind, my question is this:
Is there a Michigan law (or appropriate federal statute) mandating dispensing pain killers to terror suspects in federal custody? I can't even get my kid's school nurse to give my child an Advil while at school. Why should I think the Michigan office of the FBI should be allowed to give "pain killers" to a radical terrorist in custody?
I'm not defending Buchanan here, just wondering aloud what "law" would be violated if pain killers were suddenly "in short supply" at the detention location.
is there some reason besides the law not too?...what's your take?
| 371 |
cosmo Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:59:35pm |
re: #363 recusancy
Not spineless going wherever the wind blows?
I don't worry about Romney's Mormon faith at all. As a matter of fact, that faith makes him more trustworthy when asked to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States--something LDS folks believe is divinely inspired, and, therefore, worthy of defending.
| 372 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:59:49pm |
re: #360 Charles
Not yet. I'll post it when it does, of course.
have you seen it?....I assume it's favorable
| 373 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 12:59:54pm |
re: #357 cosmo
I'm probably going to get skewered here, but someone mentioned "the rule of law" something in which I believe strongly. With that in mind, my question is this:
Is there a Michigan law (or appropriate federal statute) mandating dispensing pain killers to terror suspects in federal custody? I can't even get my kid's school nurse to give my child an Advil while at school. Why should I think the Michigan office of the FBI should be allowed to give "pain killers" to a radical terrorist in custody?
I'm not defending Buchanan here, just wondering aloud what "law" would be violated if pain killers were suddenly "in short supply" at the detention location.
The FBI is not his treating physician.
| 374 |
Cineaste Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:00:04pm |
re: #357 cosmo
I'm probably going to get skewered here, but someone mentioned "the rule of law" something in which I believe strongly. With that in mind, my question is this:
Is there a Michigan law (or appropriate federal statute) mandating dispensing pain killers to terror suspects in federal custody? I can't even get my kid's school nurse to give my child an Advil while at school. Why should I think the Michigan office of the FBI should be allowed to give "pain killers" to a radical terrorist in custody?
I'm not defending Buchanan here, just wondering aloud what "law" would be violated if pain killers were suddenly "in short supply" at the detention location.
The supreme court held that prisoners must get medical treatment in 1976:
[Link: supreme.justia.com...]
| 375 |
Randall Gross Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:00:09pm |
If you want reasonable conservative blogs I'll remind everyone that Charles has quite a few in the drop downs over in the left side bar.
| 376 |
coachbob Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:00:27pm |
re: #317 SanFranciscoZionist
What DID he say?
Read it yourself.
[Link: buchanan.org...]
This is the column he wrote that caused this site to make the claim he said "Hitler isn't so bad."
Buchanan gives us enough ammunition; we don't need to fabricate quotes.
| 378 |
Gus Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:00:41pm |
re: #373 MandyManners
The FBI is not his treating physician.
Exactly. I was about to bring up the professional medical ethical and moral considrations.
| 379 |
freetoken Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:00:43pm |
re: #320 Charles
I'll be sure to try and catch it. In previous diavlogs Conn has played the "cool" character often - it will be interesting to see his emotional reaction to you.
| 380 |
SixDegrees Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:00:44pm |
re: #356 Charles
I agree -- it was a very creepy thing to say. But in the real world, it's extremely unlikely that this will happen. Holder was really just mouthing off, trying to avert political fallout from the decision to try Gitmo inmates in the criminal justice system. He was throwing a sop to the right wing.
Perhaps. When someone in Holder's position starts making such statements, though, I tend to pay attention, and also tend to let those comments color future comments by the same person to make sure there isn't a pattern emerging.
| 381 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:00:45pm |
re: #354 albusteve
Then please for the love of G-d, reclaim your movement. There are all sorts of respectable conservatives whom I admire. They are not the ones speaking for you however. This should be obvious.
so you did not mean this?...just ragging on conservatives to find leadership, as if they can snap their fingers and make it happen?
NO on the contrary, there are all sorts of respectable conservatives who make up a hopefully still large portion of the center right. None of them are in power. As to snapping your fingers and making it happen, well look, you guys let your party slip into darkness. I would love to see a viable second party to the Dems, but it is not my job to save your party. Honesty the way it is going, and given what it means now, I want to see the GOP completely destroyed and replaced by two parties. One would be a sane and respectable party, and the other, what the GOP currently means, a pseudo fascist, guns for Jesus, anti science, anti-intellectual, we hate gay folks party that keeps them uppity womens and brown folks in their place party.
| 382 |
wrenchwench Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:00:50pm |
re: #359 recusancy
Yea... I don't love the guy. He's just reasonalbe when it comes to foreign policy. He did back Paul in '08 though. I'm not sure what that means but it probably isn't good.
To me, foreign policy is almost where Paul is the worst. What do you like about Larison specifically? You are not the first person here of the more liberal persuasion who has recommended him as a "good conservative". What's the appeal?
| 383 |
Big Steve Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:01:13pm |
By the way if anyone is looking for an interesting moderate/conservative blog site might want to try Booker Rising. It bills itself as a new site for Black moderate and Black conservatives.
| 384 |
Blueheron Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:01:34pm |
re: #330 Charles
Sure, keep repeating that, even as Sean Hannity praises him on Fox News and every conservative website carries his columns.
It's wrong to dismiss this as unimportant. It says something very disturbing about the modern right wing that a person like Buchanan, once marginalized and pushed out of the mainstream, has become a voice for many right wingers.
So what can I do about it? Not a darned thing that's what. I don't watch him. I don't like him. He repells me. I don't know what I can do except say I think he is dangerous! End of. But who the heck cares what I think. Obviously not the people who hire him to give the conservative side daily on MSNBC Morning Joe.
| 385 |
Soap_Man Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:01:58pm |
OT: Congress was locked down to investigate someone bringing a gun in.
A few insightful nuggets from the comment section:
"i hope it is a muslim, then maybe those whimps in washington will take the islamic threat on us seriously."
"...and the problem is.....?"
"They keep pushing these stupid bills, someones going to crack."
"hope he has good aim"
| 386 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:02:06pm |
| 387 |
RogueOne Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:02:08pm |
re: #301 MandyManners
In my wallet I have a USMC card with the rights of a suspect spelled out.
According to the third rule, "You have the right to talk privately to a lawyer before, during, and after questioning and to have a lawyer present with you during questioning. However, you must make your own arrangements to obtain a lawyer and this will be at no expense to the government. If you cannot afford a lawyer and want one, arrangements will be made to obtain a lawyer foryou in accordance with the law."
I'm falling way behind but that's for service members, not enemy combatants. Until the supreme court started sticking their noses into the presidents and congresses role, the geneva conventions allow us to hold an enemy combatant as long as we felt necessary before deciding to put them on trial:
4th Geneva Convention Article 5:
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.
| 388 |
wrenchwench Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:02:25pm |
re: #375 Thanos
If you want reasonable conservative blogs I'll remind everyone that Charles has quite a few in the drop downs over in the left side bar.
And you have one linked in your nic, I believe....
| 389 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:02:36pm |
| 390 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:02:44pm |
re: #344 SixDegrees
Are you kidding me... We have that environment at all because of Bush.
Need I remind you of the excesses of the patriot act, or that we flew people to Syria for "special treatment?"
Dear God.
The only thing I hate more than conservatives who support such things are conservative who suddenly realize it's really bad if someone else is in power.
| 391 |
Cineaste Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:03:38pm |
re: #364 MandyManners
Why does his religious belief worry you? Do you think he'd try to impose it on the rest of us?
Yes, to some extent. But more that I look at the case of people like Kim Clark, the former dean of Harvard Business School, who stepped down to run BYU-Idaho when the head of the church called him and told him he had to. They believe that the head of the Mormon chuch is a living profit and his word is God's command. I worry about anyone who claims to be a devoted follower of any religion where God's word is delivered by any individual. How can you be a devoted follower of that church and still maintain autonomy as a civilian leader. Unless Romney specifically states that he will ignore all instructions or "advice" from the head of the Mormon church, I remain wary.
| 392 |
RogueOne Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:03:58pm |
re: #240 HoosierHoops
Try using the Bolt browser, It's the best I've found for LGF.
| 393 |
The Sanity Inspector Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:04:11pm |
#355 may be a first: A deleted post that was updinged by Charles.
| 394 |
cosmo Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:04:19pm |
re: #370 albusteve
is there some reason besides the law not too?...what's your take?
My take, albeit somewhat "loony" to some, is this: if you've been caught in the act of violating the law--in this case the attempted murder of 300+ individuals in the air, as well as others on the ground--perhaps a small suspension in your "rights" isn't out of line, nor to this individual, unexpected.
I don't consider, in this specific case, the withholding of "Bag Balm" to be "morally repugnant" as was suggested by SixDegrees. I do, however, consider attempting to murder 300+ innocents to be incredibly "morally repugnant."
| 395 |
SixDegrees Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:04:28pm |
re: #390 LudwigVanQuixote
I wasn't aware Holder was a Bush appointee. Are you saying his statements are acceptable?
| 396 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:05:01pm |
re: #395 SixDegrees
I wasn't aware Holder was a Bush appointee. Are you saying his statements are acceptable?
Way to utterly and willfully miss the point.
| 397 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:05:13pm |
re: #381 LudwigVanQuixote
NO on the contrary, there are all sorts of respectable conservatives who make up a hopefully still large portion of the center right. None of them are in power. As to snapping your fingers and making it happen, well look, you guys let your party slip into darkness. I would love to see a viable second party to the Dems, but it is not my job to save your party. Honesty the way it is going, and given what it means now, I want to see the GOP completely destroyed and replaced by two parties. One would be a sane and respectable party, and the other, what the GOP currently means, a pseudo fascist, guns for Jesus, anti science, anti-intellectual, we hate gay folks party that keeps them uppity womens and brown folks in their place party.
you're so windy...anyway I just wondered who you were talking about...so we could, you know, pitch in with them...but if you don't want to name them that's cool
| 398 |
Digital Display Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:05:37pm |
re: #392 RogueOne
Try using the Bolt browser, It's the best I've found for LGF.
