Republicans

[Talvenada]

'Pubs:

A recent non-partisan poll (the 2000) was taken of only hardcore 'pubs. I suppose that means Conse 'Pubs & Neo-Cons.

39% of them want Obama impeached? That's 4 out of 10 of well-known posters here. An addition 29% (68%) say they aren't sure he should be impeached.

Okay, 'Pubs. Impeach him, not sure or don't impeach? Let's see who'll speak up; who'll stay silent!!

[TracyCoxx]

If Clinton can be impeached for lying about a blowjob, BO can be impeached for putting the country in irreversible insolvency and therefore threatening national security.

[smc]

Don't either of you have anything better to do with your time?

[The Conquistador]

Although I'm not a 'Pub, I voted "no".

Let him continue to make an ass of himself so that when the next elections come, no one votes for him or anyone who is preaching "hope" and "change".

[The Conquistador]

Don't either of you have anything better to do with your time?

Isn't it obvious smc?

We are the elite. We are post count whores.

[randolph]

Isn't it obvious smc?

We are the elite. We are post count whores.

Aa Ha, so that's how its done. Be careful, if a penis gets too big it can turn into a prick. :eek:

[The Conquistador]

Aa Ha, so that's how its done. Be careful, if a penis gets too big it can turn into a prick. :eek:

Not quite. You, Bionca and Ila have the biggest penises here according to the post. I an a couple hundred posts away from having a summer sausage...

[randolph]

Not quite. You, Bionca and Ila have the biggest penises here according to the post. I an a couple hundred posts away from having a summer sausage...

Well, I guess you guys are going to have to work harder to get ahead. :turnoff::turnoff::lol:

[The Conquistador]

Well, I guess you guys are going to have to work harder to get ahead. :turnoff::turnoff::lol:

I'll just go the old fashioned route and strap a weight to it to increase my dong size. It's not cheating; it's fast-tracking! ;):yes:

[franalexes]

Although I'm not a 'Pub, I voted "no".

Let him continue to make an ass of himself so that when the next elections come, no one votes for him or anyone who is preaching "hope" and "change".

yup, :yes:

[smc]

There are such better ways to encourage growth than through posting. For instance, you could follow my lead and scour the Freebies forum to encourage some in-pants growth.

[The Conquistador]

There are such better ways to encourage growth than through posting. For instance, you could follow my lead and scour the Freebies forum to encourage some in-pants growth.

So you are saying I should opt for a "weights-free" method...?

[ila]

Isn't it obvious smc?

We are the elite. We are post count whores.

Your attached thumbnail is the best that I've ever seen. I had a really good laugh. (I tried to rep you for it, but I have to spread some around first.)

[shadows]

Your attached thumbnail is the best that I've ever seen. I had a really good laugh. (I tried to rep you for it, but I have to spread some around first.)

I gave him some for both of us.:cool:

[TracyCoxx]

There are such better ways to encourage growth than through posting. For instance, you could follow my lead and scour the Freebies forum to encourage some in-pants growth.

Who says I don't do that? :coupling:

[smc]

Who says I don't do that? :coupling:

I have no doubt you do. I was just sayin' ...

[paulmal32]

If Clinton can be impeached for lying about a blowjob, BO can be impeached for putting the country in irreversible insolvency and therefore threatening national security.

He was impeached for lying under oath. It doesn't matter what he was lying about. The president committed perjury while holding office. Republican, Dem or independent he deserved what he got.

And to answer the original post. I say no. I am center right. Republicans cried about the way liberals treated Bush. Two wrongs don't make a right. If you don't agree with the President that is fine but we should at least have respect for the office.

[TracyCoxx]

He was impeached for lying under oath. It doesn't matter what he was lying about. The president committed perjury while holding office. Republican, Dem or independent he deserved what he got.
You can't take down the president over a blowjob. This wasn't about Clinton lying under oath. It was the republicans trying to tarnish Clinton for policies they didn't like. So rather than attacking Clinton's policies they go for the cheap shot of impeaching him for lying about a blowjob. I think they knew they weren't going to actually get him out of office over this, so the whole thing was a useless distraction when the country had more important things to worry about. The best way to handle it wasn't out in the open. It should have been taken care of maturely and out of the public eye. Clinton knew he was caught, the republicans knew they had this over him. Meet in private and reach a deal and let it blow over.

[paulmal32]

reach a deal and let it blow over.

Pun intended? LOL

[randolph]

Pun intended? LOL

Piece talks?

[merelypink]

OF the current debt 10 trillion was under republican presidents(reagan,bush,bush)

[TracyCoxx]

OF the current debt 10 trillion was under republican presidents(reagan,bush,bush)

Well almost. Depends on if you want to ignore inflation or not. Regardless, in his first month, BO racked up 2.5 times as much debt as Bush did in 8 years. You ain't seen nothin yet sister.

[randolph]

Perhaps a more realistic view of the national debt.
It is important to note that the climb in the debt in the Bush Reagan years had a lot to to with the necessity of importing oil. during the 1970s we could no longer supply our oil demand from domestic sources. In the future, it will be extremely difficult to have a balanced budget due to the energy deficit.

[Talvenada]

Perhaps a more realistic view of the national debt.
It is important to note that the climb in the debt in the Bush Reagan years had a lot to to with the necessity of importing oil. during the 1970s we could no longer supply our oil demand from domestic sources. In the future, it will be extremely difficult to have a balanced budget due to the energy deficit.

RANDY:

Get ready for cherry-picking Tracy.


TAL

[TracyCoxx]

Looks like BO had his lackey, Charles Bolden - administrator for Nasa, violate the law. Bolden was directed to shut down the Constellation moon program in spite of the fact that law was written that specifically forbids doing just that without congressional approval. Congress has not voted on this yet, and in fact two previous congresses (both democratic and republican run) voted in support of it. Therefore Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year (FY)10 has been violated. Congress has sent a strong rebuke to both Bolden and Obama to cease and desist the dismantling of the moon program. Commercial companies like Lockheed, Boeing, and United Space Alliance, which somehow didn't meet BO's wishes for a commercial space company to build the rockets, will probably start suing the government now.

Again, worse than lying about a blowjob, so yeah, impeach him.

[randolph]

Looks like BO had his lackey, Charles Bolden - administrator for Nasa, violate the law. Bolden was directed to shut down the Constellation moon program in spite of the fact that law was written that specifically forbids doing just that without congressional approval. Congress has not voted on this yet, and in fact two previous congresses (both democratic and republican run) voted in support of it. Therefore Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year (FY)10 has been violated. Congress has sent a strong rebuke to both Bolden and Obama to cease and desist the dismantling of the moon program. Commercial companies like Lockheed, Boeing, and United Space Alliance, which somehow didn't meet BO's wishes for a commercial space company to build the rockets, will probably start suing the government now.

Again, worse than lying about a blowjob, so yeah, impeach him.

Tracy, I wonder if you are involved with the space program. I have never felt it justified to send people into space. The funds could be much better spent on mechanical space exploration. Sending people into space is extremely expensive and the payback is limited. Sometime in the future we may have the technology to make it practical. :)
Anyway, Obama's cutting back on programs that provide jobs for highly trained people is nuts with the economy the way it is. What is he thinking? With millions out of work he wants to cut back government jobs? :frown:

Impeach? Are you serious? You want Joe Biden to be President?:eek:

[Talvenada]

Looks like BO had his lackey, Charles Bolden - administrator for Nasa, violate the law. Bolden was directed to shut down the Constellation moon program in spite of the fact that law was written that specifically forbids doing just that without congressional approval. Congress has not voted on this yet, and in fact two previous congresses (both democratic and republican run) voted in support of it. Therefore Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year (FY)10 has been violated. Congress has sent a strong rebuke to both Bolden and Obama to cease and desist the dismantling of the moon program. Commercial companies like Lockheed, Boeing, and United Space Alliance, which somehow didn't meet BO's wishes for a commercial space company to build the rockets, will probably start suing the government now.

Again, worse than lying about a blowjob, so yeah, impeach him.




TRACY:

Do you think Bush 43 should have been impeached?


TAL

[TracyCoxx]

Tracy, I wonder if you are involved with the space program.Yes

I have never felt it justified to send people into space. The funds could be much better spent on mechanical space exploration. Sending people into space is extremely expensive and the payback is limited. Sometime in the future we may have the technology to make it practical. :)
We'll only have the technology to make it practical by working towards space exploration. The technologies used on Earth will not make manned space flight practical. I could name lots of paybacks from the Apollo missions. And they were only a 'plant-the-flag' mission. Paybacks ranging from rechargeable batteries to medical technologies to the computer you're using right now.

Now if we went beyond the plant-the-flag mission of Apollo, like Constellation is designed to do, we will develop new technologies along the way, but also have access to Helium-3, which can produce the power needs of the country. We'll also have access to water, metals and other raw materials that can be easily brought to earth. People will have to work along with robots to make use of those materials.

Anyway, Obama's cutting back on programs that provide jobs for highly trained people is nuts with the economy the way it is. What is he thinking? With millions out of work he wants to cut back government jobs? :frown:Yeah, especially after his campaign promises supporting Nasa, and supporting the Constellation mission. And government jobs are completely safe. It's the contractors. 7000 contractor jobs at commercial companies in my state are in jeopardy, and thousands more around the country.

Look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2IQVZmHnJQ

Impeach? Are you serious? You want Joe Biden to be President?:eek:Well I'm just comparing BO's crimes against Clinton lying about a blowjob for which Clinton was impeached. And the charges are mounting. Biden wouldn't be so bad. He couldn't possibly be as far left as BO.

TRACY:
Do you think Bush 43 should have been impeached?For what? If you're talking about the Iraq WMD thing, there was an investigation and he was cleared. People that try and blame that whole Iraqi WMD thing on Bush and Bush alone have a very short memory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8

[Talvenada]

Yes
For what? If you're talking about the Iraq WMD thing, there was an investigation and he was cleared. People that try and blame that whole Iraqi WMD thing on Bush and Bush alone have a very short memory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8


TRACY:

You cannot think of ONE thing Bush 43 did? I have 118 questionable acts, and 30 impeachable ones?

