Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around...
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #128007] |
Mon, 20 December 2004 20:33   |
icedog90
Messages: 3483
Registered: April 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Icedog, read this ACLU article. Then read the documents if you want to. Then think for yourself. Reading and then thinking is the recipe for success.
|
Reading that article has nothing to do with what situation you put yourself in. Reading your replies already shows me how much of a stupid fuck you are.
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #128011] |
Mon, 20 December 2004 20:39 |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
What situation? The situation of having an opinion? Am I stupid for holding one contrary to an "elected" offical, namely "President" Bush? Are you so pro-Republican that you can't stand to see anyone doubt their candidates?
And keep your slanderous forked tongue within the confines of your oral cavity.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #128013] |
Mon, 20 December 2004 20:41 |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
What situation? The situation of having an opinion? Am I stupid for holding one contrary to an "elected" offical, namely "President" Bush? Are you so pro-Republican that you can't stand to see anyone doubt their candidates?
And keep your slanderous forked tongue within the confines of your oral cavity.
|
I've doubted Bush's abilities enough times, and Clinton's too. Also, stop being such a fucking idiot, and RESPECT THE MAN FOR ONCE. He's the highest elected official in the nation. Show some fucking respect. Whether or not you respect him as a person, respect him as the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Yes, that country that you live in.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #128015] |
Mon, 20 December 2004 20:42 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
warranto:
Well, this is only the tip of a potential iceberg. Right now the ACLU has a big stack of documents [availible for review at the bottom of that article] that they presented to a judge to see whether or not an executive order has to be released and whether or not it must be determined if there was one.
Don't be mistaken, this story hasn't resolved yet, but there is an enormous amount of evidence to suggest what is about to come.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
[Updated on: Mon, 20 December 2004 20:43] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #128017] |
Mon, 20 December 2004 20:44 |
icedog90
Messages: 3483
Registered: April 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| j_ball430 |
I've doubted Bush's abilities enough times, and Clinton's too. Also, stop being such a fucking idiot, and RESPECT THE MAN FOR ONCE. He's the highest elected official in the nation. Show some fucking respect. Whether or not you respect him as a person, respect him as the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Yes, that country that you live in.
|
But you forgot, he doesn't live in America, he was transferred to Canada by MoveThemOn.org.
[Updated on: Mon, 20 December 2004 20:45] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #128020] |
Mon, 20 December 2004 20:48 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
I find it quite comforting to myself that I use bigger words than most of you while being of a younger age. Also, technically, you aren't hearing me, but merely seeing the text I print.
Thanks for your concern.
The ACLU's objective is to assure that the Bill of Rights is upheld, not install a new economic system into the United States. Is this about those court cases where government offices are putting on Christmas displays? Because that and banning Christianity aren't exactly the same thing, you know.
DarkDemin, I ask you, what good is it if we go into a country claiming to end the regime of a torturer, and then start torturing people while saying we're not? How much better are we than Saddam then?
Not all Arabs are terrorists, you know. And here we go again with your Republican "Americans are more important than other races..." talk. I can't stand it. We invaded their country, and dropped so many bombs more or less all of them know someone personal that we have killed. That's why they hate us and our soldiers and our people, not because of our "freedoms" or any stupid reason like that.
EDIT:
warranto:
No offense taken. I understand that this news hasn't resolved itself yet, so we must wait and see. However, this crowd didn't hold the same restraint in declaring it vile and wrong.
And with that, I must retire for the night. I'll be back on sometime tomorrow.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
[Updated on: Mon, 20 December 2004 20:51] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #128022] |
Mon, 20 December 2004 20:52 |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Of course, the ACLU is there to make sure Religion has no place in the Government, and on tv, and in the work place, and in schools, and any place the public eye is.
Oh wait, did I say Religion? I meant only Christianity. Any other religion would be discrimination, and thats protected.
But enough about the ACLU's views as related to religion, that can be kept for another topic if it wishes to be discussed.