Thank you! I'll try downloading it on the BB..
| 399 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:06:08pm |
re: #397 albusteve
you're so windy...anyway I just wondered who you were talking about...so we could, you know, pitch in with them...but if you don't want to name them that's cool
Yeah well, then how about you don't read me...
| 400 |
Cineaste Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:06:19pm |
re: #383 Big Steve
By the way if anyone is looking for an interesting moderate/conservative blog site might want to try Booker Rising. It bills itself as a new site for Black moderate and Black conservatives.
Ironically, I think the most exciting black politician today is Cory Booker, from Newark. He is moving mountains there (and has personally run down a couple criminals on foot!).
| 401 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:06:32pm |
re: #376 coachbob
Read it yourself.
[Link: buchanan.org...]
This is the column he wrote that caused this site to make the claim he said "Hitler isn't so bad."
Buchanan gives us enough ammunition; we don't need to fabricate quotes.
Strange how the asshole lumps the deaths of Christians and Jews together in the second sentence. I did a quick scan and did not find a reference to genocide or concentration camps.
| 402 |
The Sanity Inspector Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:06:35pm |
re: #383 Big Steve
By the way if anyone is looking for an interesting moderate/conservative blog site might want to try Booker Rising. It bills itself as a new site for Black moderate and Black conservatives.
True, except it's not new. I've been following it for years; proprietress Shay's wonderful.
| 403 |
Locker Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:06:45pm |
re: #354 albusteve
Then please for the love of G-d, reclaim your movement. There are all sorts of respectable conservatives whom I admire. They are not the ones speaking for you however. This should be obvious.
so you did not mean this?...just ragging on conservatives to find leadership, as if they can snap their fingers and make it happen?
Just like you are ragging on him about one sentence from a long and excellent post, just to have something to flap your gums about.re: #364 MandyManners
Why does his religious belief worry you? Do you think he'd try to impose it on the rest of us?
Does is really seem that unlikely? From a faithful member of an evangelical religion? Especially when some right wing positions seem to spring directly from some sort of religious source.
Perhaps he is a master of separating his religion from any and all policy decisions but it seems likely that religion would influence him and be fostered upon us just like an environmentalists beliefs would be apparent in their positions and be fostered upon their constituents.
| 404 |
webevintage Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:06:53pm |
Looks like President Obama is getting ready to make a statement in the next 20 min or so.
Man it must be sweet to be part of the press corps when POTUS goes and visits family. Chuck Todd does not look like he is suffering on the beach at all....
| 405 |
Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:06:58pm |
re: #391 Cineaste
Wasn't there stated fear in the 1960 elections that Kennedy was expected to take orders from the Pope since he was a Catholic?
Of course that would be pretty nutty, but I expected that someone said it in public during the campaign.
| 406 |
Randall Gross Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:07:00pm |
re: #388 wrenchwench
And you have one linked in your nic, I believe...
Yes, but I'm so disgusted and disturbed by what's happened to my party that I'm not writing much lately.
| 407 |
SixDegrees Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:07:12pm |
| 408 |
recusancy Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:07:18pm |
re: #382 wrenchwench
To me, foreign policy is almost where Paul is the worst. What do you like about Larison specifically? You are not the first person here of the more liberal persuasion who has recommended him as a "good conservative". What's the appeal?
He isn't pro war. He doesn't see a dire need to bomb Iran. He thought McCain's war mongering against Russia during the Georgia conflict was stupid. He doesn't reflexively agree with everything Israel does.
On the current state of the American Right he basically sounds exactly like Charles, fed up with where it's heading.
| 409 |
lawhawk Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:07:28pm |
re: #390 LudwigVanQuixote
Are you kidding me... We have that environment at all because of Bush.
Need I remind you of the excesses of the patriot act, or that we flew people to Syria for "special treatment?"
Dear God.
The only thing I hate more than conservatives who support such things are conservative who suddenly realize it's really bad if someone else is in power.
Renditions occurred going back to Reagan, and Clinton, and Bush used the same policy - but Democrats called GWB on the carpet for it. Revisionist history is rampant on both sides of the aisle these days, but give it a rest with blaming Bush for the current political environment. It's been that way for a good long time (and long before Bush, or Clinton, or Bush 1 for that matter).
As for the excesses of the Patriot Act, care to name one that hasn't already been revised after further Congressional acts? For all the talk about excess, many of the policies have actually been continued by the Obama Administration (which isn't much of a surprise to me given that the Executive isn't going to give up power it has accumulated previously).
| 410 |
_RememberTonyC Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:07:58pm |
re: #391 Cineaste
Yes, to some extent. But more that I look at the case of people like Kim Clark, the former dean of Harvard Business School, who stepped down to run BYU-Idaho when the head of the church called him and told him he had to. They believe that the head of the Mormon chuch is a living profit and his word is God's command. I worry about anyone who claims to be a devoted follower of any religion where God's word is delivered by any individual. How can you be a devoted follower of that church and still maintain autonomy as a civilian leader. Unless Romney specifically states that he will ignore all instructions or "advice" from the head of the Mormon church, I remain wary.
this is a 50 year old nontroversy that should have been put to rest after JFK was elected as a Catholic in 1960
| 411 |
drcordell Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:08:27pm |
re: #386 SanFranciscoZionist
Why?
re: #389 albusteve
how could he do that?...all of his belief or just what part?
You been to the state of Utah? It's practically impossible to buy a beer with an ABV higher than 3.5% and forget about 120 proof small-batch bourbon. And I'm not a woman but I can't imagine that abortion rights are easy to come by either. Although he's a flip-flopper, Romney's latest flop is in the direction of a crazy theocrat.
I'm not saying he would have the unanimous power to push through arcane social-conservative legislation, but he certainly seems inclined.
| 412 |
Big Steve Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:08:52pm |
re: #402 The Sanity Inspector
True, except it's not new. I've been following it for years; proprietress Shay's wonderful.
ok new to me then!
| 413 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:08:55pm |
re: #394 cosmo
My take, albeit somewhat "loony" to some, is this: if you've been caught in the act of violating the law--in this case the attempted murder of 300+ individuals in the air, as well as others on the ground--perhaps a small suspension in your "rights" isn't out of line, nor to this individual, unexpected.
I don't consider, in this specific case, the withholding of "Bag Balm" to be "morally repugnant" as was suggested by SixDegrees. I do, however, consider attempting to murder 300+ innocents to be incredibly "morally repugnant."
I don't really like your answer, but that's your business
| 414 |
Cineaste Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:09:22pm |
re: #394 cosmo
My take, albeit somewhat "loony" to some, is this: if you've been caught in the act of violating the law--in this case the attempted murder of 300+ individuals in the air, as well as others on the ground--perhaps a small suspension in your "rights" isn't out of line, nor to this individual, unexpected.
I don't consider, in this specific case, the withholding of "Bag Balm" to be "morally repugnant" as was suggested by SixDegrees. I do, however, consider attempting to murder 300+ innocents to be incredibly "morally repugnant."
It's not about what you or I find "morally repugnant". When you are in US custody you are required, by the supreme court, to be given medical care.
I find a guy who robs an old woman in her home to be morally repugnant but he deserves medical care. I find someone who embezzles money from charities to be morally repugnant, but he deserves medical care. Frankly, by your standard, why give medical care to ANY criminal?
| 415 |
Vambo Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:09:29pm |
re: #242 MandyManners
Which segment?
BTW, the video above is from MSNBC.
I think I see where this is going.... a defense of Fox News? Not a good idea.
| 416 |
Blueheron Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:09:39pm |
re: #345 Charles
It's not a coincidence that along with the rehabilitation of Pat Buchanan, we're also seeing a resurgence of the John Birch Society and the universal acceptance of despicable people like Robert Stacy McCain in the right wing blogosphere.
I thought the Birchers were dead and buried. No such chance eh?
| 417 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:10:09pm |
re: #409 lawhawk
Renditions occurred going back to Reagan, and Clinton, and Bush used the same policy - but Democrats called GWB on the carpet for it. Revisionist history is rampant on both sides of the aisle these days, but give it a rest with blaming Bush for the current political environment. It's been that way for a good long time (and long before Bush, or Clinton, or Bush 1 for that matter).
As for the excesses of the Patriot Act, care to name one that hasn't already been revised after further Congressional acts? For all the talk about excess, many of the policies have actually been continued by the Obama Administration (which isn't much of a surprise to me given that the Executive isn't going to give up power it has accumulated previously).
Ohhh so then it was all ok then?
Again way to miss the point. It was wrong when Reagan and Clinton did it too. However, they had the good grace to do it on a small scale and realize it was wrong. It took the idiocy, arrogance and ego of the Bush administration to boldly make it into known policy.
| 418 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:10:22pm |
re: #394 cosmo
My take, albeit somewhat "loony" to some, is this: if you've been caught in the act of violating the law--in this case the attempted murder of 300+ individuals in the air, as well as others on the ground--perhaps a small suspension in your "rights" isn't out of line, nor to this individual, unexpected.
I don't consider, in this specific case, the withholding of "Bag Balm" to be "morally repugnant" as was suggested by SixDegrees. I do, however, consider attempting to murder 300+ innocents to be incredibly "morally repugnant."
So, you're for torture through withholding of medical care?
| 419 |
subsailor68 Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:10:49pm |
re: #391 Cineaste
They believe that the head of the Mormon chuch is a living profit and his word is God's command.
Well, in this economy, it's nice to know that someone's making a "prophet".
(I know, I know, it was just an inadvertent typo, but it made me grin!)