Torture is a war crime when committed in WWII, and waterboarding was the crime. Starting a war deliberately. Bush 43 broke the FISA law with wiretapping, and this NASA thing is OUTRAGEOUS?

If you can impeach and convict Clinton & Obama, but not Bush 43 you are blinded by party loyalty and ideology. Are you also for a coup to throw out leaders you disagree with?

If everyone had a narrow view like yours, we would be better off with a one-party system.


TAL

[jimnaseum]

The only thing you could impeach Bush for was playing video games five hours a day.
The Republicans are only in charge of one third of Congress, they can't do anything but whine and accuse. They're not even very good at that. Obama has been in smoke filled back rooms all year, reversing the machinery that sank our Nation. The stuff you hear about on Fox News has nothing to do with what he's doing. He's not on the phone with Ayres and ACORN every day, trust me on that.
My Aunt was in NASA, my brother has autographed pictures from the original seven Astronauts and I think a Moon Flag. I think you're going to find that Obama wants to pare down A WHOLE LOT on space exploration, and the MILITARY in Large, at least the real expensive stuff anyway.
$15,000 doesn't mean alot to someone who makes 265K/yr, but it means a WHOLE lot to a guy that makes 15K/yr. I doubt Bush knew many guys who made 15K/yr. Except for Photo Ops.

[TracyCoxx]

TRACY:

You cannot think of ONE thing Bush 43 did? I have 118 questionable acts, and 30 impeachable ones?

Torture is a war crime when committed in WWII, and waterboarding was the crime. Starting a war deliberately. Bush 43 broke the FISA law with wiretapping, and this NASA thing is OUTRAGEOUS?
I'm not going to loose any sleep over some foreign terrorist being waterboarded. And I've already talked about bush starting the Iraqi war. How did Bush break the FISA law? The wiretapping was discontinued January 2007 and the FISA law went into effect in June 2008? :lol:
Not just the Nasa thing, but BO's entire time in office is outrageous. But the Nasa thing is certainly more of a concern than lying about a blowjob.

If you can impeach and convict Clinton & Obama, but not Bush 43 you are blinded by party loyalty and ideology. Are you also for a coup to throw out leaders you disagree with?
Pay attention. I never said Clinton should have been impeached. I wrote this a week ago.
You can't take down the president over a blowjob. This wasn't about Clinton lying under oath. It was the republicans trying to tarnish Clinton for policies they didn't like. So rather than attacking Clinton's policies they go for the cheap shot of impeaching him for lying about a blowjob. I think they knew they weren't going to actually get him out of office over this, so the whole thing was a useless distraction when the country had more important things to worry about. The best way to handle it wasn't out in the open. It should have been taken care of maturely and out of the public eye. Clinton knew he was caught, the republicans knew they had this over him. Meet in private and reach a deal and let it blow over.Now tell me about being blinded by party ideology again?

If everyone had a narrow view like yours, we would be better off with a one-party system.Can you elaborate about my narrow view? I stick up for some things Bush does, but not all. I stick up for Clinton, and constantly bash BO. But you just see it as me blindly supporting republicans and trashing democrats. Who has the narrow view?

[TracyCoxx]

Obama has been in smoke filled back rooms all year, reversing the machinery that sank our Nation.Wow! This is great news. So he has repealed the Community Reinvestment Act? Damn... I missed that. He's not such a bad guy after all.

[TracyCoxx]

My Aunt was in NASA, my brother has autographed pictures from the original seven Astronauts and I think a Moon Flag. I think you're going to find that Obama wants to pare down A WHOLE LOT on space exploration, and the MILITARY in Large, at least the real expensive stuff anyway.

Long live NASA

[Talvenada]

I'm not going to loose any sleep over some foreign terrorist being waterboarded. And I've already talked about bush starting the Iraqi war. How did Bush break the FISA law? The wiretapping was discontinued January 2007 and the FISA law went into effect in June 2008? :lol:




Now tell me about being blinded by party ideology again?

Can you elaborate about my narrow view? I stick up for some things Bush does, but not all. I stick up for Clinton, and constantly bash BO. But you just see it as me blindly supporting republicans and trashing democrats. Who has the narrow view?


TRACY:

The FISA law was put into effect because of Nixon's misuse of power; the FISA law you're talking about was put into effect to protect Bush's violations AFTER THE FACT. It's a bogus law, like John Yoo's legal mumbo-jumbo that legalized waterboarding AFTER THE FACT, which America has prosecuted as a violation of The Geneva Convention. Bush violated that law too. AFTER THE FACT also applies to wiretapping violations to protect Bush and phone companies.

If Obama did that, Conse 'Pubs would push for WAR CRIMES to win the election of '08. The point is that laws and treaties cannot be violated or respected based on the situation. There are ways to legally do what Bush wanted, but he didn't want a 95% chance of getting it the right way--or having someone else besides him having final say, like The SC. That's what a DICTATOR does, dude. Waterboarding is torture if done against us, but not when we do it, right? We're all good guys, and they are all worst of the worst, right. NO EXCEPTIONS!!
Bush violated the FISA laws that were in effect from before RR, and violated The Geneva Convention.

It's rule of law, and not rule of law that can be changed on the fly for Conse 'Pubs ONLY!! That's NARROW!!


TAL

[The Conquistador]

It's a bogus law, like John Yoo's legal mumbo-jumbo that legalized waterboarding AFTER THE FACT, which America has prosecuted as a violation of The Geneva Convention. Bush violated that law too.
...

Waterboarding is torture if done against us, but not when we do it, right? We're all good guys, and they are all worst of the worst, right. NO EXCEPTIONS!!
Bush violated the FISA laws that were in effect from before RR, and violated The Geneva Convention.



Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention: (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

As terrorists and not soldiers, they are not afforded Geneva Convention Rights. No uniforms, no insignia, no overt state endorsement, and no differentiation between civilian & military targets.

[Talvenada]

As terrorists and not soldiers, they are not afforded Geneva Convention Rights. No uniforms, no insignia, no overt state endorsement, and no differentiation between civilian & military targets.

ANGRY:

I said TORTURE, which is NOT permitted, dude. Torture is waterboarding, and that is NOT permitted under any circumstances.

No rights doesn't mean you can do anything you want up to and including death.


TAL

[jimnaseum]

I'm not sure what President Dwight David Eisenhower would have made of Obama, but he would have busted Bush and Cheney down to buck privates in about 2 weeks. It wasn't til Nixon that you had a President you couldn't trust. We came out of WWII smelling like a rose, American products were the best back then. Even Germany and Japan respected us. Things sure have changed.

[The Conquistador]

ANGRY:

I said TORTURE, which is NOT permitted, dude. Torture is waterboarding, and that is NOT permitted under any circumstances.

No rights doesn't mean you can do anything you want up to and including death.


TAL

The "no torture" only applies to those who are identified under The Geneva Convention. And waterboarding is not torture.

[Talvenada]

The "no torture" only applies to those who are identified under The Geneva Convention. And waterboarding is not torture.

ANGRY:

So, we can do anything we want to them, including kill them?

Are there any things we cannot do?


TAL

[Tread]

The "no torture" only applies to those who are identified under The Geneva Convention. And waterboarding is not torture.

Waterboarding is international described as torture.
The US has prosecuted water torture as war crime many times in history, what should Waterboarding exclude from this?

In the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), the Supreme Court of the United States decides that prisoners of terror can?t be treated as Unlawful Combatant.
So they fall under the Laws of War or Public International Law, and forbid torture.

It is not right to punish someone who infracted the law (terrorism) with lawless methods. That is an antinomy itself.

[TracyCoxx]

So, we can do anything we want to them, including kill them?

Are there any things we cannot do?How do you go from waterboarding is ok to killing them is ok? Are you not able to grasp varying degrees of concepts or can you only handle black and white?

[Talvenada]

How do you go from waterboarding is ok to killing them is ok? Are you not able to grasp varying degrees of concepts or can you only handle black and white?

TRACY:

Do the words out of context mean anything to you?

It was an ongoing conversation, which if you followed it, you would see that it wasn't a leap.

Of course, you're a Conse 'Pub, which means find something to attack only, and this sentence cannot be taken out of context.


TAL

[paulmal32]

Impeach? Are you serious? You want Joe Biden to be President?:eek:

Or worse. Nancy Pelosi!

[The Conquistador]

Waterboarding is international described as torture.
The US has prosecuted water torture as war crime many times in history, what should Waterboarding exclude from this?

In the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), the Supreme Court of the United States decides that prisoners of terror can?t be treated as Unlawful Combatant.
So they fall under the Laws of War or Public International Law, and forbid torture.

It is not right to punish someone who infracted the law (terrorism) with lawless methods. That is an antinomy itself.

Simulating drowing is not torture; actually carrying through with trying to drown a person would be.


Main Entry: 1tor?ture
Pronunciation: \ˈtȯr-chər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquēre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drāhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle
Date: 1540
1 a : anguish of body or mind : agony b : something that causes agony or pain
2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3 : distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : straining

This is how the "noble Arabs" operate: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture1.html

Comparing waterboarding to what they do is like comparing a pea shooter to a 155mm howitzer. Is this method uncomfortable? Yes. Does simulated drowning physically or mentally debilitate someone compared to beatings or other barbaristic actions? No.

I think people fail to recognize that the people who get waterboarded are not your average, run-of-the-mill citizen who has been mistakenly detained. They are die-hard fanatics who would kill innocent people in a heartbeat and with a smile on their face.

When you have commandos abduct you in the middle of the night, chances are high that you did something to deserve it.

[The Conquistador]

Some more Middle East torture methods...

[Tread]

Simulating drowing is not torture; actually carrying through with trying to drown a person would be.

Main Entry: 1tor?ture
Pronunciation: \ˈtȯr-chər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquēre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drāhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle
Date: 1540
1 a : anguish of body or mind : agony b : something that causes agony or pain
2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3 : distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : straining

Simulating you?re dieing is (mental) torture.

