RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Bush threatens to veto anti-torture bill

wondy, i never really even noticed you until your racism came out. i don't think many people did.
in fact you could say that i made you famous around here. i think the words you're looking for are "thank you."

I've been alleged to be a racist, homophobe, etc., pretty much since the day I started posting here, by slanderous weasels like you, who use sweeping labels to attack their opposition, when they have no facts to support their liberal opinions.

Liberals like yourself indulge in scapegoating and intolerance like no group you criticize does.

you ever think that maybe you just are a racist homophobe asshole and everyone is just pointing it out?

By "everyone" you mean "you", and a handful of like-minded spiteful liberals.

you seem to use the word liberal to mean anyone at all who disagrees with you or your stances. it's weird and confusing.

I use the word liberal to describe those who believe in a liberal perspective on issues like socialized medicine, abortion, birth control, socialist government programs to deal with problems that can be solved by other more productive and efficient means, homosexuality, racial quotas, and an open hostility toward christianity, marriage and other conservative values.

Try to keep up, Ray.

I don't use it as a slanderous misrepresentative insult (such as your accusing myself and others of being racist, homophobes, pedophiles, etc.), I use it to specifically describe a flawed and often anti-American ideology, with destructive effects on western culture, such as declining birth rates in western nations, collapsing families, higher crime and drug use, and undermining our will to remain a sovereign and distinctve nation, and defend our own national interests. Anyone who believes in our nation and defending it from invasion and other threats is labelled by yourself and spiteful like-minded liberals as "racist, hompohobe", etc.

Which is really just your way of saying you have no facts to dispute what I say, but you hate my guts for disagreeing with you, and offering facts that prove you're wrong.

So you're saying conservative ideology is good and liberal ideology is everything negative and bad you described.

Anti-Christian? What bugs me about you is that you (and to a lesser extent G-man) try to foist your personal characterization as absolute fact, usually with no proof or with the most extreme aberrations when it's easy as shit to find liberal christians, to find liberals who are against abortion, to find liberals who are pro gun just as it's easy to find gay conservatives. These days, easier than you think

An the casual use of "Socialist" as if it's supposed to mark Liberals or shame them or um.. I dunoo.. accurately reflect what they're advocating as being akin to Communism or something when it's been told over and over that we ALREADY have what you'd characterize as "socialized medicine" in tis country and it works fine. Ask any soldier or veteran or ask any senior.

And Ray has a point, you tend to toss the word liberal willy-nilly, again because you seem to think this is some sort of marking pejorative.

I thought the facts were in simply quoting your posts. What I can't understand is AFTER quoting your posts why you seem to think you're being mischaracterized.



Do liberals hate America?
'nuff said.

Yeah, I'm sure that hasn't changed at all in four decades.

well wondy claims it's all one big conspiracy going back to FDR and welfare.

Well.. for years I've read conservatives assert that if Kennedy was alive today, Truman, FDR etc. they'd be conservatives..

But all you have to do to rebut that is to go back and read what the opposition to those men was saying to find that belief is so full of shit.

It' the same tired arguments we hear to this day.

I, myself, would say that.



I see what you did there. Lemme give it a shot!

"What bugs me about you is that you (and to lesser extent MEM) try to foist your personal characterization as absolute fact."

I was especially bugged by your characterization of my Boiling Pot ideals as being considered a form of "assimilation" or 'turning minorities white."



You mean Liberals who say they're Christian but give no second thoughts to the philosphical contradiction between the two titles they keep? (see also: John Kerry using his status as a Catholic to justify his 'keep abortion legal' stand) That's really all you're referring to; people who say they're Christian mostly for the sake of buying credibility--And the ones who are honest about it (see also: Martin Sheen) never give any second though to the practical failures of intergrating their religion's philosophy in with their political philosophy. In which case, only the one of those he or she favors most can be used to describe him/her.



Which does not necessarily mean Christian. Nor does it mean being gay goes against conservative philosophy--And not ever homosexual is so die hard about getting married. In fact, conservativism has nothing to do with glorifying or separating people from a crowd based on sexual preference; it's moreso about keeping one's business to themself. I'm sure liberals like to keep homosexuals (and minorities) as pets or, perhaps, mascots for their political stands (see also: Gay parades, Gay Marriage, Affirmative Action), but conservative philosophy is a bit more practical than highlighting particular ratios that belong to it.

I agree with that last part. It's actually something espoused by Barry Goldwater in his later years.

As for abortion, I'm personally against it for personal reasons but as Barry Goldwater also elaborated on, it's a matter of personal choice, not intended for government intervention. If it's a moral issue, then it's up to that person to square themselves with God, not for me to legislate their salvation or obedience.

But Christianity is not simply about abortion and homosexuality, it's just the 2 main issues that the religious right has used in an effort to wedge and divide people of faith. I'm more concerned about Christians adhering to Jesus' examples which IMO is something that should serve to better all of us (and especially the needier among us) rather than divide us.

When I said I agreed to that last part, I didn't man to this quoted above which is just beyond the pale.

Pets?



what the fuck, dude?