;-)
| 420 |
wrenchwench Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:11:08pm |
re: #408 recusancy
He isn't pro war. He doesn't see a dire need to bomb Iran. He thought McCain's war mongering against Russia during the Georgia conflict was stupid. He doesn't reflexively agree with everything Israel does.
On the current state of the American Right he basically sounds exactly like Charles, fed up with where it's heading.
From the looks of his links, the bolded part might be an unfortunate understatement.
| 421 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:11:08pm |
re: #403 Locker
Does is really seem that unlikely? From a faithful member of an evangelical religion? Especially when some right wing positions seem to spring directly from some sort of religious source.
Perhaps he is a master of separating his religion from any and all policy decisions but it seems likely that religion would influence him and be fostered upon us just like an environmentalists beliefs would be apparent in their positions and be fostered upon their constituents.
it was a simple question, he dodged it...no big deal
| 423 |
drcordell Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:11:34pm |
re: #409 lawhawk
Renditions occurred going back to Reagan, and Clinton, and Bush used the same policy - but Democrats called GWB on the carpet for it. Revisionist history is rampant on both sides of the aisle these days, but give it a rest with blaming Bush for the current political environment. It's been that way for a good long time (and long before Bush, or Clinton, or Bush 1 for that matter).
As for the excesses of the Patriot Act, care to name one that hasn't already been revised after further Congressional acts? For all the talk about excess, many of the policies have actually been continued by the Obama Administration (which isn't much of a surprise to me given that the Executive isn't going to give up power it has accumulated previously).
Revisionist history! Hahahahaha. So Clinton was exercising all of Bush's most criticised rendition techniques to prosecute the war on terror during his term? Yet it's also accepted lore in GOP circles that the blame for 9/11 lies squarely at his feet because he was "weak" on terror. Which is it?
| 424 |
Blueheron Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:11:39pm |
re: #350 LudwigVanQuixote
The two that most strongly spring to mind have no desire to be in politics anymore or at all.
Powell and Schwartzkopf. Though it is not clear to me that they could rise to prominence in todays arena as politicians without selling their souls.
Two excellent choices. Thank you Ludwig.
| 425 |
recusancy Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:11:39pm |
re: #417 LudwigVanQuixote
Ohhh so then it was all ok then?
Again way to miss the point. It was wrong when Reagan and Clinton did it too. However, they had the good grace to do it on a small scale and realize it was wrong. It took the idiocy, arrogance and ego of the Bush administration to boldly make it into known policy.
I also think Bush43 started extraordinary rendition which is much worse the regular rendition. Correct me if I'm wrong.
| 426 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:11:45pm |
re: #400 Cineaste
Ironically, I think the most exciting black politician today is Cory Booker, from Newark. He is moving mountains there (and has personally run down a couple criminals on foot!).
I saw an article on him some time back. Real young guy? He seems to be doing great work.
| 427 |
RogueOne Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:11:52pm |
re: #394 cosmo
My take, albeit somewhat "loony" to some, is this: if you've been caught in the act of violating the law--in this case the attempted murder of 300+ individuals in the air, as well as others on the ground--perhaps a small suspension in your "rights" isn't out of line, nor to this individual, unexpected.
I don't consider, in this specific case, the withholding of "Bag Balm" to be "morally repugnant" as was suggested by SixDegrees. I do, however, consider attempting to murder 300+ innocents to be incredibly "morally repugnant."
+1 for use of the term "bag balm".
I'd like to be able to fully agree but I can't. You cannot deny an american citizen all the rights he's entitled to have.
| 428 |
_RememberTonyC Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:12:05pm |
re: #411 drcordell
You been to the state of Utah? It's practically impossible to buy a beer with an ABV higher than 3.5% and forget about 120 proof small-batch bourbon. And I'm not a woman but I can't imagine that abortion rights are easy to come by either. Although he's a flip-flopper, Romney's latest flop is in the direction of a crazy theocrat.
I'm not saying he would have the unanimous power to push through arcane social-conservative legislation, but he certainly seems inclined.
he was elected governor in the bluest of blue states, liberal massachusetts. last time I checked LDS churches weren't springing up all over the Bay State.
| 429 |
drcordell Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:12:12pm |
re: #416 Blueheron
I thought the Birchers were dead and buried. No such chance eh?
They are a sponsor of the upcoming 2010 CPAC.
| 430 |
SixDegrees Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:12:22pm |
re: #394 cosmo
My take, albeit somewhat "loony" to some, is this: if you've been caught in the act of violating the law--in this case the attempted murder of 300+ individuals in the air, as well as others on the ground--perhaps a small suspension in your "rights" isn't out of line, nor to this individual, unexpected.
I don't consider, in this specific case, the withholding of "Bag Balm" to be "morally repugnant" as was suggested by SixDegrees. I do, however, consider attempting to murder 300+ innocents to be incredibly "morally repugnant."
I really wish they'd start teaching civics in the public schools again.
A grounding in basic morals and ethics wouldn't be a bad addition to the curriculum, either.
| 431 |
cosmo Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:12:27pm |
Cineaste: thanks for the legal link.
Regarding Romney, Kim Clark and the LDS prophet, I assure you that if Romney were president, the decidedly neutral LDS church leadership would want nothing to do with crafting his domestic or foreign policy. I'm sure he would get more spiritual guidance from his local LDS bishop (somewhat like Mr. Obama did from Rev. Wright) than he would from Thomas S. Monson, or whomever was president of the LDS Church.
Sidenote: I suggest you read Kim Clark's book "Armor" for a great look at what makes Mr. Clark tick, why he makes the professional decisions he makes, and what moral constitution the man has. I would never second-guess a man like Clark for receiving and accepting guidance from a man whom he believes to be a prophet of God. It's clear that those instructions, over the whole of the LDS Church's history, have never advocated overthrowing the government, blowing things up, or even subverting earthly authority. The LDS articles of faith, penned by Joseph Smith, state unequivocally, "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates and in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law." [paraphrased by me]. No threat to democracy and the rule of law here, if this tenet is followed.
| 432 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:12:36pm |
re: #391 Cineaste
a. Kim Clark was extended an opportunity. You can turn those down. People do. Nothing will happen to you, but maybe he wanted to run a whole college?
b. It works the other way, as well. Ezra Taft Benson was a high church official when he was offered a cabinet position. They gave him a leave of absence from his church duties during this time. Surely if the church president during this time had ordered him around, it would have been noticed. (I wasn't alive then, and the history of the department of agriculture isn't so interesting that I've looked into it.)
| 433 |
Cineaste Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:12:40pm |
re: #405 oaktree
Wasn't there stated fear in the 1960 elections that Kennedy was expected to take orders from the Pope since he was a Catholic?
Of course that would be pretty nutty, but I expected that someone said it in public during the campaign.
If Romney makes a clear statement like this (and he may already have) then I am less concerned:
"I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish -- where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source."
-- John F Kennedy, address to the Ministerial Association of Greater Houston, September 12, 1960
| 434 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:13:00pm |
re: #405 oaktree
Wasn't there stated fear in the 1960 elections that Kennedy was expected to take orders from the Pope since he was a Catholic?
Of course that would be pretty nutty, but I expected that someone said it in public during the campaign.
It was a major talking point against Kennedy, that he would take his orders from "the Pope of Rome".
| 435 |
_RememberTonyC Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:13:03pm |
re: #415 Vambo
I think I see where this is going... a defense of Fox News? Not a good idea.
i think it's a good idea to sample fox news as well as the others.
| 436 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:13:19pm |
As Mormons... I really have nothing against them. Like any other faith, they have their die-hard crazies and they have normal sensible folks who came up in that faith. It says a lot about America that they can on the one hand worry about the possibly crazy religious beliefs of a Mormon, but think nothing of a Baptist who kisses the ass of Pat Robertson.
| 437 |
webevintage Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:13:27pm |
re: #423 drcordell
Yet it's also accepted lore in GOP circles that the blame for 9/11 lies squarely at his feet because he was "weak" on terror. Which is it?
Mary Maitlin said that the Bush administration inherited 9/11 this weekend.....
That seems to be her and Dana Perino's new jobs.
| 438 |
Cineaste Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:13:37pm |
re: #410 _RememberTonyC
this is a 50 year old nontroversy that should have been put to rest after JFK was elected as a Catholic in 1960
I'm sorry but the case of Kim Clark is unsettling. I don't remember a lot of cases in the 1950's of the Pope personally calling the heads of institutions and giving them instructions but Kim Clark got that call a couple years ago.
| 439 |
Big Steve Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:13:59pm |
re: #434 SanFranciscoZionist
It was a major talking point against Kennedy, that he would take his orders from "the Pope of Rome".
Was the pope on that boat with him?
| 440 |
rwmofo Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:13:59pm |
re: #411 drcordell
You been to the state of Utah? It's practically impossible to buy a beer with an ABV higher than 3.5% and forget about 120 proof small-batch bourbon. And I'm not a woman but I can't imagine that abortion rights are easy to come by either. Although he's a flip-flopper, Romney's latest flop is in the direction of a crazy theocrat.
I'm not saying he would have the unanimous power to push through arcane social-conservative legislation, but he certainly seems inclined.
Did Romney force a bunch of the Mormon doctrine on Massachusetts when he was Governor there? Any examples?
| 441 |
drcordell Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:14:12pm |
re: #428 _RememberTonyC
he was elected governor in the bluest of blue states, liberal massachusetts. last time I checked LDS churches weren't springing up all over the Bay State.
That was like... 6 iterations of Mitt Romney ago. The man has literally changed his opinion on every issue since then. He implemented health care reform in Mass. that was extremely similar to the bill that's expected to pass in Congress. Think he's gonna hit the 2012 stump in favor of Obamacare?
| 442 |
recusancy Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:14:14pm |
re: #420 wrenchwench
From the looks of his links, the bolded part might be an unfortunate understatement.