This is how the "noble Arabs" operate: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture1.html

Comparing waterboarding to what they do is like comparing a pea shooter to a 155mm howitzer. Is this method uncomfortable? Yes. Does simulated drowning physically or mentally debilitate someone compared to beatings or other barbaristic actions? No.

You can?t compare this that way.
One torture destroys you physical and possibly to death, the other destroys you mental, and you could also die directly by extreme mental torture.

As far as I know physical injuries heal faster and better or are better to live with than mental injuries.
Often physical tortures causes mental injuries too, but that don?t make them worse in general.

I think people fail to recognize that the people who get waterboarded are not your average, run-of-the-mill citizen who has been mistakenly detained. They are die-hard fanatics who would kill innocent people in a heartbeat and with a smile on their face.

No matter how evil they are, or what you or I think they deserve, no government can ignore its own standards for prisoners. And the US law does not allow torture under any conditions.

I don?t say they are innocent, but they never had a conviction, and the most of them are not the suicide-bomber who killed people.
It was never proven in with degrade they are involved. i.e. is someone who cooked the meal in a terror camp as guilty as the organizer of a terror act?

[Talvenada]

ANGRY:

That Conse 'Pub radio talker on WLS in Chicago and a friend of Sean Hannity tried waterboarding on the air, while he was filmed. He felt it would be like splashing water on his face, and 60 seconds would be EASY to attain. He lasted SEVEN SECONDS, and told a dismissive Hannity it was TORTURE.

The water goes down your nose and throat, causes a near blackout condition, and begins a mental breakdown. That's after SEVEN SECONDS.

But even a Conse 'Pub saying it makes him a traitor at worst, and makeshim a RINO at best. I know whose side is he on!! Or you want proof to savage!!!

TAL

Mancow Muller waterboarding update: Hey Sean Hannity, it's 'absolutely torture'
By Craig Newman on May 27, 2009 12:24 PM |

[The Conquistador]

Simulating you?re dieing is (mental) torture.

You can?t compare this that way.
One torture destroys you physical and possibly to death, the other destroys you mental, and you could also die directly by extreme mental torture.

As far as I know physical injuries heal faster and better or are better to live with than mental injuries.
Often physical tortures causes mental injuries too, but that don?t make them worse in general.

No matter how evil they are, or what you or I think they deserve, no government can ignore its own standards for prisoners. And the US law does not allow torture under any conditions.

I don?t say they are innocent, but they never had a conviction, and the most of them are not the suicide-bomber who killed people.
It was never proven in with degrade they are involved. i.e. is someone who cooked the meal in a terror camp as guilty as the organizer of a terror act?

There is now way to simulate death; you either are or you aren't. Simulating drowning is not the same as dying.

Reread the definition of torture again; specifically the second line in the definition.

The US doesn't allow torture. But there is nothing about uncomfortable interrogation techniques. Waterboarding does not leave any lasting physical or mental damage to a subject like Chinese Water Torture or beatings do.

The people who work alongside known terrorist organizations are guilty by association. The people who are waterboarded are usually found planting IED's and EFP's along a roadside and will most likely have had interaction with a high value target.

[The Conquistador]

ANGRY:

That Conse 'Pub radio talker on WLS in Chicago and a friend of Sean Hannity tried waterboarding on the air, while he was filmed. He felt it would be like splashing water on his face, and 60 seconds would be EASY to attain. He lasted SEVEN SECONDS, and told a dismissive Hannity it was TORTURE.

The water goes down your nose and throat, causes a near blackout condition, and begins a mental breakdown. That's after SEVEN SECONDS.

But even a Conse 'Pub saying it makes him a traitor at worst, and makeshim a RINO at best. I know whose side is he on!! Or you want proof to savage!!!

TAL

Mancow Muller waterboarding update: Hey Sean Hannity, it's 'absolutely torture'
By Craig Newman on May 27, 2009 12:24 PM |

Everyone has a pain/discomfort threshold. Most people's definition of "torture" would be anything that hurts their feelings or causes them any kind of discomfort.

Do you honestly think that all those Gitmo detainees that complain of "torture" are somehow champions of humanity and liberty? No. They are just trying to abuse the system so that they can get back to their job of blowing up people or gunning them down.

A "mental breakdown"? Haha! More like "low discomfort threshold". Was there any lasting damage resulting from that?

[The Conquistador]

What does torture look like?

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/05/25/what-does-torture-look-like/

[Talvenada]

TREAD:

Conse 'Pubs start with the desired outcome, craft their argument to fit, and then they look for anything to savage in any opinion that questions their flawless conclusion.

TAL

[Talvenada]

Everyone has a pain/discomfort threshold. Most people's definition of "torture" would be anything that hurts their feelings or causes them any kind of discomfort.

Do you honestly think that all those Gitmo detainees that complain of "torture" are somehow champions of humanity and liberty? No. They are just trying to abuse the system so that they can get back to their job of blowing up people or gunning them down.

A "mental breakdown"? Haha! More like "low discomfort threshold". Was there any lasting damage resulting from that?


TREAD:

FACT 1: Waterboarding is not torture.

PROOF 1: Poking your eye out with a knife is torture, and since waterboarding isn't that extreme that proves it is not torture.

ANGRY:

A Conse 'Pub--like YOU--talker wanted to prove that waterboarding is not torture, but after doing it on film and on air he said it was torture.

He said that despite his conversation with Hannity, and despite his Conse 'Pub audience he said it was TORTURE!!

He also said regarding his fellow Conse 'Pubs: What about the truth no longer meaning anything?

Why don't you slime him??? Call him what he is!!!


TAL

[The Conquistador]

TREAD:

FACT 1: Waterboarding is not torture.

PROOF 1: Poking your eye out with a knife is torture, and since waterboarding isn't that extreme that proves it is not torture.

ANGRY:

A Conse 'Pub--like YOU--talker wanted to prove that waterboarding is not torture, but after doing it on film and on air he said it was torture.

He said that despite his conversation with Hannity, and despite his Conse 'Pub audience he said it was TORTURE!!

He also said regarding his fellow Conse 'Pubs: What about the truth no longer meaning anything?

Why don't you slime him??? Call him what he is!!!


TAL

I'm a libertarian TAL. Don't call me a "Conse 'Pub".

Christopher Hitchens is just another talking head like Glenn Beck or Rachel Maddow and saying that he speaks on my behalf is just absurd.

Your arguements as to what defines "torture" and what falls into that category has not risen above "It's torture because it makes the person uncomfortable". There are thousands of things that make someone uncomfortable and yet they aren't defined as torture. Why not?

[Talvenada]

I'm a libertarian TAL. Don't call me a "Conse 'Pub".

Christopher Hitchens is just another talking head like Glenn Beck or Rachel Maddow and saying that he speaks on my behalf is just absurd.

Your arguements as to what defines "torture" and what falls into that category has not risen above "It's torture because it makes the person uncomfortable". There are thousands of things that make someone uncomfortable and yet they aren't defined as torture. Why not?


ANGRY:

So, you're a Lib. LOL and then some.

Mancow Muller on WLS in Chicago and a friend of Sean Hannity, felt it would be like splashing water on his face, and 60 seconds would be easy.

The water goes down your nose and throat, causes a near blackout condition, and begins a mental breakdown. That's after SEVEN SECONDS.

So, your opinion is that he is a wussy, and the above description is only him and only a little uncomfortable?



TAL

[The Conquistador]

ANGRY:

So, you're a Lib. LOL and then some.

Mancow Muller on WLS in Chicago and a friend of Sean Hannity, felt it would be like splashing water on his face, and 60 seconds would be easy.

The water goes down your nose and throat, causes a near blackout condition, and begins a mental breakdown. That's after SEVEN SECONDS.

So, your opinion is that he is a wussy, and the above description is only him and only a little uncomfortable?



TAL

I identify as a conservative Libertarian because their views are closest to what I believe. Why is that so funny?

The one I remember was with Christopher Hitchens getting waterboarded. I never said he was a wuss. I just said he had a low tolerance towards discomfort. I don't think "mental breakdown" is the same as personal disposition.

People's opinion as to what constitutes torture greatly varies and is subjective. The actual definition of torture (as I previously posted) clearly defines torture. Interrogation techniques are not the same as "cruel and unusual punishment" or "excessive use of force", however "harsh" they may seem to be to some people.

[The Conquistador]

TREAD:

Conse 'Pubs start with the desired outcome, craft their argument to fit, and then they look for anything to savage in any opinion that questions their flawless conclusion.

TAL

Crafting huh? I highlighted the second part of the definition of torture as it was the applicable part of that definition. The first part of the definition is more figurative; i.e. "He was tortured by those memories which until recently, had been long forgotten."

Context my brutha!

[Talvenada]

I identify as a conservative Libertarian because their views are closest to what I believe. Why is that so funny?

The one I remember was with Christopher Hitchens getting waterboarded. I never said he was a wuss. I just said he had a low tolerance towards discomfort. I don't think "mental breakdown" is the same as personal disposition.

People's opinion as to what constitutes torture greatly varies and is subjective. The actual definition of torture (as I previously posted) clearly defines torture. Interrogation techniques are not the same as "cruel and unusual punishment" or "excessive use of force", however "harsh" they may seem to be to some people.

ANGRY:

Lib is short for liberal, and not libertarian. You highlight Conse 'Pub, but you're not a Conse 'Pub. You are more right of them: the extreme right.



If YOUR definition of torture is correct, why does international law & The Geneva Convention outlaw waterboarding? Why has America prosecuted people over this?


In other words, waterboarding violates The Geneva Convention, but--in your opinion--is not torture when applied to enemy combatants.

TAL

[Tread]

There is now way to simulate death; you either are or you aren't. Simulating drowning is not the same as dying.

I said dieing not death, the last feeling before death.

Reread the definition of torture again; specifically the second line in the definition.

Reread the definitions of torture again; specifically the first line of the definitions. It is not a figurative meaning.
If there is more than 1 definition they are all valid.