On yesterday's Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace interviewed former President George H.W. Bush at his Presidential Library in Texas. Bush defends his son’s disastrous presidency, but later in the interview as he and Wallace stood in a mock up of a tent used by U.S. soldiers during the first Gulf War, he vehemently defended his decision not to march on to Baghdad in 1991.

While watching footage of news clips from the conflict, Poppy becomes emotional when he describes what he believes to be the most lasting images from the conflict — the humane way in which the U.S. treated Iraqi prisoners.



Sadly, Mr. Bush would now be considered a coward and a terrorist sympathizer by his own party for these views. Go ahead and let it out, sir — the nation weeps with you for what your son has done in our name.

The last page or two is kinda off topic but here goes.



teehee! redundancy!

But seriously, I somewhat agree with you. Though you do realize that "not for me to legislate" goes two ways, right? I consider both abortion and gay rights to be issues for which there IS no legislative solution. Ideally, the federal government shouldn't be touching these either way. What some call "affirming existing rights" I see as so much more government interference and political football. Because whether you're saying "yeah, do this" or "no, don't do this" it's the same thing - the government is enforcing SOME kind of morality. If anything, it should be up to the states to decide those sorts of things, because it stands to reason that the more local the government is, the closer in contact it will be with its constituents and thus the more attuned it will be with the will of the people - and there are as many wills as there are people! Trying to homogenize (pun sort of kind of not intended) how the entire country sees a moral issue just plain doesn't work with as many differing opinions as we have. Ultimately, if the federal government isn't violating the establishment clause, they're violating the free exercise clause. Catch-22.

Maybe it's a bit overgeneralized and more than a little tactless, but it'd be difficult to argue against the left's annoying habit of using minorities (ethnic or otherwise) as cannon fodder the same way the right uses evangelicals and drivers of rusty red pickup trucks as cannon fodder.

That's a total lie.

I've again and again said that liberalism went insanely anti-American in the early 1960s, with Supreme Court rulings without precedent banning prayer in schools, and the "war on poverty" which far beyond the desired goal of racial equality and equal access to jobs and education, established racial quotas and a lower standard for minorities (which has done more to perpetuate racial division than anything else), and has inadvertantly through its short-sightedness stifled integration and assimilation, encouraged teenage pregnancy and single moms, and burdened us with the entitlements of a very costly welfare state.

In the topic where we were supposed to say something good about the opposing party (about a year ago) I said that sometimes a liberal solution is the best solution, and I gave examples of child labor laws, unions to get rights, benefits, decent pay and safety for previously unrepresented workers, social security, and F.D. Roosevelt's programs to create jobs that built roads, bridges, power facilities and infrastructure in a time when a third of Americans were out of work.

Truman's integrating blacks into a de-segregated military in 1948 was also a very admirable move, well executed.

Kennedy I see as possibly having the best speech writers of any president, but who I think gets credit for being a greater president than he was. The Berlin Wall went up under Kennedy. The Bay of Pigs invasion was botched under Kennedy. Multiple assassination attempts were made on Castro under Kennedy and failed (and a theory of the Kennedy assassination is that it was retribution for attempts on Castro). A U-2 spy plane was shot down while Kennedy was president, resulting in humiliating negotiations with the Russians to get the captured U.S. pilot back, and denials of U.S. spying that were clearly false. The Mafia were likely involved in rigging the 1960 election that Kennedy won (the mafia were unquestionably involved in getting Robert Kennedy elected Senator of New York). Kennedy was in poor health, and at times very impaired in his ability to act as president (Addison's Disease, which if he were not shot, would have likely killed him before the end of his term.) And ultimately, the weakness of JFK's foreign policy in Berlin, Bay of Pigs and the U-2 incident, elboldened the Russians to what became the Cuban Missile Crisis, which took the world as close as it's ever been to all-out nuclear war. That arguably never would have escalated to that level, if not for Kennedy's repeated weakness against the Russians.
Kennedy also sent the first military advisors, in what escalated to full-scale U.S. involvement in Vietnam.
Even the civil rights quotas, bean-counting and welfare-state legislation passed in 1965 was largely drafted from Kennedy's vision and passed posthumously in his name.

So forgive me if I'm not overly moved by Kennedy's definition of liberalism quoted above. Feel-good rhetoric, but totally meaningless. Kennedy was the beginning of the form of liberalism I despise, and recognize to be destructive to this nation.

There are a few select liberals I admire and have named often (Ralph Nader, Joseph Biden, Christoper Dodd, Joseph Lieberman, and Byron Dorgan to name a few), on a few populist issues: labor, affordable education and health-care issues. When their best intentions are aimed at providing for working Americans, I can agree with and admire liberal Democrats.

But far more often, liberal Democrats are the ultimate special interest party, who promote atheism, abortion, gay rights, minority favoritism, the removal of prayer, the Bible, and even the 10 Commandments from schools and courts and public buildings(the Biblical principles this nation was founded on!), even as liberals simultaneously advocate the teaching of Islam (the religion of our enemy) in our schools, and have obstructed education into a politically correct (i.e., anti-American) version of American History that undermines nationalism and patriotism.
The major thrust of liberalism I see as destructive and in opposition to what is best for America, a majority of liberal Democrats who I see as constantly in opposition to U.S. national interests domestically and abroad, and constantly seeking to splinter this country along racial, ethnic and class lines for their own political gain, with inflammatory and divisive rhetoric. To the destruction and detriment of the nation.