I knew you'd come back with that. It's just so damn hard to find someone with the balls to actually criticize Israel. I don't know if he has some ulterior anti-semitic motive. Everything he (Larison) says is very much in the mainstream and reasonable as far as I've read. Who he links to, I don't know.
| 443 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:14:28pm |
re: #425 recusancy
I also think Bush43 started extraordinary rendition which is much worse the regular rendition. Correct me if I'm wrong.
No you are absolutely correct. The right wing likes to rely on the idea that we have memories shorter than two weeks. Not all of us do.
| 444 |
Charles Johnson Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:14:37pm |
re: #416 Blueheron
I thought the Birchers were dead and buried. No such chance eh?
Not when they're cosponsors of CPAC, the largest Republican convention of the year.
And not when people like Ron Paul are promoting them and giving keynote speeches at the JBS annual meeting.
And not when Glenn Beck openly promotes a book by W. Cleon Skousen, one of the original inspirations of the JBS, and when Beck interviews a JBS leader and says, "I have to tell you, when I was growing up, the John Birch Society, I thought they were a bunch of nuts, however, you guys are starting to make more and more sense to me."
When PJ Media published a lukewarm criticism of the JBS at CPAC (by Ryan Mauro, who is himself a member of an extremist group, the Christian Action Network), there were hundreds of comments supporting and embracing the John Birch Society.
The Birchers are back, big time.
| 445 |
Cheese Eating Victory Monkey Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:14:38pm |
Seeing Pukecannon's ugly mug first thing in the morning is a form of torture.
/
| 446 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:14:40pm |
re: #411 drcordell
You been to the state of Utah? It's practically impossible to buy a beer with an ABV higher than 3.5% and forget about 120 proof small-batch bourbon. And I'm not a woman but I can't imagine that abortion rights are easy to come by either. Although he's a flip-flopper, Romney's latest flop is in the direction of a crazy theocrat.
I'm not saying he would have the unanimous power to push through arcane social-conservative legislation, but he certainly seems inclined.
Utah's got a high Mormon population. It affects them. What in Romney's record worried you?
| 447 |
cosmo Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:14:47pm |
re: #413 albusteve
I don't really like your answer, but that's your business
Albusteve: I understand your dislike...as it's a point I've been struggling with for years (meaning "why do I believe this?") and it's not entirely thought out...more of a "work in progress." It's not perfect, and I'm the first to admit it. Kudos for not throwing flames. :)
| 448 |
webevintage Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:15:03pm |
oops sorry, I always get the last name wrong..... Matalin not Maitlin.
| 449 |
Digital Display Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:15:23pm |
| 451 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:15:40pm |
re: #416 Blueheron
I thought the Birchers were dead and buried. No such chance eh?
Alas, burying the undead only is a beauty sleep....
| 452 |
drcordell Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:15:43pm |
re: #440 rwmofo
Did Romney force a bunch of the Mormon doctrine on Massachusetts when he was Governor there? Any examples?
Again, you can't possibly compare the Mitt Romney who governed Massachusetts with the Mitt Romney who would run for President in 2012. Legally he shouldn't even be allowed to run under the same name.
| 453 |
Blueheron Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:15:44pm |
re: #356 Charles
I agree -- it was a very creepy thing to say. But in the real world, it's extremely unlikely that this will happen. Holder was really just mouthing off, trying to avert political fallout from the decision to try Gitmo inmates in the criminal justice system. He was throwing a sop to the right wing.
Why should he care about the right wing? They are on the ropes right now.
| 454 |
SixDegrees Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:15:50pm |
re: #414 Cineaste
It's not about what you or I find "morally repugnant". When you are in US custody you are required, by the supreme court, to be given medical care.
I find a guy who robs an old woman in her home to be morally repugnant but he deserves medical care. I find someone who embezzles money from charities to be morally repugnant, but he deserves medical care. Frankly, by your standard, why give medical care to ANY criminal?
It isn't a question of the moral standing of the perpetrator. What seems to be - inexplicably - at issue here is the moral position society should take as to whether medical care ought to be rendered to those who need it, regardless of the patient's moral character. In my view, the question shouldn't even have to be asked.
| 455 |
SasyMomaCat Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:16:30pm |
re: #350 LudwigVanQuixote
Thanks - I appreciate your reply. I respect both of those individuals.
I really think that, with the right, Powell hurt himself by accepting a position in the current administration. Whether rightfully or not, many conservatives felt that this was a "betrayal" of the conservative movement. Because of that, it will be difficult for him to regain the level of respect on the right that he used to command. (I always thought he would make a good President - of course, the ones best qualified and capable usually don't want it. They're smart.)
Regarding "Stormin' Norman," I think he could probably rise to prominence without selling out, if he wanted to.
Again, thanks!
| 456 |
_RememberTonyC Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:16:57pm |
re: #438 Cineaste
I'm sorry but the case of Kim Clark is unsettling. I don't remember a lot of cases in the 1950's of the Pope personally calling the heads of institutions and giving them instructions but Kim Clark got that call a couple years ago.
Mitt Romney is no religious zealot. Kim Clark is not running for office. Mitt Romney is the issue, not Kim Clark.
| 457 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:17:03pm |
re: #394 cosmo
My take, albeit somewhat "loony" to some, is this: if you've been caught in the act of violating the law--in this case the attempted murder of 300+ individuals in the air, as well as others on the ground--perhaps a small suspension in your "rights" isn't out of line, nor to this individual, unexpected.
I don't consider, in this specific case, the withholding of "Bag Balm" to be "morally repugnant" as was suggested by SixDegrees. I do, however, consider attempting to murder 300+ innocents to be incredibly "morally repugnant."
Those 'rights' in quotes? Would those be the 'rights' determined from the 'Constitution' of the 'United States', by the 'Supreme Court'? Those 'rights'? No, we don't ignore or suspend those 'rights'.
| 458 |
Cineaste Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:17:12pm |
re: #419 subsailor68
They believe that the head of the Mormon chuch is a living profit and his word is God's command.
Well, in this economy, it's nice to know that someone's making a "prophet".
(I know, I know, it was just an inadvertent typo, but it made me grin!)
;-)
ha! PIMF!!!
| 459 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:18:38pm |
re: #447 cosmo
Albusteve: I understand your dislike...as it's a point I've been struggling with for years (meaning "why do I believe this?") and it's not entirely thought out...more of a "work in progress." It's not perfect, and I'm the first to admit it. Kudos for not throwing flames. :)
I've been burnt to a crisp...seven weeks on an isolated burn unit...I have a biased opinion besides the law itself
| 460 |
wrenchwench Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:19:02pm |
re: #442 recusancy
I knew you'd come back with that. It's just so damn hard to find someone with the balls to actually criticize Israel. I don't know if he has some ulterior anti-semitic motive. Everything he (Larison) says is very much in the mainstream and reasonable as far as I've read. Who he links to, I don't know.
You should know. It matters. Especially if you are going to recommend him to others. There's stuff linked there that makes RS McCain look like a girl scout.
What do you want to see criticized about Israel?
| 461 |
drcordell Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:19:04pm |
re: #446 SanFranciscoZionist
Utah's got a high Mormon population. It affects them. What in Romney's record worried you?
Just because there is a high population of any given religion in a certain place doesn't make it legal to enforce their religious beliefs using the force of law. All I'm saying is, Romney has tacked hard right recently because he understands that is the only way to survive a 2012 primary. And if he wins the general election it will be because he played to the hardcore conservative base. The kind of people who express no reservations about outlawing abortion, keeping sodomy laws on the books, posting the 10 commandments in a courthouse. Etc. etc. etc.
| 462 |
recusancy Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:19:06pm |
re: #455 SasyMomaCat
Stormin Normin's 75 years old. I don't think he's going to be rising to anything except to get out of his golf cart down in Tampa.
| 463 |
Vambo Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:19:40pm |
re: #435 _RememberTonyC
i think it's a good idea to sample fox news as well as the others.
I've seen enough.
| 464 |
cosmo Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:19:41pm |
re: #457 SanFranciscoZionist
Those 'rights' in quotes? Would those be the 'rights' determined from the 'Constitution' of the 'United States', by the 'Supreme Court'? Those 'rights'? No, we don't ignore or suspend those 'rights'.
I put "rights" in "quotes" because the "right" being "suspended" here in this thread is the apparent Constitutional "right" to aloe vera for your genitals.
I'm afraid I don't see a "right" being violated here, thus the "quotes" were used--my way of lodging my protest.
| 465 |
SixDegrees Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:19:44pm |
re: #422 MandyManners
Do I smell a pot of kimchi being opened?
There is a distinct whiff of cabbage drifting through here.
| 466 |
_RememberTonyC Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:20:18pm |
re: #441 drcordell
That was like... 6 iterations of Mitt Romney ago. The man has literally changed his opinion on every issue since then. He implemented health care reform in Mass. that was extremely similar to the bill that's expected to pass in Congress. Think he's gonna hit the 2012 stump in favor of Obamacare?
Mitt Romney is a quality individual, who like many of us has done some things wrong. Some of his positions have evolved and it is not a crime to change on certain issues. He is also a good man who is rational, mature, worldly, and level headed. If he runs for president and gets the GOP nomination, I will strongly consider voting for him.
| 467 |
cosmo Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:20:57pm |
re: #459 albusteve
I've been burnt to a crisp...seven weeks on an isolated burn unit...I have a biased opinion besides the law itself
My sympathies...may you bathe in aloe and dream of Gilead. Seriously.
...to a speed(ier) recovery.
| 468 |
webevintage Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:21:06pm |
re: #444 Charles
The Birchers are back, big time.
Of course they are, there is a super skerit commie in the White House...he could be working on a new scheme to hurt our precious bodily fluids.
