Republicans

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

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]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

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.

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

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.

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

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?:

Originally Posted by Allen S. Keller, M.D. Associate Professor of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine

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/07092...ler.pdf#page=6

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

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]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

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]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

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

[ila]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

.....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]

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.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by smc

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]

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.

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

Originally Posted by Talvenada

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."

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[smc]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

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]

Originally Posted by smc

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

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

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.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

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

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

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]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

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

[Tread]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

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.

Originally Posted by The Geneva Convention Article 4 regarding status of who may be protected under The Geneva Convention as a POW(prisoner of war)

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.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Tread

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.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

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.