The US doesn't allow torture. But there is nothing about uncomfortable interrogation techniques. Waterboarding does not leave any lasting physical or mental damage to a subject like Chinese Water Torture or beatings do.

This you call uncomfortable interrogation without leaving any lasting physical or mental damage?:
Water-boarding

Water-boarding or mock drowning, where a prisoner is bound to an inclined board and water is poured over their face, inducing a terrifying fear of drowning clearly can result in immediate and long-term health consequences. As the prisoner gags and chokes, the terror of imminent death is pervasive, with all of the physiologic and psychological responses expected, including an intense stress response, manifested by tachycardia, rapid heart beat and gasping for breath. There is a real risk of death from actually drowning or suffering a heart attack or damage to the lungs from inhalation of water. Long term effects include panic attacks, depression and PTSD. I remind you of the patient I described earlier who would panic and gasp for breath whenever it rained even years after his abuse.
Full Link: http://intelligence.senate.gov/070925/akeller.pdf#page=6

The people who work alongside known terrorist organizations are guilty by association. The people who are waterboarded are usually found planting IED's and EFP's along a roadside and will most likely have had interaction with a high value target.

What is if they work for unknown terrorist organizations?
And who makes the conviction and decides who is in witch degree guilty?
Punishment without proper conviction is highly susceptible for abusiveness.

[The Conquistador]

ANGRY:

Lib is short for liberal, and not libertarian. You highlight Conse 'Pub, but you're not a Conse 'Pub. You are more right of them: the extreme right.



If YOUR definition of torture is correct, why does international law & The Geneva Convention outlaw waterboarding? Why has America prosecuted people over this?


In other words, waterboarding violates The Geneva Convention, but--in your opinion--is not torture when applied to enemy combatants.

TAL

You said I was one of these "Conse 'Pubs. Then I said I was a Libertarian. Then you said that I was a "Lib" and implied that there was something humurous about my party affiliation and just now implied that I am a radical of sorts by saying that I am to "the extreme right".

Quit twisting my words around.

And Tal, The Geneva Conventions specifically states what the defining marks of an enemy combatant are and who may be covered by the Geneva Convention.

As I stated in my earlier post, that as terrorists and not soldiers, they are not afforded Geneva Convention Rights. No uniforms, no insignia, no overt state endorsement, and no differentiation between civilian & military targets.

If they were identified as soldiers with the Iraqi Republican Guard or something, it would be entirely different.

[Talvenada]

You said I was one of these "Conse 'Pubs. Then I said I was a Libertarian. Then you said that I was a "Lib" and implied that there was something humurous about my party affiliation and just now implied that I am a radical of sorts by saying that I am to "the extreme right".

Quit twisting my words around.

And Tal, The Geneva Conventions specifically states what the defining marks of an enemy combatant are and who may be covered by the Geneva Convention.

As I stated in my earlier post, that as terrorists and not soldiers, they are not afforded Geneva Convention Rights. No uniforms, no insignia, no overt state endorsement, and no differentiation between civilian & military targets.

If they were identified as soldiers with the Iraqi Republican Guard or something, it would be entirely different.

ANGRY:

Nice evasiveness!! You did everything except demand a public apology.

Firstly, calling you a Lib wasn't an insult or making fun of your party affiliation, as there are Lib 'Pubs too--albeit only a few are left. I was making a light-hearted comment with the LOL to indicate that, and not the way it was taken. Sorry, I gave you something to savage.

Conse 'Pub is my abbreviation for conservative republican, and I worked hard on that abbreviation to NOT be insultive. I couldn't use Con and Repub due to insultiveness, and Rep due to other meanings for that shorthand. I use Dem, Lib, Mod, Indy, etc.

Libertarian is the most far right of center you can be, or at least that's what I take it to mean. So, that means extreme right as far as I can tell.

What words did I twist?

How about an answer to these 2 questions which you glossed over with an I-covered-this-with-you smack-down.

If YOUR definition of torture is correct, why does international law & The Geneva Convention outlaw waterboarding?

Why has America prosecuted people over this?


TAL

[TracyCoxx]

Lib is short for liberal, and not libertarian.Actually traditional liberals were basically libertarians. The liberals of today were hijacked by the progressives. The traditional liberal is somebody who believes in personal responsibility and 'natural rights'. And they believe in small government and conservative economics. They differ from republicans in that they are socially liberal.

Hillary Clinton openly calls herself a Progressive. Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR and LBJ were all progressives. Many, if not all of the people on this forum who support Obama are progressives.

[Tread]

And Tal, The Geneva Conventions specifically states what the defining marks of an enemy combatant are and who may be covered by the Geneva Convention.

As I stated in my earlier post, that as terrorists and not soldiers, they are not afforded Geneva Convention Rights. No uniforms, no insignia, no overt state endorsement, and no differentiation between civilian & military targets.

If they were identified as soldiers with the Iraqi Republican Guard or something, it would be entirely different.

The Geneva Convention

The US is involved in a conflict that they call War on Terrorism. Prisoners of that war are prisoners of war.

One party of the conflict are the imprisoned Terrorists (if someone confirms the element of terrorism on them). The Terrorists are armed.



Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

Point (1) to become POW under the Geneva Convention is achieved. No need to have uniforms, insignia, or overt state endorsement. There are no conditions to lose this status by violate law and making no differentiation between civilian & military targets.

The legal position is not difficult. No matter what we personal might think what should happen to them.

[ila]

.....Conse 'Pub is my abbreviation for conservative republican, and I worked hard on that abbreviation to NOT be insultive. I couldn't use Con and Repub due to insultiveness, and Rep due to other meanings for that shorthand. I use Dem, Lib, Mod, Indy, etc. .......


Since I'm an outsider to your political system I can never be called a conservative republican so I feel that I can give a somewhat unbiased opinion on your abbreviation. Your abbreviation seems to be somewhat dismissive and possible arrogant or condescending towards conservative republicans. Why do you feel the need to make up an abbreviation? Why not just type or write conservative republican out in full as it doesn't take much more effort. You would then not look like you are entering a debate, with an air of superiority.

[smc]

Since I'm an outsider to your political system I can never be called a conservative republican so I feel that I can give a somewhat unbiased opinion on your abbreviation. Your abbreviation seems to be somewhat dismissive and possible arrogant or condescending towards conservative republicans. Why do you feel the need to make up an abbreviation? Why not just type or write conservative republican out in full as it doesn't take much more effort. You would then not look like you are entering a debate, with an air of superiority.

Well put, ila, especially the point about the need to make up an abbreviation or "shorthand" at all. It is a type of cleverness that, in my humble opinion, is seen all too often in writing, especially in journalism and particularly in sports journalism. I discuss this very point with my writing students, and even use sports columnists from The Boston Globe as source material.

[Talvenada]

Since I'm an outsider to your political system I can never be called a conservative republican so I feel that I can give a somewhat unbiased opinion on your abbreviation. Your abbreviation seems to be somewhat dismissive and possible arrogant or condescending towards conservative republicans. Why do you feel the need to make up an abbreviation? Why not just type or write conservative republican out in full as it doesn't take much more effort. You would then not look like you are entering a debate, with an air of superiority.


ILA:

I appreciate your input, but in America we have 2 types of debate: honest and political. An honest debate is possible with Dems, 'Pubs, Indies, Mods, Conses and Libs. It is not possible with Neo-Cons, Lib'ians and Conse 'Pubs, because they specialize in political debate. In that strategy they are either right, or have an equal opinion to anyone who disagrees on almost EVERY issue. They might concede that Obama is a citizen with proof, that Palin might not be presidential timber, and that Bush 43 did a couple things that they didn't like: immigration, pharm. deal, financial decisions.

On this very board there is a perfect example. My POV is that Obama does not have ties to terrorists, but Conse 'Pubs, Neo-Cons and Lib'ians are the only ones who have a different "opinion" on this issue.

Example: Bill Ayers was a terrorist when Obama was 8 years old, and was a professor when Obama knew him in passing. On this board a familiar-from-political-boards crafted "opinion" has been defended with vigor, and is considered a real issue. The slogan he-pals-around-with-terrorists from 2 years ago has morphed into a secondary issue for ending Obama's Presidency. The concept is to question every thing every day with no let up, and reclaim power to run the country their way, like under Cheney. Of course, the logic is that what W did in 8 years doesn't count, but everything the opposition does in 1 year does count. The only pass Obama gets is when he does something Bush did. I wish I could say I was making that up.

There is a method to the strategy of Conse 'Pubs and the other 2. They go to sites where there are other views, and they present one doubt after the other. The point is that the country can only be run the right way, which happens to be ONLY their way to only their benefit (tax cuts are their main issue IMHO). Don't believe me, read their posts on this board to make a liar of me. Make a fool out of me by showing me where they backed off of ONE issue other than citizen Obama and Pres. Palin.

When you have to prove Obama is a citizen to get a concession, all the other issues are a no-win situation. You mock them and they claim you don't respect their equal opinion. You ignore them and they eliminate any opinion other than there own. That leaves only ONE option and that is to identify who they are, and you have to say Conse 'Pub or you get savaged for it. I learned that long ago. You can them a republican in the course of your point, and you get the evasive reply: I'm a conservative. You say they are a conservative, and they don't have to defend anyone not in The Conservative Party. If you point out someone in The Conservative Party, and you'll get I'm a republican unless you point out a republican in the same post. Then, you get either another evasion, an insult (s), and/or a crafted accusation with them no doubt being offended and/or outraged. Read some of their posts and you'll get a non-negotiable stance.

As you can see I identify who specifically has this opinion, even though most Americans feel they way they do in their opinion. Conse Dems, aka Blue Dogs, do not have that opinion, and Mod 'Pubs don't share that opinion. In fact, most on the right--not right of center--are Conse 'Pubs. Please don't confuse commenting on the hollowness of arguments and by whom for arrogance, superiority and condescension.

There are 31 of those abbreviations in this post, and not just 2: conservative republican. That's why there are so many baseball abbreviations. You have no idea how mentally draining a 2000-2500 word article is, and that's why we do it. It's not a dissertation for a PHD, because the reading audience is not erudite for the most part. It's hard enough to build a readership as it is, and abbreviations make the data easier to digest. I doubt my readers are concerned with runs batted in being spelled out every time instead of RBI. Their concern is reading about their team, and enjoying details they don't have time to research and ferret out.