/
| 469 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:21:14pm |
re: #430 SixDegrees
I really wish they'd start teaching civics in the public schools again.
A grounding in basic morals and ethics wouldn't be a bad addition to the curriculum, either.
They do teach civics in the public schools, actually. But your basic point is valid.
| 470 |
Cineaste Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:22:24pm |
re: #432 EmmmieG
a. Kim Clark was extended an opportunity. You can turn those down. People do. Nothing will happen to you, but maybe he wanted to run a whole college?
I hate to tell you, he didn't tell it to HBS that way. He told them, "I was asked" and that "I cannot decline". I have that first person from a member of the board of overseers who was there when he said it and they were all left stunned.
| 471 |
Blueheron Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:22:36pm |
re: #391 Cineaste
Yes, to some extent. But more that I look at the case of people like Kim Clark, the former dean of Harvard Business School, who stepped down to run BYU-Idaho when the head of the church called him and told him he had to. They believe that the head of the Mormon chuch is a living profit and his word is God's command. I worry about anyone who claims to be a devoted follower of any religion where God's word is delivered by any individual. How can you be a devoted follower of that church and still maintain autonomy as a civilian leader. Unless Romney specifically states that he will ignore all instructions or "advice" from the head of the Mormon church, I remain wary.
I heard the same reasoning when JFK ran for President.
| 472 |
Charles Johnson Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:22:51pm |
re: #464 cosmo
I put "rights" in "quotes" because the "right" being "suspended" here in this thread is the apparent Constitutional "right" to aloe vera for your genitals.
I'm afraid I don't see a "right" being violated here, thus the "quotes" were used--my way of lodging my protest.
Look -- the guy has third degree burns. This is a serious injury, and we're not just talking about some aloe vera lotion. Withholding pain medication from someone with third degree burns to try to get them to talk -- when they're ALREADY talking -- is nothing but torture.
| 473 |
Gus Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:22:54pm |
re: #394 cosmo
My take, albeit somewhat "loony" to some, is this: if you've been caught in the act of violating the law--in this case the attempted murder of 300+ individuals in the air, as well as others on the ground--perhaps a small suspension in your "rights" isn't out of line, nor to this individual, unexpected.
I don't consider, in this specific case, the withholding of "Bag Balm" to be "morally repugnant" as was suggested by SixDegrees. I do, however, consider attempting to murder 300+ innocents to be incredibly "morally repugnant."
In non-primitive cultures, once an enemy combatant (lawful or unlawful) or criminal perpetrators ceases to engage in violent activities or attempted acts therein and found to be injured they are entitled to medical treatment.
This is the case in battle and we do not shoot injured combatants or prisoners in the field the way many belligerent nations did in past years. This kind of behavior, since it remains unlawful, is the workings of a sadistic mind and subject to criminal prosecution as well.
| 474 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:23:04pm |
re: #439 Big Steve
Was the pope on that boat with him?
That would be John XXIII. Have some respect, kiddo.
/
| 475 |
SixDegrees Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:23:19pm |
re: #464 cosmo
I put "rights" in "quotes" because the "right" being "suspended" here in this thread is the apparent Constitutional "right" to aloe vera for your genitals.
I'm afraid I don't see a "right" being violated here, thus the "quotes" were used--my way of lodging my protest.
So you would have a person spend lengthy period of time suffering horrendous, pointless pain while awaiting trial, even when such pain could be quickly and easily suppressed?
You need to take a deep breath and a long, deep look into yourself if that's the case. There is something fundamentally wrong with you as a human being if you hold such views.
| 476 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:23:21pm |
re: #464 cosmo
I put "rights" in "quotes" because the "right" being "suspended" here in this thread is the apparent Constitutional "right" to aloe vera for your genitals.
I'm afraid I don't see a "right" being violated here, thus the "quotes" were used--my way of lodging my protest.
You don't think withholding medical care violates a suspects rights?
| 477 |
_RememberTonyC Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:23:22pm |
| 478 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:24:03pm |
re: #452 drcordell
Again, you can't possibly compare the Mitt Romney who governed Massachusetts with the Mitt Romney who would run for President in 2012. Legally he shouldn't even be allowed to run under the same name.
Examples? Why?
| 479 |
SixDegrees Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:24:32pm |
re: #469 SanFranciscoZionist
They do teach civics in the public schools, actually. But your basic point is valid.
I was afraid that might be true.
I wish they would start teaching civics properly, then.
| 480 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:24:39pm |
re: #467 cosmo
My sympathies...may you bathe in aloe and dream of Gilead. Seriously.
...to a speed(ier) recovery.
that was 26 years ago...and aloe has nothing to do with it
| 481 |
recusancy Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:25:00pm |
re: #460 wrenchwench
What do you want to see criticized about Israel?
Settlements. But that's a topic for another time. It just gets annoying that every nation can be criticized including our own, as it should be at times, but if I disagree with anything Israel does I'm a possible anti-semite. Like the what Hanna Rosenthal has to put up with. She doesn't follow AIPAC's line to a T so she gets pummeled.
And I did click on those links. They're pretty fucked up. I've just read him a few times when linked to from someone else. If you have any info about Larison other then who he links to that would be appreciated.
| 482 |
Randall Gross Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:25:11pm |
re: #442 recusancy
I knew you'd come back with that. It's just so damn hard to find someone with the balls to actually criticize Israel. I don't know if he has some ulterior anti-semitic motive. Everything he (Larison) says is very much in the mainstream and reasonable as far as I've read. Who he links to, I don't know.
From the sumbitches sidebar links I can tell you he has ulterior motive. Too many white supremacist and anti-semite lite sites there.
| 483 |
drcordell Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:25:58pm |
re: #466 _RememberTonyC
Mitt Romney is a quality individual, who like many of us has done some things wrong. Some of his positions have evolved and it is not a crime to change on certain issues. He is also a good man who is rational, mature, worldly, and level headed. If he runs for president and gets the GOP nomination, I will strongly consider voting for him.
So it doesn't bother you in the least that he seems to have completely reversed his opinion on nearly every major issue? I'll be the first person to acknowledge that I think a politician should not be afraid to change their opinion when presented with new evidence or new circumstances.
But the man has fundamentally changed nearly his entire political philosophy. He went from a man who admittedly was not personally in favor of abortion, but acknowledged that a woman's right to choose existed, to someone who now supports a full federal ban.
He ran for the governorship of Mass. on a platform of healthcare reform and implemented a system that contains individual mandates to purchase health insurance. Yet now he is fully against the nearly identical reforms being pushed by the Dems.
This isn't something like changing your mind about a foreign policy issue after new facts have been uncovered and new developments have happened. This is a man who has pulled a complete 180 with regard to fundamental issues regarding the role of the government.
| 484 |
recusancy Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:26:08pm |
re: #472 Charles
Look -- the guy has third degree burns. This is a serious injury, and we're not just talking about some aloe vera lotion. Withholding pain medication from someone with third degree burns to try to get them to talk -- when they're ALREADY talking -- is nothing but torture.
Chapter 1 Article 12 of the Geneva Conventions says as much.
| 485 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:27:13pm |
re: #464 cosmo
I put "rights" in "quotes" because the "right" being "suspended" here in this thread is the apparent Constitutional "right" to aloe vera for your genitals.
I'm afraid I don't see a "right" being violated here, thus the "quotes" were used--my way of lodging my protest.
Read upthread. It's unlawful to withhold reasonable medical care to a prisoner. Whether you see a 'right' or not is irrelevent. The Supreme Court does.
| 486 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:27:29pm |
re: #483 drcordell
if Romney runs against BO, it's a slam dunk he gets my vote
| 487 |
reine.de.tout Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:27:47pm |
re: #476 MandyManners
You don't think withholding medical care violates a suspects rights?
Doesn't just violate the suspect's rights; it violates humanity, imo.
| 488 |
_RememberTonyC Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:28:00pm |
re: #481 recusancy
Settlements. But that's a topic for another time. It just gets annoying that every nation can be criticized including our own, as it should be at times, but if I disagree with anything Israel does I'm a possible anti-semite. Like the what Hanna Rosenthal has to put up with. She doesn't follow AIPAC's line to a T so she gets pummeled.
And I did click on those links. They're pretty fucked up. I've just read him a few times when linked to from someone else. If you have any info about Larison other then who he links to that would be appreciated.
criticizing Isarael doesn't necessarily make someone an antisemite. But criticizing Israel exclusively while never criticizing its enemies is something entirely different.
| 489 |
prairiefire Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:28:42pm |
re: #455 SasyMomaCat
Good afternoon everyone!
Does General Powell hold a position in the current administration? I have heard him express support for President Obama.
| 490 |
Cineaste Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:28:54pm |
re: #464 cosmo
I put "rights" in "quotes" because the "right" being "suspended" here in this thread is the apparent Constitutional "right" to aloe vera for your genitals.
I'm afraid I don't see a "right" being violated here, thus the "quotes" were used--my way of lodging my protest.
It's not a "right" in air-quotes when the Supreme Court specifically says it's covered by the 8th Amendment.
| 491 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:29:07pm |
re: #479 SixDegrees
I was afraid that might be true.
I wish they would start teaching civics properly, then.
You can lead a student to knowledge, but you cannot make them think.
| 492 |
cosmo Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:29:23pm |
re: #472 Charles
Look -- the guy has third degree burns. This is a serious injury, and we're not just talking about some aloe vera lotion. Withholding pain medication from someone with third degree burns to try to get them to talk -- when they're ALREADY talking -- is nothing but torture.
Agreed. I guess my own personal frustration with how the "War on Terror" (I can put THAT in quotes!) is being prosecuted has come out here. That being said, wasn't he already willing to suffer death in the name of Allah? Is the fact that he's suffering slowly and more painfully (perhaps) actually bolstering his case for the reward in the hereafter?