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #128023] |
Mon, 20 December 2004 21:07 |
 |
xptek
Messages: 1410
Registered: August 2004
Location: USSA
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
I find it quite comforting to myself that I use bigger words than most of you while being of a younger age. Also, technically, you aren't hearing me, but merely seeing the text I print.
|
Use of a thesaurus doesn't really make you superior.
cause = time
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #128024] |
Mon, 20 December 2004 21:09 |
 |
NeoSaber
Messages: 336
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Did you read the article, or just the blog that pointed it out? Here's what it said about Bush.
| aclu |
The two-page e-mail that references an Executive Order states that the President directly authorized interrogation techniques including sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and "sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc."
|
Oh my God, the horror. Lack of sleep, unconfortable seating, listening to barking dogs, and wearing hoods. That's got to be the worst "torture" ever heard of in history. That's right up there with being beaten, raped, maimed and/or killed.
The article also keeps claiming "cover up", yet they have all these documents they got from a freedom of information lawsuit that spells all this out. Wow, that's a tremendous cover up there. Keeping records of all the incidents and releasing them to the ACLU has got to be the most insidious plot ever conceived to hide the truth from the American people. If they were really covering this up, then all the documents would have 'disappeared' before anyone at the ACLU could have got a hold of them.
NeoSaber
Renegade Map Maker at CnC Source
Animator/Compiler/Level Editor/Object Rigger/Programmer for Red Alert: A Path Beyond
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #128155] |
Tue, 21 December 2004 12:48 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Scamp |
Use of a thesaurus doesn't really make you superior.
|
When did a thesaurus come into play?
| Neosaber |
Oh my God, the horror. Lack of sleep, unconfortable seating, listening to barking dogs, and wearing hoods. That's got to be the worst "torture" ever heard of in history. That's right up there with being beaten, raped, maimed and/or killed.
The article also keeps claiming "cover up", yet they have all these documents they got from a freedom of information lawsuit that spells all this out. Wow, that's a tremendous cover up there. Keeping records of all the incidents and releasing them to the ACLU has got to be the most insidious plot ever conceived to hide the truth from the American people. If they were really covering this up, then all the documents would have 'disappeared' before anyone at the ACLU could have got a hold of them.
|
"Listening to dogs" is one way of putting being attacked by them. Those are all torture methods designed to make people lose their minds. It is still torture, don't pretend it's not. I'm sure you saw those pictures from Abu Gharib. Do you believe it counts as humane action? We went into Iraq first under false claims of weapons of mass destruction which we now KNOW are not there, and then started pretending we went in for humanitarian reasons, which is not at all how war was justified, where we claim to be removing a torturer. But now, we're torturing people and pretending we're not. Not very humanitarian, if you ask me.
Yes, it is a coverup. These documents were all leaked. Right now, the ACLU is suing to ascertain whether or not there was an executive order condoning torture, of which the administration is apparently trying to cover up.
| gbull |
As soon as the terrorists start abiding by the Geneva conventions then We should start and not a moment beforehand.
|
Iraqis = Not Terrorists
I can base actions based on something? Cool.... [Re-think that section]
| gbull |
The fact that you put quotes around moral values doesnt surprise me.
|
Well, no, it doesn't surprise me either, because that was the reason stated by so many during the exit polls.
| gbull |
SuperFlyingEngi, your constant obsession with trying to make our President (notice the lack of qoutes) look like he is insufficient to run this country is both disturbing and absurd. The fact that I share the same country with you makes the taste of vomit form in my mouth. Whats more is your perversion of the statements that our founding fathers said I myself deem unpatriotic. I have news for you, times change and dissent is the opposite of patriotism. Have some pride in your country. You are the worst American I have ever seen.