Here's a baseball example. They want to hear that Doc Halladay has a work ethic that is Chase Utley's equal. If Lidge was tipping his pitches, Utley would know it. They know that Doc will win 18-23 games unless he has a season that is well above average. It's nice to end on a lighter note.


TAL

[TracyCoxx]

TAL,

Most of your gripes about 'Conse 'Pubs' can equally be said about you. Your debate style is political because you put people into narrowly defined political parties and then claim to know their entire point of view based on whatever political party you've classified them as. That leads to mistakes, like when you think I'm a conservative republican, and therefore must be against clinton too. The fact that I had already defended clinton against republicans apparently made no difference, and you still have not acknowledged this. You probably think I'm a bible thumper as well, which would be another mistake.

You come into this forum with the declaration that
Bush 41 left a deficit for Clinton, Clinton left a surplus for Bush 43, Bush 43 left a whopping deficit for Obama.

Conse 'Pubs put us in a hole with tax cuts, and The Dems have to pay the bill. Then, Conse 'Pubs say we cut taxes, and Dems raise taxes. Will that Conse 'Pub vote be cash or charge?

TAL
This is a very simplistic view. I'm sorry if my arguments, which are often backed by verifiable information, doesn't fit in your narrow view of permissible topics or falls into one of your taboo topics, but facts are facts and you can choose to ignore them if you want, and you do, but own up to it. Don't just assign me the title of Conse 'Pub (which I'm not btw) and dismiss everything I say based on that. Say "you do not fit in my narrow point of view so I will ignore what you say and blame you for not fitting in my narrow point of view."

[smc]

There are 31 of those abbreviations in this post, and not just 2: conservative republican. That's why there are so many baseball abbreviations. You have no idea how mentally draining a 2000-2500 word article is, and that's why we do it. It's not a dissertation for a PHD, because the reading audience is not erudite for the most part. It's hard enough to build a readership as it is, and abbreviations make the data easier to digest. I doubt my readers are concerned with runs batted in being spelled out every time instead of RBI. Their concern is reading about their team, and enjoying details they don't have time to research and ferret out.

I'll skip the political part of your post and concentrate on the part directed specifically at my post. It's easily dispensed with, because you -- and I mean you, Talvenada -- know that my point had absolutely nothing to do with things like spelling out RBIs.

So, you want to talk about styles of argument or debate. Here's the one you just employed: sophism. And I mean in its modern usage. You can look it iup.

[Talvenada]

I'll skip the political part of your post and concentrate on the part directed specifically at my post. It's easily dispensed with, because you -- and I mean you, Talvenada -- know that my point had absolutely nothing to do with things like spelling out RBIs.

So, you want to talk about styles of argument or debate. Here's the one you just employed: sophism. And I mean in its modern usage. You can look it iup.

SMC:

I'm sorry but I don't know what abbreviations you're referring to. If it's Mod Dem, I use political abbreviations. If it's pregers for pregnant in journalism, I understand that. The only sport I follow is baseball, and I cannot think of what you have in mind. So, if you want to imply other than than, go ahead it's irrelevant to me. I'm not part of academia and nor do I desire that path. I respect your input, even though it's not mutual.


TAL

[Talvenada]

TAL,

Most of your gripes about 'Conse 'Pubs' can equally be said about you. Your debate style is political because you put people into narrowly defined political parties and then claim to know their entire point of view based on whatever political party you've classified them as. That leads to mistakes, like when you think I'm a conservative republican, and therefore must be against clinton too. The fact that I had already defended clinton against republicans apparently made no difference, and you still have not acknowledged this. You probably think I'm a bible thumper as well, which would be another mistake.

This is a very simplistic view. I'm sorry if my arguments, which are often backed by verifiable information, doesn't fit in your narrow view of permissible topics or falls into one of your taboo topics, but facts are facts and you can choose to ignore them if you want, and you do, but own up to it. Don't just assign me the title of Conse 'Pub (which I'm not btw) and dismiss everything I say based on that. Say "you do not fit in my narrow point of view so I will ignore what you say and blame you for not fitting in my narrow point of view."


TRACY:

Since, your side has the facts, could you please humor me with 3 or 4 examples out of the many you imply? If I'm guilty of most of what I gripe about, it should be easy to point this out to me. Could you elaborate, please?

I refer to myself as a Mod Dem, so how is it narrow and political to refer to myself that way? Sorry for referring to you as a Conse 'Pub, what are you?

I've acknowledged that you felt Obama is a citizen with proof, that Palin might not be presidential timber, and that Bush 43 did a couple things that you didn't like: immigration, pharm. deal, financial decisions. The Clinton issue wasn't addressed, because I was addressing all of your other catastrophes with Obama in The WH for 1 year. Let me get this straight. Bush did 3 things you didn't like, and you like some of what Obama does like Bush only. I don't think anyone on the site is a bible thumper, and have never mentioned religion. I'm guilty by question?

What topics have I said are taboo or permissible, because I'm too stupid to comprehend that aspect of your post? I dismiss what you say based on what you say, and not based on you're being a party of one. I've heard that 'Pubs cut taxes and Dems raise taxes. Are you saying that Dems blow excesses of money, while 'Pubs--other than Bush--balance the budget and lower taxes? Did I miss anything? I'm sure you have a multitude of examples of my transgressions. I await your angst.

TAL

[The Conquistador]

If YOUR definition of torture is correct, why does international law & The Geneva Convention outlaw waterboarding?

Why has America prosecuted people over this?


TAL

1)Where does IHL and The Geneva Conventions make mention of waterboarding? Please be so kind as to point that out to me. I looked all through it and I just couldn't find anything about waterboarding.

2)They are paying you and everyone else who complains about waterboarding being "torture" a bunch of lip service so it will look like they are doing something about it. I can guarantee you that those CIA operatives who did waterboard people are never going to see what the insides of Ft. Leavenworth look like. The "trials" are just a dog and pony show to shut people up.

[The Conquistador]

The Geneva Convention

The US is involved in a conflict that they call War on Terrorism. Prisoners of that war are prisoners of war.

One party of the conflict are the imprisoned Terrorists (if someone confirms the element of terrorism on them). The Terrorists are armed.



Point (1) to become POW under the Geneva Convention is achieved. No need to have uniforms, insignia, or overt state endorsement. There are no conditions to lose this status by violate law and making no differentiation between civilian & military targets.

The legal position is not difficult. No matter what we personal might think what should happen to them.

1) They are unlawful combatants and are not recognized by the occupying forces.

2) A militia in times of war would have state endorsment and would supplement regular forces. See:

Main Entry: mi?li?tia
Pronunciation: \mə-ˈli-shə\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
Date: 1625
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

The whole "military service" part would include them since that counts as state endorsment, but since the Iraqi government or the occupying forces do not recognize them as a supplemental force, they are unlawful combatants and are therefore not covered by The Geneva Conventions.

[Talvenada]

1)Where does IHL and The Geneva Conventions make mention of waterboarding? Please be so kind as to point that out to me. I looked all through it and I just couldn't find anything about waterboarding.

2)They are paying you and everyone else who complains about waterboarding being "torture" a bunch of lip service so it will look like they are doing something about it. I can guarantee you that those CIA operatives who did waterboard people are never going to see what the insides of Ft. Leavenworth look like. The "trials" are just a dog and pony show to shut people up.

ANGRY:


I didn't spend more than 3 minutes to find this on google, and I grabbed the first thing I found. I trust you'll find fault with whatever I present.

The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.

After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."

Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.


TAL

[smc]

SMC:

I'm sorry but I don't know what abbreviations you're referring to. If it's Mod Dem, I use political abbreviations. If it's pregers for pregnant in journalism, I understand that. The only sport I follow is baseball, and I cannot think of what you have in mind. So, if you want to imply other than than, go ahead it's irrelevant to me. I'm not part of academia and nor do I desire that path. I respect your input, even though it's not mutual.


TAL

Ah, the beauty of sophism.

This has nothing to do with "academia." In deference to those who wish to discuss "Republicans" in this thus-named thread, and at the risk of being accused of avoiding the discussion (or not taking the bait), I will leave it at that. Perhaps I will get back to it another time, but in the meanwhile I will let others engage you. I see they are lining up to do so, and since it's about politics it will be far more entertaining.

[Talvenada]

Ah, the beauty of sophism.

This has nothing to do with "academia." In deference to those who wish to discuss "Republicans" in this thus-named thread, and at the risk of being accused of avoiding the discussion (or not taking the bait), I will leave it at that. Perhaps I will get back to it another time, but in the meanwhile I will let others engage you. I see they are lining up to do so, and since it's about politics it will be far more entertaining.

SMC:

Enjoy the entertainment with the self-satisfaction of what you planted, but one person does not constitute a line, as the other was answering a question that was on the table prior to your post.


He who speaks with his tongue on fire
Cares not to come up any higher
But get you down in the hole he's in

Those words remind me of you for some strange reason. Aah, it's must be a debating tool.


TAL

[smc]

SMC:

Enjoy the entertainment with the self-satisfaction of what you planted, but one person does not constitute a line, as the other was answering a question that was on the table prior to your post.


He who speaks with his tongue on fire
Cares not to come up any higher
But get you down in the hole he's in

Those words remind me of you for some strange reason. Aah, it's must be a debating tool.


TAL

The more I think about it, the more I'm torn between two positions, both of which absolutely, truly reflect what I think and are not "debating tools" for our purposes here.

On the one hand, I truly wish I had never taken the bait (set out by whomever, not necessarily you, Tal) and engaged in this discussion. The reason is that I neither like where it has ended up, because I'd really rather that we all just enjoy the site and not get into these kinds of discussion, and because I can't see this venue as one in which any conclusory synthesis can be developed that brings us to some kind of consensus or understanding or compromise or whatever. And that, after all, ought to be the point of debate.