Back to the point: Buchanan misses the point here, but he is pandering to the "kill 'em all" echo chamber. Unfortunately, I've seen too much to have unbridled sympathy for individuals who kill indiscriminately for their ideology.
| 493 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:29:29pm |
re: #484 recusancy
Chapter 1 Article 12 of the Geneva Conventions says as much.
you don't even need a law...visit a burn unit sometime...I'm beginning to resent this whole line of bullshit, aloe and what have you...talk about cold hearted
| 494 |
Cineaste Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:30:13pm |
re: #489 prairiefire
Does General Powell hold a position in the current administration? I have heard him express support for President Obama.
No, he is not a part of this administration.
| 495 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:30:14pm |
Just one other thought that cropped up in regards to conservatives today.
In my entire life, I have never seen a correlation between gender and intelligence. In otherwords, just like there are a lot of really smart men there are just as many brilliant women - and unfortunately, just like there are a lot of really stupid men there are a lot of really stupid women.
I bring this because of many of the GOP women being promoted these days.
Without a doubt, the single greatest engine of female societal advancement was the advent of safe, reliable and affordable birth control. Without it, all talk of women in the workplace, rising to positions of authority, serving in the military or going on to advanced academic positions must be trumped unless she chooses to remain celibate. The ability to plan when or if, she becomes pregnant can not be underestimated. Futher, the fact that she is now free to express her sexuality without fear of pregnancy gives her tremendous freedom and a complete paradigm shift from how things used to be.
To be opposed to a woman's reproductive rights is to put women back into the stone ages. I am not just talking about abortion. I am talking about just say no and then letting things take their course. I am talking about refusing to give developing countries birth control, and assuming that anything would change without changing the lot of women.
So here is another part where I have to utterly part ways with the right - and further point out the insane stupidity of women who think that the right is on their side. You want to know a super effective way to change the situation in Africa or the Muslim world? Give the women their the option of taking the pill.
| 496 |
Gus Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:30:20pm |
re: #490 Cineaste
It's not a "right" in air-quotes when the Supreme Court specifically says it's covered by the 8th Amendment.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
| 497 |
reine.de.tout Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:30:55pm |
re: #481 recusancy
Settlements. But that's a topic for another time. It just gets annoying that every nation can be criticized including our own, as it should be at times, but if I disagree with anything Israel does I'm a possible anti-semite. Like the what Hanna Rosenthal has to put up with. She doesn't follow AIPAC's line to a T so she gets pummeled.
And I did click on those links. They're pretty fucked up. I've just read him a few times when linked to from someone else. If you have any info about Larison other then who he links to that would be appreciated.
Many blogs are criticized here, and very much rightly so, in part for who they link to, the "linking" process being seen as a form of support.
If this guy sounds "reasonable" and mainstream to you but is linking to blogs that are suspect, I suggest a reconsideration of your opinion might be in order
| 498 |
_RememberTonyC Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:30:57pm |
re: #483 drcordell
So it doesn't bother you in the least that he seems to have completely reversed his opinion on nearly every major issue? I'll be the first person to acknowledge that I think a politician should not be afraid to change their opinion when presented with new evidence or new circumstances.
But the man has fundamentally changed nearly his entire political philosophy. He went from a man who admittedly was not personally in favor of abortion, but acknowledged that a woman's right to choose existed, to someone who now supports a full federal ban.
He ran for the governorship of Mass. on a platform of healthcare reform and implemented a system that contains individual mandates to purchase health insurance. Yet now he is fully against the nearly identical reforms being pushed by the Dems.
This isn't something like changing your mind about a foreign policy issue after new facts have been uncovered and new developments have happened. This is a man who has pulled a complete 180 with regard to fundamental issues regarding the role of the government.
nobody is perfect. Obama probably said certain things to get elected and has backed off on some of them. if you expect 100% consistency from politicians, you are going to find all of them wanting.
| 499 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:31:11pm |
re: #484 recusancy
Chapter 1 Article 12 of the Geneva Conventions says as much.
Oh, for pity's sake. We don't need to rely on any law other than that which is found in our own nation when it comes to criminals.
| 500 |
drcordell Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:31:50pm |
re: #478 SanFranciscoZionist
Examples? Why?
Completely changed abortion stance from pro-choice to pro-life.
Previously supported repeal of don't ask, don't tell. Now supports continuing policy.
Ran for Senate in 1994 on gun control platform, stated he was "not with NRA." Now opposes gun control laws.
Supported campaign finance reform efforts in both 1994 and 2002. Now derides McCain-Feingold as an attack on "free speech."
Described McCain's immigration reform plans as "reasonable." Now refers to attempts to reform immigration as "amnesty."
| 501 |
Cineaste Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:32:47pm |
re: #499 MandyManners
Oh, for pity's sake. We don't need to rely on any law other than that which is found in our own nation when it comes to criminals.
Ok, so it's BOTH in Chapter 1, Article 12 AND the 8th Amendment. We're double covered.
| 503 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:33:35pm |
re: #470 Cineaste
I think you and I see "I cannot decline" differently. He was being offered a church responsibility that showed great trust in him and meant the church really believed in him. Also, these are internal church affairs, not governmental.
The question of whether the church would order around an LDS elected government official is different. If the church orders around LDS elected officials, why isn't Harry Reid being directed? Orrin Hatch? John Huntsman?
| 504 |
subsailor68 Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:34:16pm |
re: #491 SanFranciscoZionist
You can lead a student to knowledge, but you cannot make them think.
Hi SFZ! I've posted this before, but your quote reminded me:
Someone asked Dorothy Parker if she could use the word "horticulture" in a sentence. She thought for a moment and replied:
"You can lead a horticulture, but you cannot make her think."
(I know, you already knew that one.)
;-)
| 505 |
reine.de.tout Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:34:32pm |
re: #491 SanFranciscoZionist
You can lead a student to knowledge, but you cannot make them think.
Some parental guidance might be helpful there, imo.
| 506 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:34:50pm |
re: #500 drcordell
Completely changed abortion stance from pro-choice to pro-life.
Previously supported repeal of don't ask, don't tell. Now supports continuing policy.
Ran for Senate in 1994 on gun control platform, stated he was "not with NRA." Now opposes gun control laws.
Supported campaign finance reform efforts in both 1994 and 2002. Now derides McCain-Feingold as an attack on "free speech."
Described McCain's immigration reform plans as "reasonable." Now refers to attempts to reform immigration as "amnesty."
Thank you. Those are real concerns.
| 507 |
SixDegrees Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:35:23pm |
re: #499 MandyManners
Oh, for pity's sake. We don't need to rely on any law other than that which is found in our own nation when it comes to criminals.
I don't think we even need a law to inform us that allowing someone to linger in agony when the means to stop that suffering is readily available is, quite simply, wrong.
| 508 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:35:30pm |
re: #501 Cineaste
Ok, so it's BOTH in Chapter 1, Article 12 AND the 8th Amendment. We're double covered.
So I leave the morphine drip on? We're good on this?
| 509 |
prairiefire Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:35:40pm |
re: #504 subsailor68
Hurrah to the Divine Ms Parker. Ahead of her time!
| 510 |
Lidane Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:35:45pm |
re: #190 brookly red
there was some guy on the radio today comparing the drug gangs in Mexico to AQ, & he made a good case.
They're worse than Al-Qaeda, IMO, and for several reasons:
1. They're highly organized and trained. A lot of the highest ranks in the cartels, especially in Mexico, belong to former military and police officers that have been extensively trained in combat and tactics. Read about Los Zetas sometime. It's both enlightening and scary when you realize just how disciplined and mercenary they are. Some loser trying to blow up a plane by igniting his underwear is an amateur in comparison.
2. They're well armed, sometimes even better than the governments they're going up against, and they're not afraid to use that power to destroy anyone who gets in their way.
3. They're right next door and are already a very real threat that's making inroads in this country. I see it here in Texas, especially in Laredo, where most of my family is, including a few cousins that are cops.
4. They're motivated by power and profit, which is far deadlier than religious fanaticism. The nutbars in Al-Qaeda have delusions of ruling the world and of forcibly converting or killing unbelievers. That's child's play compared to the cartel terrorists who are motivated by money and their position of control.
So yeah. From my point of view, the cartels are much more of a threat. I'm not blind to the threat of radical Islamist fundamentalism, but in terms of proximity, weaponry, and motivation, the cartels have my attention far more.
| 511 |
Blueheron Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:35:46pm |
re: #439 Big Steve
Was the pope on that boat with him?
Actually there was a lot of talk about a tunnel from the Vatican to Washington. No kidding.
| 512 |
cosmo Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:36:17pm |
Again, folks, thanks for the legal references. I guess I'm not saying it's right to withhold the treatment (regardless of whether he's talking or not). I think it's just a good thing (both for him and me) that I'm not the appointed attending physician. My own weakness. I own it.
| 513 |
drcordell Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:36:19pm |
re: #506 SanFranciscoZionist
Thank you. Those are real concerns.
I don't think he's a bad person, I just think it's an illustration of how rigid his own convictions are. If he's willing to completely double-back on his stated positions regarding those issues, whose to say what else he'll simply decide to change his mind about. Just seems like above all else his motivating concern is political expediency. "What do I have to say now to get elected?"
| 514 |
JeffM70 Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:37:04pm |
It always fascinates me to see conservatives who constantly deride moral relativism constantly engaging in it. If one believes morals can be disregarded whenever they become inconvenient, that one doesn't really have morals.
| 515 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:37:35pm |
re: #512 cosmo
Again, folks, thanks for the legal references. I guess I'm not saying it's right to withhold the treatment (regardless of whether he's talking or not). I think it's just a good thing (both for him and me) that I'm not the appointed attending physician. My own weakness. I own it.