|
So, I should blindly follow our leaders? No, I'm afraid that's entirely wrong. There must always remain the question in a democracy. I'm not perverting Mr. Jefferson's statement in the least. It's exactly what he meant, and the point remains. This blind "patriotism", if you can call it that, emanating from the Republican party disgusts me. Why am I a bad American? Because I chance a look at what our President does? Should I believe in what he does because you do? You obviously don't understand our political system in the least. If censorship of ideas comes, democracy leaves.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #128177] |
Tue, 21 December 2004 13:42 |
 |
rm5248
Messages: 1156
Registered: November 2003
Location: USA
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| j_ball430 |
It's justified, no matter how much your twisted mind thinks it's not.
|
So... theoretically, if your town flew a plane into my school, I could come there and play music 24/7, have dogs bark at you, shine bright lights in your face and put hoods over your head?
w00t?
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #128187] |
Tue, 21 December 2004 13:50 |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
So, I should blindly follow our leaders? No, I'm afraid that's entirely wrong. There must always remain the question in a democracy. I'm not perverting Mr. Jefferson's statement in the least. It's exactly what he meant, and the point remains. This blind "patriotism", if you can call it that, emanating from the Republican party disgusts me. Why am I a bad American? Because I chance a look at what our President does? Should I believe in what he does because you do? You obviously don't understand our political system in the least. If censorship of ideas comes, democracy leaves.
|
You're quite the hypocrite, aren't you? You say that Republicans blindly follow Bush, yet everything you say and believe is nothing but Liberal propaganda spouted from Liberal media distributors.
I certainly don't blindly follow Bush. As I said earlier, I've disagreed with him on a lot of subjects, but I see him as a better fit as president than Kerry would have been if he were to have been elected.
I guarantee you that I have more morals than you do. Especially since I come from a religious perspective. I don't like the torture and killings of humans, but it's war. War has completely different rules. You have to do what you have to do in order to save lives and to better lives of people. I know for a fact that if God didn't approve of war, He wouldn't have let David slay Goliath, and then make him the greatest king of Israel.
You can't just look at these situations from one perspective. You have have to look at all of them and then morally choose what's right, and not choose based on your bias.
---
Yes. I wouldn't like it one bit, but in order to get to those behind the horrible act, then it'd all be worth it. I have enough common sense to know that I sure as hell don't want someone like that in my town. I wouldn't be protecting them, so what do I have to fear?
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #128195] |
Tue, 21 December 2004 14:11 |
|
NeoSaber
Messages: 336
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
"Listening to dogs" is one way of putting being attacked by them. Those are all torture methods designed to make people lose their minds. It is still torture, don't pretend it's not. I'm sure you saw those pictures from Abu Gharib. Do you believe it counts as humane action? We went into Iraq first under false claims of weapons of mass destruction which we now KNOW are not there, and then started pretending we went in for humanitarian reasons, which is not at all how war was justified, where we claim to be removing a torturer. But now, we're torturing people and pretending we're not. Not very humanitarian, if you ask me.
|
Sleep deprivation, uncomfortable seating, and wearing hoods so you can't see for a while don't count as torture to me. I don't know what's up with the dogs, which is what I was trying to point out. The article just claims "use of dogs" not that they attack people. I've read that dogs are used to scare people, without attacking, so without evidence to the contrary I'm going to consider that to be the case here. I don't consider barking dogs to be torture. A little scary maybe, but not torture.
What happened at Abu Ghraib was abuse and torture. People being beaten and by some reports killed certainly qualifies as such. The people who did it are being punished. Those investigations and court martials were being carried out months before the story even "broke". The military even announced it, but since there weren't any pictures of the torture, no one in the media really listened. However, I don't see anything in this executive order Bush signed that authorized what happened there. Your initial post said Bush authorized torture, but the evidence you've cited says otherwise to me.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Yes, it is a coverup. These documents were all leaked. Right now, the ACLU is suing to ascertain whether or not there was an executive order condoning torture, of which the administration is apparently trying to cover up.
|
If there was a real cover up, documents would have been destroyed or never made to begin with. Keeping things secret for a time doesn't constitute a cover up. If I write myself a note and don't give it to anyone, I'm not covering it up. If I email a friend and don't announce the contents of the email to the world, I'm not covering things up. A lot of what the government does isn't released for years so current important information doesn't end up in the wrong hands. These documents weren't being "covered up" if they could get into the hands of the ACLU. They were probably just being shelved until the information in them was out of date.