On the other hand, there's a part of me that wants to open a new thread on "Debating and Discussion Tools" and take on this question comprehensively and definitively -- not the content of discussion and debating tools or styles, but the forms and what they tell us. But that feels too much like my "day job." So, how about this: there is at least a 50-50 chance I will be in Philadelphia when the Red Sox travel there in May. If that happens, I'll buy the beers and we can talk about this face to face.

I really don't want to fight with anyone, even though I am confident that I will always win, and I wish I hadn't engaged in what is turning into an unpleasant fight (and a distraction from why I participate on Trans Ladyboy Forum at all).

[The Conquistador]

ANGRY:


I didn't spend more than 3 minutes to find this on google, and I grabbed the first thing I found. I trust you'll find fault with whatever I present.

The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.

After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."

Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.


TAL

C'mon Tal! You know the Golden Rule of posting! Links/pics or it didn't happen!

[Talvenada]

C'mon Tal! You know the Golden Rule of posting! Links/pics or it didn't happen!


ANGRY:


Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime - washingtonpost.com

Nov 2, 2007 ... One such set of questions relates to "waterboarding. ... Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States ...
www.washingtonpost.com ? Opinions ? Outlook & Opinions - Similar


TAL

[The Conquistador]

Do you have a direct link to the article? It won't open in my browser.

[Tread]

I appoglize for the big post, but it didn?t happen or is not true without working link or quotes.http://www.sinisterclub.com/images/smilies/Smiley_RollEyes.gif


What is Torture:

http://waterboarding.org/torture_definition

Waterboarding:

http://waterboarding.org/node/3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/bush-memo-footnotes-defin_n_188008.html
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=waterboarding
http://terrorism.about.com/od/w/g/Waterboarding.htm

1) They are unlawful combatants and are not recognized by the occupying forces.

2) A militia in times of war would have state endorsment and would supplement regular forces. See:
?
The whole "military service" part would include them since that counts as state endorsment, but since the Iraqi government or the occupying forces do not recognize them as a supplemental force, they are unlawful combatants and are therefore not covered by The Geneva Conventions.

Article 5.
?
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
?
If that tribunal rules that a combatant is an "unlawful combatant" then the person's status changes to that of a civilian which may give them some rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

There was no competent tribunal so they are under protection of the Geneva Convention.

Unlawful combatant:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

?
After a "competent tribunal" has determined his status, the "Detaining Power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a POW, as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial."
?
The judgment quoted the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law," because in the opinion of the ICRC, "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action".
?
Combatants who do not qualify for POW status

A combatant who does not qualify for POW status can, under the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, expect to be treated humanely; and before he is punished, can expect to get a trial in "a regularly constituted court.
?
Since the 1942 Quirin case, the US signed and ratified the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which are, therefore, considered to be a part of US municipal law, in accordance with the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution of the United States. In addition the US Supreme Court invalidated this premise, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, by ruling that Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions applies to detainees in the War on Terror, and that the Military Tribunals used to try these suspects were in violation of US and international law.
Congress addressed these issues in the Military Commissions Act of 2006, so that enemy combatants and unlawful enemy combatants might be tried under military commissions, however on 12 June 2008, the Supreme Court ruled, in Boumediene v. Bush, that Guantanamo Bay captives were entitled to access the US justice system, and that the military commissions as constituted under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 fell short of what was required of a court under the United States constitution.
Follow also the several Wikipedia reference Links.

Other Link: Prisoners of War or Protected Persons qua Unlawful Combatants?
http://jicj.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/1/2/284



Article 4.
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

No need to be militia.

Occupying Forces do not recognize them as a supplemental force??? What do you talk about??? The Terrorists are 1 occupying force.
Is it the War on Terror or against the Iraqi government? Did Saddam Hussein attack the US with planes??? What the hell are US Soldiers do in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and so on? Where did the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay come from, and from witch War???

[Talvenada]

Do you have a direct link to the article? It won't open in my browser.

ANGRY:

Sorry, this is all I have. Maybe, this will work, if not google water boarding prosecutions.

Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime - washingtonpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

As a JAG in the Nevada National Guard, I used to lecture the soldiers of the 72nd Military Police Company every year about their legal obligations when they guarded prisoners. I'd always conclude by saying, ...



TAL

[Talvenada]

The more I think about it, the more I'm torn between two positions, both of which absolutely, truly reflect what I think and are not "debating tools" for our purposes here.

On the one hand, I truly wish I had never taken the bait (set out by whomever, not necessarily you, Tal) and engaged in this discussion. The reason is that I neither like where it has ended up, because I'd really rather that we all just enjoy the site and not get into these kinds of discussion, and because I can't see this venue as one in which any conclusory synthesis can be developed that brings us to some kind of consensus or understanding or compromise or whatever. And that, after all, ought to be the point of debate.

On the other hand, there's a part of me that wants to open a new thread on "Debating and Discussion Tools" and take on this question comprehensively and definitively -- not the content of discussion and debating tools or styles, but the forms and what they tell us. But that feels too much like my "day job." So, how about this: there is at least a 50-50 chance I will be in Philadelphia when the Red Sox travel there in May. If that happens, I'll buy the beers and we can talk about this face to face.

I really don't want to fight with anyone, even though I am confident that I will always win, and I wish I hadn't engaged in what is turning into an unpleasant fight (and a distraction from why I participate on Trans Ladyboy Forum at all).



SMC:

That might be possible. The reason I say might is that the biggest articles will be Phillies-Sox, Phillies-Yanks and the trading deadline. I write pre-game and post-game, and those Halladay-Hamels vs. Beckett-Lackey-Lester-Sabathia starts will be hugh pre-gamers. I usually have the pre-game for game 2 ready before game 1 begins, and do the first post-game during the game. I might need every hour I have for writing and photos. I cannot promise anything, but thanks for the offer.


TAL

[TracyCoxx]

TRACY:

Since, your side has the facts, could you please humor me with 3 or 4 examples out of the many you imply? If I'm guilty of most of what I gripe about, it should be easy to point this out to me. Could you elaborate, please?I think this link spells out my credentials:
http://forum.transladyboy.com/showpost.php?p=102166&postcount=806
:innocent:

I refer to myself as a Mod Dem, so how is it narrow and political to refer to myself that way? Sorry for referring to you as a Conse 'Pub, what are you?I said why you are political, and it's not because you are a mod dem. I also said you had a narrow view, not because you're a mod dem, but for something else. Go back and read again.

The Clinton issue wasn't addressed, because I was addressing all of your other catastrophes with Obama in The WH for 1 year. Let me get this straight. Bush did 3 things you didn't like, and you like some of what Obama does like Bush only.I don't remember if I said I liked some of the things BO did that Bush did. Are there any? People here see me debating against Obama's policies and assume I'm a hard right winger. I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal. This is what the liberal party was before it was hijacked by the Progressives. In the Bush vs Gore election, I had to seriously think about who I would vote for. In hindsight I'm so glad Bush won instead of Gore. I also had to think hard about the Clinton vs Dole election. In the election before that I voted for Ross Perot. I probably don't exactly fit in any one well defined political party, but Conservative Libertarian probably is the closest.

I don't think anyone on the site is a bible thumper, and have never mentioned religion. I'm guilty by question?I was just saying if you thought I was a republican you probably lumped me in with all those other bible thumpers in the party like Palin, Bush, Pat Robertson, etc...

What topics have I said are taboo or permissible, because I'm too stupid to comprehend that aspect of your post?TRACY:

I'm not going to even read posts that sound like a certain show.

TAL
I dismiss what you say based on what you say, and not based on you're being a party of one.Mmmm hmmm.

I've heard that 'Pubs cut taxes and Dems raise taxes. Are you saying that Dems blow excesses of money, while 'Pubs--other than Bush--balance the budget and lower taxes? Did I miss anything? I'm sure you have a multitude of examples of my transgressions. I await your angst.

TAL

Not all republicans cut taxes. Bush Sr raised them, so that Clinton could take credit for a surplus. You can't just look at the president. You also have to look at the congress. i.e., there's Bush with a republican congress. Bush with a democrat congress. There are differences in spending. What's going on in the world? Could it be that jets crashing in the heart of the US's financial center and the following war might affect our budget? Things that make you go hmmmm....

[Talvenada]

[QUOTE=TracyCoxx;133714]I think this link spells out my credentials:
http://forum.transladyboy.com/showpost.php?p=102166&postcount=806
:innocent:

1- I said why you are political, and it's not because you are a mod dem. I also said you had a narrow view, not because you're a mod dem, but for something else. Go back and read again.

2- People here see me debating against Obama's policies and assume I'm a hard right winger.

QUOTE]

TRACY:

Read above I marked 1 for your question, and 2 for your answer. That makes me narrow, because you appear that way. A conservative libertarian is to the right of a Neo-Con from what I can tell.

I call very-right-leaning political posters Conse 'Pubs until they state otherwise. I've been called a Lib by Conse 'Pubs, Neo-Cons and Libertarians, and then called a liar when I said I'm a Mod Dem. So, I'm a liar on the receiving end, and narrow-minded on the other end. I do post on a local political board, and I learned that calling someone a 'Pub gets you no answer to your question with an I'm-a-conservative blast to the face. If you say they're a conservative, no republican is accountable by them, and the talkers are entertainers only. The strategy is that the attacker can be on offense 100% of the time. Sorry, but these individuals want to crush any opposing opinion, while passing out insults to anyone who dares to have an offending opinion.

The Commie-Marxist-Obama debate is not a taboo or not a permissible subject. Sorry, I have no desire to debate Glenn Beck. I refuse to debate something I don't respect. I could describe it in a more offending way, if you confuse distaste for weakness and fear.

Sorry, I find it distasteful to defend any American President, EVEN BUSH 43, from questions about his loyalty to America.


TAL

[TracyCoxx]

I call very-right-leaning political posters Conse 'Pubs until they state otherwise. I've been called a Lib by Conse 'Pubs, Neo-Cons and Libertarians, and then called a liar when I said I'm a Mod Dem. So, I'm a liar on the receiving end, and narrow-minded on the other end. I do post on a local political board, and I learned that calling someone a 'Pub gets you no answer to your question with an I'm-a-conservative blast to the face etc etc etc I could care less about political labels. I deal in actions and results.