You'd be willing to violate the Hippocratic Oath?
| 517 |
albusteve Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:40:03pm |
re: #512 cosmo
Again, folks, thanks for the legal references. I guess I'm not saying it's right to withhold the treatment (regardless of whether he's talking or not). I think it's just a good thing (both for him and me) that I'm not the appointed attending physician. My own weakness. I own it.
if you have to think about it, you are already wrong and taking the low road...obviously you have never suffered the pain of third degree burns, but even that is beside the point
| 518 |
SixDegrees Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:40:06pm |
re: #514 JeffM70
It always fascinates me to see conservatives who constantly deride moral relativism constantly engaging in it. If one believes morals can be disregarded whenever they become inconvenient, that one doesn't really have morals.
For what it's worth, I consider myself to be a Conservative.
I'll also point out that there is a great deal of confusion nowadays between Conservatism and the agenda espoused by the religious right. Despite what the latter may claim, their goals and those of Conservatism have little in common, and at present are often in direct opposition.
Unfortunately, there are few, if any, Goldwater-style Conservatives around these days. But I digress.
| 519 |
Gus Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:40:15pm |
It's an absurd fantasy. The reality is that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab will not be:
a) Denied medical treatment.
b) Denied pain killers.
c) Subjected to waterboarding.
d) Subjected to any other enhanced interrogation techniques.
| 520 |
cosmo Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:40:34pm |
re: #515 MandyManners
You'd be willing to violate the Hippocratic Oath?
If I'd sworn it, no. Frankly, if it's within my power to help someone, I'll do it. I do think, however, if this guy were in a group that needed triage, he'd be at the back of the line.
Would that be a violation of the oath?
| 521 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:41:10pm |
re: #519 Gus 802
No...but he will be laughed at. I mean, exploding underwear?
| 522 |
Olsonist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:41:11pm |
re: #510 Lidane
Exactly. The cartels represent an existential threat to Mexico. AQ? Puhleeeze.
| 523 |
Gus Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:41:55pm |
re: #520 cosmo
If I'd sworn it, no. Frankly, if it's within my power to help someone, I'll do it. I do think, however, if this guy were in a group that needed triage, he'd be at the back of the line.
Would that be a violation of the oath?
Another fantasy? He's not in a triage line.
| 524 |
wrenchwench Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:42:02pm |
re: #510 Lidane
I agree. Another aspect that makes them such a threat is the entrenched corruption that helps them thrive. And that is crossing the border. As your cousins know.
| 525 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:42:10pm |
re: #519 Gus 802
It's an absurd fantasy. The reality is that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab will not be:
a) Denied medical treatment.
b) Denied pain killers.
c) Subjected to waterboarding.
d) Subjected to any other enhanced interrogation techniques.
Amen... and the fact that he really wants that to happen should tell you everything you need to know about why I hate the po torture stance so much. It is not about justice. It is not about effective intelligence. It is not about doing what is necessary or even useful. It is about base calls for vengeance on the lowest level.
| 526 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:43:08pm |
re: #520 cosmo
If I'd sworn it, no. Frankly, if it's within my power to help someone, I'll do it. I do think, however, if this guy were in a group that needed triage, he'd be at the back of the line.
Would that be a violation of the oath?
It would depend on the severity of the other patients' problems.
| 527 |
Obdicut Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:43:21pm |
re: #520 cosmo
Yes. You don't understand triage. It's not based on morals.
| 528 |
Cineaste Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:43:52pm |
re: #508 SanFranciscoZionist
So I leave the morphine drip on? We're good on this?
I suppose we could offer him TV but the only channel would be an endless loop of Sarah Palin speeches... Or that might be beyond the pale! ///
| 529 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:44:07pm |
re: #516 prairiefire
Great question, Mandy.
Thank you.
I just cannot imagine purposefully mistreating another human being in agony.
| 530 |
JeffM70 Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:44:43pm |
re: #520 cosmo
Wouldn't that depend on the severity of the injury? I would think life-threatening injuries take precedent regardless of who the patient is.
| 531 |
subsailor68 Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:44:44pm |
Well all, must go. I hope everyone has a terrific evening!
| 532 |
cosmo Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:45:08pm |
re: #517 albusteve
if you have to think about it, you are already wrong and taking the low road...obviously you have never suffered the pain of third degree burns, but even that is beside the point
Beside indeed. Would molten plastic burning through to the bone of my right index and pinkie fingers be considered third-degree? 'Cuz it hurt like hell, but it didn't cover my body.
My point is this, and Gus just covered it: He'll get what he needs because we value life in this country, regardless of whether the terrorist valued life or not. We do hold the moral high ground. Men and women die every day because we want to maintain our hold on that high ground. We are probed, injured and sometimes killed because of the moral high ground. I guess I'm just having my what-if moment.
Because I, too, value human life, I would never act it out. Because I am an imperfect being, the thoughts to enter my mind for review. I'm just being honest about who I am.
| 533 |
Cineaste Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:45:11pm |
re: #515 MandyManners
You'd be willing to violate the Hippocratic Oath?
It's ironic that the violator of the hippocratic oath is a hypocrite...
| 534 |
Gus Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:45:35pm |
re: #525 LudwigVanQuixote
Amen... and the fact that he really wants that to happen should tell you everything you need to know about why I hate the po torture stance so much. It is not about justice. It is not about effective intelligence. It is not about doing what is necessary or even useful. It is about base calls for vengeance on the lowest level.
In this case it is about vengeance and in many ways it's about a sadistic fantasy. It serves no purpose as a deterrent and bodes poorly on our society.
| 535 |
Killgore Trout Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:46:00pm |
Some hot air comments....
Game Over.Break out the Confederate Flag!
This country’s goin’ broke and there isn’t a wrench big enough to fix it!
HondaV65 on December 29, 2009 at 3:00 PM
....
Let’s put Ogabe in a cave and seal the entrance with a giant stone. If he manages to move the stone and escape, then I’ll believe the comparison, if not….Bishop on December 29, 2009 at 4:14 PM
| 536 |
MandyManners Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:46:01pm |
If Ted Bundy had burned balls, I would laugh at him.
| 537 |
Gus Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:46:41pm |
re: #521 EmmmieG
No...but he will be laughed at. I mean, exploding underwear?
True. It's rather gross to look at as well.
| 538 |
cosmo Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:48:12pm |
Of course I understand what triage is. And Mandy, it was a great question...and I agree, I wouldn't purposefully let another human being suffer if it were within my power. I may be conflicted internally as I apply my relief, but I wouldn't withhold it.
| 539 |
JeffM70 Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:48:25pm |
re: #518 SixDegrees
For what it's worth, I consider myself to be a Conservative.
I'll also point out that there is a great deal of confusion nowadays between Conservatism and the agenda espoused by the religious right. Despite what the latter may claim, their goals and those of Conservatism have little in common, and at present are often in direct opposition.
Unfortunately, there are few, if any, Goldwater-style Conservatives around these days. But I digress.
9/11 utterly broke the GOP's collective mind.
| 540 |
cosmo Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:50:09pm |
re: #536 MandyManners
If Ted Bundy had burned balls, I would laugh at him.
And you'd treat him...through the chuckles. As would I if it were within my ability.
| 541 |
Lidane Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:51:55pm |
re: #524 wrenchwench
I agree. Another aspect that makes them such a threat is the entrenched corruption that helps them thrive. And that is crossing the border. As your cousins know.
Sadly, that entrenched corruption is as much a part of Mexico's history as anything else. It goes all the way back to the beginning, from the time of the conquistadors and has only gotten worse in the centuries since.
I was just in Laredo this past week for Christmas and went out with some of my cousins, including one of the police officers, for a few drinks. You can't even mention the cartels openly because you never know who's around and if they might consider you a threat-- and we were in a nice, fairly middle class bar just hanging out watching football. If that's not a much bigger threat to this country than some jackass who lit his underwear on fire, I don't know what is.
| 542 |
Sheila Broflovski Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:55:26pm |
re: #481 recusancy
Settlements. But that's a topic for another time. It just gets annoying that every nation can be criticized including our own, as it should be at times, but if I disagree with anything Israel does I'm a possible anti-semite. Like the what Hanna Rosenthal has to put up with. She doesn't follow AIPAC's line to a T so she gets pummeled.
And I did click on those links. They're pretty fucked up. I've just read him a few times when linked to from someone else. If you have any info about Larison other then who he links to that would be appreciated.
Hanna Rosenthal is much worse than "following AIPAC's line to a T." She is following J Street, an active anti-Israel agenda. They claim to be "pro-Israel" but this is pure bullshit. They are advocating Israel to give up and die by making suicidal concessions for nothing.
| 543 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:55:27pm |
re: #519 Gus 802
It's an absurd fantasy. The reality is that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab will not be:
a) Denied medical treatment.
b) Denied pain killers.
c) Subjected to waterboarding.
d) Subjected to any other enhanced interrogation techniques.
or e) a free man ever again
| 544 |
SasyMomaCat Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:55:56pm |
re: #489 prairiefire
You're right - it appears that I misspoke. He came out in support of President Obama during his campaign. He was mentioned as a potential cabinet member, but this never materialized. My facts were screwy - glad you caught it. But the opinions of "betrayal" because of his support during the '08 election cycle still hold true.
| 545 |
recusancy Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:56:18pm |
re: #542 Alouette
Hanna Rosenthal is much worse than "following AIPAC's line to a T." She is following J Street, an active anti-Israel agenda. They claim to be "pro-Israel" but this is pure bullshit. They are advocating Israel to give up and die by making suicidal concessions for nothing.
Thank you for making my point.
| 546 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:56:26pm |
re: #525 LudwigVanQuixote
Amen... and the fact that he really wants that to happen should tell you everything you need to know about why I hate the po torture stance so much. It is not about justice. It is not about effective intelligence. It is not about doing what is necessary or even useful. It is about base calls for vengeance on the lowest level.