NeoSaber
Renegade Map Maker at CnC Source
Animator/Compiler/Level Editor/Object Rigger/Programmer for Red Alert: A Path Beyond
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #128196] |
Tue, 21 December 2004 14:12 |
 |
glyde51
Messages: 1827
Registered: August 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
War just generates war, in a never ending cycle of hate. It's a circle, and with a circle, just can run around it until you end up at the beginning. War will never be stopped. We invest in it, and we need it. We started this never ending circle, and the only way to stop it is to have something big stand in the way. But there can never be something big. War must go on. Today's leaders aren't getting any nicer, or any less corrupt. They sink lower and lower into what they call "defence". This "defence" means becoming "offensive" towards other countries. It's the primal instinct of kill or be killed. Scientists say humans need to die off sometime soon, that some big epidimic will kill off a large number of humans. But humans are ending themselves. We can't continue to live the way we do. We're dying slowly. We are fighting amongst ouselves, like primitive creatures. We fight disease and things we should be fighting but to no avail, because goverment budgets are more set to fighting other human beings. People. But we turn a blind eye. We don't see this part. Most people just think "they hurt us, we hurt them back". It won't end. It's what we're taught. War is bad, there's no way to put it. But we aren't defending ourselves anymore. We're attacking others that we feel threaten us. Primitive instinct. It's what drives war. Nothing more.
No. Seriously. No.
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #128321] |
Wed, 22 December 2004 00:43 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
OK, SFE says that the US has never tortured anyone before... and yet John Kerry testified to the Senate that we did in Vietnam... make up your mind you propagandist moron.
George Bush is the President, not the "President" whether you like it or not. Not even your pathetic party contest the results of the election. You are just showing your stupidity and ignorance when you do that.
I think YOU have lost your privilege of talking to ME because you are completely unable to believe anything unless it's written by a left-wing nutjob.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #128326] |
Wed, 22 December 2004 01:50 |
 |
Jecht
Messages: 3156
Registered: September 2004
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
So, I should blindly follow our leaders? No, I'm afraid that's entirely wrong. There must always remain the question in a democracy. I'm not perverting Mr. Jefferson's statement in the least. It's exactly what he meant, and the point remains. This blind "patriotism", if you can call it that, emanating from the Republican party disgusts me. Why am I a bad American? Because I chance a look at what our President does? Should I believe in what he does because you do? You obviously don't understand our political system in the least. If censorship of ideas comes, democracy leaves.
|
SFE, they are questioning people with known terrorist ties not just iraqis, music is harmless if you are strong of will, Along with sleep deprevation. I myself THIS MONTH went 4 days with NO sleep, now i would bet that the people in question didnt even have to go that long. You go a little loopy after four days, nothing major. And I do not suggest blindly following our leaders but just NOT to question them ALL the time, when you do, nothing gets done. And SuperFlyingEngi, your a bad American because there is nothing patriotic in your views: no pride for America, no appreciation for your freedom, and nothing but whining like a little bitch about every little god damn thing Bush or the Republican party does.
Appreciation and Pride for your Country is the Greatest form of Patriotism. Thats just the way it is.