The Commie-Marxist-Obama debate is not a taboo or not a permissible subject. Sorry, I have no desire to debate Glenn Beck.

Tracy looks around. Sees no Glenn Beck... shrugs.

[TracyCoxx]

Here's one democrat I can get behind...

[GRH]

I for one consider myself an independent, but I WHOLEHEARTEDLY disregard topics which devolve to calling people by shallow nicknames such as "Cons," "Pubs," "Dems," "Mods," etc, etc, etc. If a topic can't bother to name the variety by which I might find myself labeled (without resorting to base labeling), that topic doesn't deserve my input.

[smc]

I for one consider myself an independent, but I WHOLEHEARTEDLY disregard topics which devolve to calling people by shallow nicknames such as "Cons," "Pubs," "Dems," "Mods," etc, etc, etc. If a topic can't bother to name the variety by which I might find myself labeled (without resorting to base labeling), that topic doesn't deserve my input.

Thank you for this post, from the bottom of my heart!!!

[Talvenada]

I for one consider myself an independent, but I WHOLEHEARTEDLY disregard topics which devolve to calling people by shallow nicknames such as "Cons," "Pubs," "Dems," "Mods," etc, etc, etc. If a topic can't bother to name the variety by which I might find myself labeled (without resorting to base labeling), that topic doesn't deserve my input.


GRH:

You and SMC consider abrevs. to be shallow. They are not insults or nicknames, but abbreviations. It is not base labeling IMHO. Is t-girl base labeling too? I do that, does that make me shallow?


TAL

[smc]

GRH:

You and SMC consider abrevs. to be shallow. They are not insults or nicknames, but abbreviations. It is not base labeling IMHO. Is t-girl base labeling too? I do that, does that make me shallow?

TAL

It really is too bad that you weren't born in ancient Greece, Tal, because -- and I mean this with the utmost respect -- you could have been a master among the Sophists.

Many t-girls call themselves that, whereas I defy you to find a single conservative republican that calls herself or himself by the abbreviation you use. The beauty of what GRH wrote is that it reflects how GRH responds to your use (potential or real) of one of your abbreviations to describe GRH.

Shallow or not, I'm just sayin' ...

[Talvenada]

It really is too bad that you weren't born in ancient Greece, Tal, because -- and I mean this with the utmost respect -- you could have been a master among the Sophists.

Many t-girls call themselves that, whereas I defy you to find a single conservative republican that calls herself or himself by the abbreviation you use. Shallow or not, I'm just sayin' ...



SMC:

I do that as I've said. I never said others do it.

I call very-right-leaning political posters Conse 'Pubs until they state otherwise. I've been called a Lib by Conse 'Pubs, Neo-Cons and Libertarians, and then called a liar when I said I'm a Mod Dem. So, I'm a liar on the receiving end, and narrow-minded on the other end. I do post on a local political board, and I learned that calling someone a 'Pub gets you no answer to your question with an I'm-a-conservative blast to the face. If you say they're a conservative, no republican is accountable by them, and the talkers are entertainers only. The strategy is that the attacker can be on offense 100% of the time. Sorry, but these individuals want to crush any opposing opinion, while passing out insults to anyone who dares to have an offending opinion.

TAL

[smc]

SMC:

I do that as I've said. I never said others do it.

I call very-right-leaning political posters Conse 'Pubs until they state otherwise. I've been called a Lib by Conse 'Pubs, Neo-Cons and Libertarians, and then called a liar when I said I'm a Mod Dem. So, I'm a liar on the receiving end, and narrow-minded on the other end. I do post on a local political board, and I learned that calling someone a 'Pub gets you no answer to your question with an I'm-a-conservative blast to the face. If you say they're a conservative, no republican is accountable by them, and the talkers are entertainers only. The strategy is that the attacker can be on offense 100% of the time. Sorry, but these individuals want to crush any opposing opinion, while passing out insults to anyone who dares to have an offending opinion.

TAL

None of my comments on this nickname / abbreviation / shorthhand business have anything to do with the politics of the individuals or groups in question. It's a simple matter. If I were a Trotskyist (and perhaps I am ;) ), someone calling me a "Trot" would tell me two things: 1) they are using a denigrating term to diminish the value of my position, and 2) they have no real interest in discussing real politics, real issues.

It seems to me that if you are posting on a board and you have to find the right name to give people in order to discuss with them, it is a colossal waste of time. Serious people have serious discussions. Others are just doing the un-fun kind of masturbating.

[Talvenada]

None of my comments on this nickname / abbreviation / shorthhand business have anything to do with the politics of the individuals or groups in question. It's a simple matter. If I were a Trotskyist (and perhaps I am ;) ), someone calling me a "Trot" would tell me two things: 1) they are using a denigrating term to diminish the value of my position, and 2) they have no real interest in discussing real politics, real issues.

It seems to me that if you are posting on a board and you have to find the right name to give people in order to discuss with them, it is a colossal waste of time. Serious people have serious discussions. Others are just doing the un-fun kind of masturbating.


SMC:

The abbrevs. are not uncommon in political debate.

Your only interest is in provoking me, and I'll take it that your denial is in order.

This is not a debate between you and me; it's you using debate as a shield for your provocation. If you want to continue this charade, be my guest. I'll cut and paste and use other shortcuts to waste as little time as possible on this.

TAL

[smc]

SMC:

The abbrevs. are not uncommon in political debate.

Your only interest is in provoking me, and I'll take it that your denial is in order.

This is not a debate between you and me; it's you using debate as a shield for your provocation. If you want to continue this charade, be my guest. I'll cut and paste and use other shortcuts to waste as little time as possible on this.

TAL

Two funny things:

1. Just because someone makes a claim doesn't make that claim the truth. You don't know me, and you know very little about me. So don't presume that your claim that my only interest is in provoking you is true, just because you make the claim.

2. A Google search of "conse pub" yielded 3 hits: two of your posts on a Philly-related blog, and one post on Trans Ladyboy Forum. So while abbrevs. may be common in political debate that one is not. And that is my entire point -- the point you continue to ignore.

What I've been writing has been about the use of language -- something I know a thing or two about, and that I've spent my entire adult life researching and teaching. And I will continue to contend that your use of some abbreviations is a provocation, just like the one of which you accuse me.

[Talvenada]

Two funny things:

1. Just because someone makes a claim doesn't make that claim the truth. You don't know me, and you know very little about me. So don't presume that your claim that my only interest is in provoking you is true, just because you make the claim.

2. A Google search of "conse pub" yielded 3 hits: two of your posts on a Philly-related blog, and one post on Trans Ladyboy Forum. So while abbrevs. may be common in political debate that one is not. And that is my entire point -- the point you continue to ignore.

What I've been writing has been about the use of language -- something I know a thing or two about, and that I've spent my entire adult life researching and teaching. And I will continue to contend that your use of some abbreviations is a provocation, just like the one of which you accuse me.

SMC:

Doesn't that true thing apply to you as well?

I said it's my abbrev., and why I had to take that measure. It was a defensive move, but others have used since it on a political blog.

You say that's not the case, no?

The point is you're calling me a liar. The point is you started this nonsense, including how you'd make short work of me.


TAL

[smc]

SMC:

Doesn't that true thing apply to you as well?

I said it's my abbrev., and why I had to take that measure. It was a defensive move, but others have used since it on a political blog.

You say that's not the case, no?

The point is you're calling me a liar. The point is you started this nonsense, including how you'd make short work of me.


TAL

I did not call you a liar. I do not think you are a liar, and would never stoop to such a level. I simply reported on a Google search. Anyone who knows the Web even a bit knows that it not a complete measure of usage.

And yes, of course, the point applies to me as well. I would never deny it.

Again, though, you make my point for me. You had to "invent" the abbreviation as a "defensive move." Reread all that I have written about this, including my most recent thoughts about discussions that involve such nonsense, and you will see how you have proven my point.

But we probably should be done with this. You can keep posting with your "Conse Pub" abbreviation that serves no purpose here for genuine debate, as far as I can see, and I'll go back to the pleasures of the Forum.

[GRH]

I'll add my perspective. When I first saw this "cons pubs" nonsense, I didn't have any idea what was being talked about for the longest. Finally I figured it out. Now don't get me wrong, I generally dislike conservative Republicans, so I don't particularly care about whether the nickname gets their feathers ruffled. But it just seemed nonsensical. Nonsensical and pointless to invent nicknames for the sole sake of it, unless there was an ulterior motive as SMC points out. And that brings me to the larger question: The need to abbreviate things when you could simply type out the full name. It doesn't take that much more effort and it certainly comes across as more educated sounding, and potentially less derogatory.

All of that said, I don't really like the idea of coming to this message board for the sake of arguing politics with people. So your nicknames haven't really cost you a poster (at least as far as I am concerned), as I probably would have ignored the political topics on principle to begin with.

[Talvenada]

I did not call you a liar. I do not think you are a liar, and would never stoop to such a level. I simply reported on a Google search. Anyone who knows the Web even a bit knows that it not a complete measure of usage.

And yes, of course, the point applies to me as well. I would never deny it.

Again, though, you make my point for me. You had to "invent" the abbreviation as a "defensive move." Reread all that I have written about this, including my most recent thoughts about discussions that involve such nonsense, and you will see how you have proven my point.

But we probably should be done with this. You can keep posting with your "Conse Pub" abbreviation that serves no purpose here for genuine debate, as far as I can see, and I'll go back to the pleasures of the Forum.

SMC:

It was nice of you to inform me of your decisive victory in something that is irrelevant to me.

I said it was defensive before, and that I made-up the abbrev. Now, it proves your point?

I await your next attack. It's a waiting move and I don't have long to wait.