And fantasies that, somehow, the rule of law makes up weaker than our enemies.
| 547 |
Sheila Broflovski Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:57:03pm |
re: #545 recusancy
Thank you for making my point.
What point is that, other than the one on top of your head?
| 548 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:57:28pm |
re: #528 Cineaste
I suppose we could offer him TV but the only channel would be an endless loop of Sarah Palin speeches... Or that might be beyond the pale! ///
I don't know...he might find her interesting. She is sort of a caricature of what Americans are 'supposed' to be like.
| 549 |
wrenchwench Tue, Dec 29, 2009 1:59:21pm |
re: #541 Lidane
Mexico is having to remake its criminal justice system from the ground up. The job is underway. Whether they have enough momentum to finish it is still up in the air.
People who don't live near the border don't realize how close the communities on the two sides are. We cannot be separated, so we must be involved.
| 550 |
Dancing along the light of day Tue, Dec 29, 2009 2:01:25pm |
re: #549 wrenchwench
Yes, but at least now, Mexico and it's politicians seem to be taking the cartels seriously.
| 552 |
Lidane Tue, Dec 29, 2009 2:07:28pm |
re: #550 Floral Giraffe
Yes, but at least now, Mexico and it's politicians seem to be taking the cartels seriously.
They don't have much choice when the cartels can outgun the military and have people on the inside working for them.
Something has to be done about them. I just hope we don't lose sight of that in this country while people freak out about some kid who lit his underwear on fire. Yes, radical Islamist fundamentalism is a threat, but we can't focus on them to the exclusion of other, larger threats that are right next door.
| 553 |
Stuart Leviton Tue, Dec 29, 2009 2:10:28pm |
re: #481 recusancy
Settlements. But that's a topic for another time. It just gets annoying that every nation can be criticized including our own, as it should be at times, but if I disagree with anything Israel does I'm a possible anti-semite. Like the what Hanna Rosenthal has to put up with. She doesn't follow AIPAC's line to a T so she gets pummeled.
I'll register this protest with you rather than down-dinging. The settlements being an obstacle to peace is a red herring. Esp since you said it's a "topic for another time".
| 554 |
Dancing along the light of day Tue, Dec 29, 2009 2:17:35pm |
re: #552 Lidane
Yes, the murder of the soldiers entire family last week, was a new depth of hell.
| 555 |
recusancy Tue, Dec 29, 2009 2:19:51pm |
re: #553 Stuart Leviton
I'll register this protest with you rather than down-dinging. The settlements being an obstacle to peace is a red herring. Esp since you said it's a "topic for another time".
It's an obstacle to two states. I'm sure you'll say the real issue is Palestine not recognizing Isreal as a jewish state. That could just as easily be called a red herring. I don't think there will be peace anytime soon. But there can be two states which may lead to peace peace generations later. The status quo with the west bank and gaza territories sure as hell aren't the answer. That just foments more bad will towards each other.
| 556 |
Stuart Leviton Tue, Dec 29, 2009 2:21:43pm |
re: #555 recusancyTo be continued in another thread at some other time. Until then, I bid you well. I am signing off for a while. Cheers, my friend.
| 557 |
Vambo Tue, Dec 29, 2009 2:26:28pm |
re: #477 _RememberTonyC
which of the others do you prefer?
none of them.
I prefer independent sources - REAL liberal media (DemocracyNow, the Nation, Mother Jones), PBS when I'm not forgetting that it exists, and online Associated Press for general updates. on MSNBC I can watch Maddow sometimes but that's about it.
if something interesting or important gets talked about on cable news, I'll watch it on youtube. but that's not very often.
| 558 |
coachbob Tue, Dec 29, 2009 3:07:06pm |
re: #401 MandyManners
Strange how the asshole lumps the deaths of Christians and Jews together in the second sentence. I did a quick scan and did not find a reference to genocide or concentration camps.
Not saying I agree with his position. What I am saying is he does not say Hilter wasn't that bad. During your quick scan, did you happen to notice that?
| 559 |
Charles Johnson Tue, Dec 29, 2009 5:09:59pm |
re: #558 coachbob
A climate denier who's also a fan of Pat Buchanan. Imagine my shock.
| 560 |
rcm Tue, Dec 29, 2009 5:52:59pm |
I'm sorry to say, but torture per se is not evil. Torturing an innocent child or a harmless 80-year-old grandmother is evil. Torturing someone who has killed scores of innocents, is hellbent on killing scores of innocents, or has information on those who would kill scores of innocents isn't evil, it's a moral imperative. There's nothing that we could do to this piece of shit that is beyond the pale. Nothing. Gouging his eyes out. Fine. Mutilating his genitals. No problem. Shoving an electric drill up his ass. I'm all for it. Moreover, I'd be the first to sign up to levy this type of punishment and wouldn't feel like I was debasing myself at all.
Feeling holier than thou because we as a country profess horror at torturing terrorists is laughable (although I guarantee you no one that watches NASCAR or NFL football, i.e., the majority of Americans, would give a shit if we tortured the fuck out of these animals). We're making ourselves marginally more vulnerable to becoming extinct by fighting with both hands tied behind our back, while our enemies put no such constraints on themselves, and then mock us for our weakness. Our enemies actually understand the concept of self-preservation when it comes to their culture, whereas we don't. Meaning we've become "that guy," you know, the one you can mock to his face without him knowing it. Which is to say, we're fucking pathetic.
| 561 |
Obdicut Tue, Dec 29, 2009 6:12:29pm |
re: #560 rcm
People who fantasize about torture are creepy as hell, dude.
| 562 |
Charles Johnson Tue, Dec 29, 2009 6:29:08pm |
re: #560 rcm
You'll have to find another blog to post your torture fantasies at, because after that revolting comment you're not welcome at LGF.
Just disgusting. I'll leave your comment there as an example of why people get banned from LGF.
| 564 |
eneri Tue, Dec 29, 2009 7:12:13pm |
Pat Buchanan is a disgusting human being. My sincere prayer is he never has to undergo that which he wishes on others.
| 566 |
Charles Johnson Wed, Dec 30, 2009 6:38:06am |
re: #565 coachbob
So long now! Take care, and have fun with the non-sycophants elsewhere.
| 567 |
Xenobyte Wed, Dec 30, 2009 10:02:49am |
Torturing the moron for information is useless... The first words out of his mouth was "I'm from Al-Queda" and he wouldn't stop talking.
But punishing this wannabe terrorist for his crime is a different matter. I do agree with various people here that a terrorist has no rights and was actively involved in the worst possible crime, so the punishment should fit the crime. I'm not gonna provide details as that isn't so popular around here but I do think that simple prison or the death sentence isn't gonna do it. We need much harsher punishments for these types of crimes.
Actually it would be a nice touch if there was public access to the execution of the punishment, maybe even on live television. I'm sure it would be a most popular program, and it could be even better if the audience (both onsite and at home) interactively could participate in both selecting the various possible punishments as mandated by the court sentence and participate in administering them. Now I'm sure that would satisfy most people's desire for revenge against these fanatics dating back to 9/11.
| 568 |
Charles Johnson Wed, Dec 30, 2009 3:55:57pm |
re: #567 Xenobyte
Get off my website. You suck.
| 569 |
Randall Gross Wed, Dec 30, 2009 4:21:55pm |
re: #567 Xenobyte
Only an idiot would think that emulating the tyranny in Saudi Arabia with public executions would be a good thing. Clue: They have public executions in Saudi Arabia and in Yemen, where is Bin Laden from?
| 570 |
CSKapper Wed, Dec 30, 2009 9:10:09pm |
re: #560 rcm
Our enemies actually understand the concept of self-preservation when it comes to their culture, whereas we don't.
The fallacy in that argument is that our culture would allow such atrocities. The reality is that if we were to allow those horrendous acts to occur, then we would surrender our culture and debase ourselves to the lowest common denominator. It is through our strength, not weakness, that we do not torture. It is the refinement of our culture that keeps us human. It is with the utmost depravity and the lack of culture which would allow one to torture a fellow human being with total disregard of our own humanity.
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
Alone in a Bathroom: The Fear and Uncertainty of a Post-Roe Medication Abortion Angel tucked two white pills into each side of her mouth, bracing herself as they began to dissolve. Her deepest fears and anxieties took over. Angel had wanted to talk to a doctor before she took the pills to ... Cheechako
They Were Desperate to Get Pregnant. Then IVF Gave Them Extra Embryos. One morning last spring, Ashley Harrolle put her 1-year-old daughter down for a nap and went to the kitchen. She pulled up her fertility clinic’s contact information. It was time to make the call. In a freezer several hundred ... CheechakoJoe Bacon ✅
March FavoritesYou've seen these all already but looking back, just because. These are my favorite shots of this last month. That 1937 Zeiss Sonnar is such a gloriously wonderful bit of glass. Thanks for looking.
William Lewis
Russia’s New Combat Robots Blown Up by Drones Near Avdiivka When we landed on the moon, I thought about how science fiction had become real. Now, the robot wars have begun. It's more poignant somehow on the ground than in the missile wars we have in the air as ...
Rightwingconspirator
Why Did More Than 1,000 People Die After Police Subdued Them With Force That Isn’t Meant to Kill? An investigation led by The Associated Press has found that, over a decade, more than 1,000 people died after police subdued them through physical holds, stun guns, body blows and other force not intended to be lethal. More: Why ... CheechakoKGxvi
Abortions Outside Medical System Increased Sharply After Roe Fell, Study Finds The number of women using abortion pills to end their pregnancies on their own without the direct involvement of a U.S.-based medical provider rose sharply in the months after the Supreme Court eliminated a constitutional right to abortion, according ... Cheechako
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ... Cheechako
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ... Cheechako