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #128357] |
Wed, 22 December 2004 07:35 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| NeoSaber |
Sleep deprivation, uncomfortable seating, and wearing hoods so you can't see for a while don't count as torture to me. I don't know what's up with the dogs, which is what I was trying to point out. The article just claims "use of dogs" not that they attack people. I've read that dogs are used to scare people, without attacking, so without evidence to the contrary I'm going to consider that to be the case here. I don't consider barking dogs to be torture. A little scary maybe, but not torture.
|
You have seen pictures from Abu Gharib of people being attacked by dogs, haven't you? That's what I would be led to believe is the most likely avenue. And torture is not just limited to being hit with a real big stick. Dictionary.com defines it as Excruciating physical or mental pain. That's what we were subjecting people at Abu Gharib to, and that wasn't the only incident, apparently.
| NeoSaber |
What happened at Abu Ghraib was abuse and torture. People being beaten and by some reports killed certainly qualifies as such. The people who did it are being punished. Those investigations and court martials were being carried out months before the story even "broke". The military even announced it, but since there weren't any pictures of the torture, no one in the media really listened. However, I don't see anything in this executive order Bush signed that authorized what happened there. Your initial post said Bush authorized torture, but the evidence you've cited says otherwise to me.
|
How do you know what's in the executive order if you haven't seen it? That's the whole point of this article, some people in the FBI leaked documents to the ACLU, and the ACLU went to court suing under the Free Information Act or whatever to ascertain whether or not there was an executive order, because all the evidence seems to point to there being one. And that's where we are right now.
| NeoSaber |
If there was a real cover up, documents would have been destroyed or never made to begin with. Keeping things secret for a time doesn't constitute a cover up. If I write myself a note and don't give it to anyone, I'm not covering it up. If I email a friend and don't announce the contents of the email to the world, I'm not covering things up. A lot of what the government does isn't released for years so current important information doesn't end up in the wrong hands. These documents weren't being "covered up" if they could get into the hands of the ACLU. They were probably just being shelved until the information in them was out of date.
|
These documents weren't intended to come out. They were leaked by federal employees. That's not the same thing as freely distributing them, FYI.
| Crimson |
OK, SFE says that the US has never tortured anyone before... and yet John Kerry testified to the Senate that we did in Vietnam... make up your mind you propagandist moron.
George Bush is the President, not the "President" whether you like it or not. Not even your pathetic party contest the results of the election. You are just showing your stupidity and ignorance when you do that.
I think YOU have lost your privilege of talking to ME because you are completely unable to believe anything unless it's written by a left-wing nutjob.
|
Why, yes, Crimson, that's why the Vietnam war was a bad war as well and we should never have sent our troops into it.
We really need a new thread to contest the 2000 Florida election, of which could not have been a very clean election, since they never counted all the ballots. And this year, just a couple days ago some anarchist hacker guy testified on the floor of Congress that a Representative [R] from Florida had paid him to back into the electronic voting machines.
But let's save all that for another thread.
| gbull |
SFE, they are questioning people with known terrorist ties not just iraqis, music is harmless if you are strong of will, Along with sleep deprevation. I myself THIS MONTH went 4 days with NO sleep, now i would bet that the people in question didnt even have to go that long. You go a little loopy after four days, nothing major. And I do not suggest blindly following our leaders but just NOT to question them ALL the time, when you do, nothing gets done. And SuperFlyingEngi, your a bad American because there is nothing patriotic in your views: no pride for America, no appreciation for your freedom, and nothing but whining like a little bitch about every little god damn thing Bush or the Republican party does.
|
Gbull, are you really saying that playing music incredibly loudly 24/7 doesn't amount to torture and that Iraqis are just sissies? Also, how do you know the people we are questioning have terrorist ties? You went 4 days in a row without sleeping? Somehow I feel to believe that. At all. And why do you bet the "people in question" didn't have to go that long? Why? WHYYYYYYYYYYYY?! Alright, it's time for you all to shut up about the "He-Doesn't-Agree-With-Us-So-He's-Bad" There will always be a place for the questioner in American politics, and it will never, NEVER, be a wrong one. And I must continue with the most obvious shard of all for my beliefs, the one which you apparently are bluntly ignorant of, that Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
I'm gonna go with T.J. before you. Sorry, that's the way the cookie crumbles.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue May 07 10:45:32 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01344 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
).