TAL

[Talvenada]

I'll add my perspective. When I first saw this "cons pubs" nonsense, I didn't have any idea what was being talked about for the longest. Finally I figured it out. Now don't get me wrong, I generally dislike conservative Republicans, so I don't particularly care about whether the nickname gets their feathers ruffled. But it just seemed nonsensical. Nonsensical and pointless to invent nicknames for the sole sake of it, unless there was an ulterior motive as SMC points out. And that brings me to the larger question: The need to abbreviate things when you could simply type out the full name. It doesn't take that much more effort and it certainly comes across as more educated sounding, and potentially less derogatory.

All of that said, I don't really like the idea of coming to this message board for the sake of arguing politics with people. So your nicknames haven't really cost you a poster (at least as far as I am concerned), as I probably would have ignored the political topics on principle to begin with.



GRH:

I'll repeat what you ignored.

I call very-right-leaning political posters Conse 'Pubs until they state otherwise. I've been called a Lib by Conse 'Pubs, Neo-Cons and Libertarians, and then called a liar when I said I'm a Mod Dem. So, I'm a liar on the receiving end, and narrow-minded on the other end. I do post on a local political board, and I learned that calling someone a 'Pub gets you no answer to your question with an I'm-a-conservative blast to the face. If you say they're a conservative, no republican is accountable by them, and the talkers are entertainers only. The strategy is that the attacker can be on offense 100% of the time. Sorry, but these individuals want to crush any opposing opinion, while passing out insults to anyone who dares to have an offending opinion.

TAL

[Talvenada]

All of that said, I don't really like the idea of coming to this message board for the sake of arguing politics with people. So your nicknames haven't really cost you a poster (at least as far as I am concerned), as I probably would have ignored the political topics on principle to begin with.

GRH:

I don't come here for a date, for the porn, but to talk to t-girls about their thinking. I have male (shopping, sports, math) thought patterns, and female (romance, love, relationships, dancing) thought patterns. I come here to compare thinking, and I wait until that chance comes along again. That's why I'll only be here once a month when baseball season begins, as I write on a national blog.

TAL

[smc]

SMC:

It was nice of you to inform me of your decisive victory in something that is irrelevant to me.

I said it was defensive before, and that I made-up the abbrev. Now, it proves your point?

I await your next attack. It's a waiting move and I don't have long to wait.


TAL

For a guy who writes seriously as a vocation or avocation (the "national blog"), you don't seem to be a very careful reader of what others write.

[Talvenada]

For a guy who writes seriously as a vocation or avocation (the "national blog"), you don't seem to be a very careful reader of what others write.


SMC:

Thank you, for the insult. If I missed it point it out, because I am not erudite like you.


TAL

[smc]

SMC:

Thank you, for the insult. If I missed it point it out, because I am not erudite like you.


TAL

Don't sell yourself short. You didn't miss anything. There's a big difference between missing and ignoring.

[aw9725]

Since I have been coming here I have been impressed with how friendly this place is and how respectful of other?s views most users are. That is important since many of us are sharing very intimate details of our personal lives here. I have posted extensively of my own ?self discovery? and have gotten much support from members. Society at large, is not always so tolerant of our community.

Even though never in a million years did I think I?d be reading about Republicans on *this* forum(!), I have enjoyed AngryPostman?s writings and also Tracy?s. I originally come from a ?Conservative Republican? family and by an early age had read Ayn Rand, von Mises, Milton Friedman, Hayek, and others. When I graduated from high-school, my parents gave me a subscription to ?The American Spectator? and the book ?Modern Times? by Paul Johnson. As I got older and went on through higher-ed towards my doctorate, I became more ?progressive? in my views and found the Republican party ?wanting? as far as social issues. Many might categorize me now as a ?Liberal Professor? but they would be right only to a certain extent. At my core, I still believe many of the things I learned at an early age--especially those things involving personal liberty and freedom.

Not that anyone here needs defending, but the term ?Conse Pubs? clearly was intended to be dismissive of conservative views. It is not generally accepted like the abbreviation ?RBI.? Nor is it neutral. I can, for example, find much to fault within the current Republican party, but I support one?s right to post their views without being subjected to demeaning and stereotypical ?labels.? We reject stereotypes and labeling as a community--why tolerate it here?

[Talvenada]

Not that anyone here needs defending, but the term “Conse Pubs” clearly was intended to be dismissive of conservative views. It is not generally accepted like the abbreviation “RBI.” Nor is it neutral. I can, for example, find much to fault within the current Republican party, but I support one’s right to post their views without being subjected to demeaning and stereotypical “labels.” We reject stereotypes and labeling as a community--why tolerate it here?

AW9725:

Firstly, the only 2 who come here consistently (Angry & Tracy) to represent the views of your youth are conservative libertarians, have identified themselves as such, and are no longer referred to in that manner, as it would be incorrect.

It is nice of you to decide for me what I mean when I say something, like SMC who has consistently told me things about myself I didn't know. Do both of you know someone who hates me still? There is the spoken and the unspoken; there is the public and the PM.

I said it was made-up by me elsewhere in a defensive position, and you say it is deliberate and a fact.

1. My major infraction is an abrev. that I've explained.

2. The two posters I referred to that way are conservative libertarians.

3. I last referred to someone that way over a week ago (post #53 on this thread).

4. If I say it's one thing, then you dispute that strongly, what are you saying? My reason isn't possible or is a flat-out lie? Or is it something else? And you know this how?

What is your thinking on how I should be dealt with?

TAL


SMC:

You used the word again, but where was the before?

You said the abbrev. was a deliberate aggressive action: offensive in nature.

Then, I proved that point by saying it was defensive?


TAL

[smc]

AW9725:

Firstly, the only 2 who come here consistently (Angry & Tracy) to represent the views of your youth are conservative libertarians, have identified themselves as such, and are no longer referred to in that manner, as it would be incorrect.

It is nice of you to decide for me what I mean when I say something, like SMC who has consistently told me things about myself I didn't know. Do both of you know someone who hates me still? There is the spoken and the unspoken; there is the public and the PM.

I said it was made-up by me elsewhere in a defensive position, and you say it is deliberate and a fact.

1. My major infraction is an abrev. that I've explained.

2. The two posters I referred to that way are conservative libertarians.

3. I last referred to someone that way over a week ago (post #53 on this thread).

4. If I say it's one thing, then you dispute that strongly, what are you saying? My reason isn't possible or is a flat-out lie? Or is it something else? And you know this how?

What is your thinking on how I should be dealt with?

TAL


SMC:

You used the word again, but where was the before?

You said the abbrev. was a deliberate aggressive action: offensive in nature.

Then, I proved that point by saying it was defensive?


TAL

I will let AW9725 speak for himself. As for me, it seems I need to repeat something I wrote earlier to Talvenada in this thread: "For a guy who writes seriously as a vocation or avocation (the "national blog"), you don't seem to be a very careful reader of what others write."

Why do I repeat this? Because I never "said the abbrev. was a deliberate aggressive action: offensive in nature" -- something Talvenada attributes to me in his last post. A careful read of my posts will show that all I ever did with such words was to quote Talvenada saying that about his own use of language.

One can imagine what happens to my students who either miss stuff like that, or pull sophistic stunts like that, in their writing.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by ila
Since I'm an outsider to your political system I can never be called a conservative republican so I feel that I can give a somewhat unbiased opinion on your abbreviation. Your abbreviation seems to be somewhat dismissive and possible arrogant or condescending towards conservative republicans. Why do you feel the need to make up an abbreviation? Why not just type or write conservative republican out in full as it doesn't take much more effort. You would then not look like you are entering a debate, with an air of superiority.



Well put, ila, especially the point about the need to make up an abbreviation or "shorthand" at all. It is a type of cleverness that, in my humble opinion, is seen all too often in writing, especially in journalism and particularly in sports journalism. I discuss this very point with my writing students, and even use sports columnists from The Boston Globe as source material.


SMC:

Thank you, for the insults.

No, you didn't SAY it; you only agreed with it.

Correct me if I'm wrong--I no doubt am wrong IYHO--You agree with Ila's implied aggressive offensive opinion, but you say defensive proves your point.

You can say--so, I'll say it for you, you were happy with Ila's opinion, and didn't want to disagree with someone you respect. You expect respect, and I'm sure that you respect every poster here. I don't have to ask if you respect me, because that only says insult me some more.

TAL

[smc]

A friend on this forum has widely advised me to cease engaging in this debate. After giving it some thought, I have decided to take his sage advice. I will let what is already posted stand on its own, with the confidence that a reasonable reading of the record will lead the reader to draw the appropriate conclusions.

Whether I can resist the bait that may come ... well, we will have to wait and see. I will do my best.

[Talvenada]

A friend on this forum has widely advised me to cease engaging in this debate. After giving it some thought, I have decided to take his sage advice. I will let what is already posted stand on its own, with the confidence that a reasonable reading of the record will lead the reader to draw the appropriate conclusions.

Whether I can resist the bait that may come ... well, we will have to wait and see. I will do my best.


SMC:

I don't want this debate with you, and never have. If there is bait, it won't be from me.

TAL

[TracyCoxx]

I've been gone a couple of days. I guess I didn't miss much.

[cuminmyass]

impeached for what? What has he done that was impeachable?

People throw that word around and don't really know anything about it. They use it as an umbrella term when they just really mean to say, "throw him out of office".

[The Conquistador]

Uggghhh! I too was gone for a couple days; never eat burritos from a questionable looking taco truck, no matter how tempting the price may be...:no:

[shadows]

Uggghhh! I too was gone for a couple days; never eat burritos from a questionable looking taco truck, no matter how tempting the price may be...:no:

Unfortunately, you tend to get what you pay for, especially with road-side food carts. I hope you weren't too sick, Postman, and I am glad that you are feeling better.:)

[The Conquistador]

Did I miss anything?

[shadows]

Did I miss anything?

Same old, same old.;)

[ila]

Did I miss anything?

Same old, same old.;)

That about sums it up. Same words, different posts.

[TracyCoxx]

impeached for what? What has he done that was impeachable?

People throw that word around and don't really know anything about it. They use it as an umbrella term when they just really mean to say, "throw him out of office".

You have to ask? Even democrats want him gone!