Republicans

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by 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 |

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...ure-look-like/

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

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]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

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]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

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]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

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.

[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.

[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.

[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...

[shadows]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

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...

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]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Did I miss anything?

Same old, same old.

[ila]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Did I miss anything?

Originally Posted by shadows

Same old, same old.

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

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by 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".

You have to ask? Even democrats want him gone!