When I speak of liberalism negatively, this is the type of liberalism I refer to: socialist, racially divisive, pandering to special interests, elitist, and ultimately anti-American, whether they even realize it or not. Liberals who are so filled with spite that they calculate winning battles against their political opposition by campaigning against America. Where basically, anyone who believes in preserving America and protecting American interests is a white racist. Anyone who believes in Judao-Christian values is "intolerant" and "a bigot".
It's a liberalism that is based on intolerance of anyone who disagrees with their self-proclaimed truth (even as they demonize and bemoan the intolerance of conservatives who may disagree with them but will at least let them speak), and there are no rules, no evil these liberals won't sink to, to slander and harass their opposition into silence.

Case in point with your vicious rhetoric, Ray.

Yes. Pets. Things the Democratic party like to nuture and keep around since liberal propoganda has a crucial use for them as mascots to be paraded around as a means to pitch for sympathy. As a result, the left is considered more compassionate even if they're not totally logical. Because logic doesn't matter in the face of the needy--It doesn't even matter how they became needy in the first place. All that matters is that a particular ratio wants something and the liberals will go out of their way to extrapolate that alleged need. Pandering to feelings of entitlement.

To my recollection, the conservative ratio has never sunk so low as to push a particular group. Two of the Republican party's most influential politicians are black and yet I don't recall even them bothering to highlight Powel and Rice as credibility cards. They just do their jobs all the while being called traitors by social groups.

I dunoo man..

(To me), You two just sound so full of spite and bile that you actually believe people are as cynical as you 2 make the Democrats out to be.

I for one don't keep people as "pets". I myself have several gay friends, I have many minority friends. I don't keep anyone around for sympathy because they (nor anyone for that matter) don't go around thru life like the pitiful beggars you portray them as being. Reagan's infamous "welfare queen" instantly popped into my head when I read that shit.

I think this reveals a lot more about you two than about any "liberal Pets" or their keepers you describe. And Pariah, as a person that likes to toss Catholic dogma whenever you can, I find it odd that you think people need to show logic to their neediness. Jesus never went around demanding explanations or merit for peoples need.

I dunoo.. I get this sense of revulsion Franky thinking about how heartless you guys are. Between Pariah thinking people keep pets around to show the inhumanity of others, like slaves almost, more than pets and Wonder Boy who thinks he has liberalism and history all sussed out as being either weak, anti-American or destructive to his way of life.

I dunoo Wonder Boy, if "liberalism is all that evil destructive stuff and more, what the fuck would you do with all these America destroyers? Eh? I for one really want to know what your solution to the "liberal" problem is. If it's really as dire as you say. If the minorities and the gays and feminists are running amok making us weak and emboldening our enemies then the clock is ticking man. DO SOMETHING!!!!!!!!!! America is almost destroyed!!! Grab your guns!!!! Get a liberal!!!!! Or is it really not that bad and you're just enthralled by too many demagogues? Because if it is, man the obvious solution is to do something drastic against the liberals before it's too late! I really demand an answer from you.

You guys are extremists. And yeah, you may try to say the same of me. Whatever. But man, I never say that Conservatives like to keep anyone as "pets" not do I assert some twisted ass version of history that no history professor in their right mind would ever present to a class.. This is fucking Ann Coulter defending Joe McCarthy. It's shit scary because you guys aern't kidding around. There really is this much hatred festering inside of you guys.

The day Swedish soldiers uses water boarding and our Government doesn't call it torture, I won't be Captain Sweden anymore.

Not one part of that excrement post rises above character assassination and ad-hominem attack.

Not one part of that addresses the issues I raise, the sources I quoted, the quantifiable and documented problems of an invasion of illegal immigrants (estimated 20 million), declining education and the liberal re-writing of history to suit their agenda (see Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind, or Pat Buchanan's Death of the West, among other sources), minority violence against whites (despite the indoctrinated liberal media's disproportionate reporting that implies the reverse is true, that whites are allegedly hunting down minorities in Klan cookouts nationwide), that wages and education are declining precisely because of rampant immigration, both legal and illegal.
I'll say it again so you hopefully won't deliberately misrepresent me: Immigration, legal immigration, within numbers that can be assimilated is good for America, and I enjoy interacting with all races, both domestic and foreign-born. But the numbers coming in now (about 1.2 million a year, far beyond even what even liberal JFK advocated) are not immigration.
Their numbers are beyond immigration, they amount instead to invasion.

Coupled with liberal "multiculturalism" and indoctrinated ideas that generate excessive anger at whites for past racism and generate hostility that probably wouldn't exist if not for liberal/Democrat race baiting, you have a formula for separatism and balkanization.

Those are quantifiable trends. As I said, half the 20 local broadcast channels here in South Florida are Spanish, Haitian Creole, and Brazilian Portuguese. These people are quantifiably not assimilating, they are rapidly taking over as the dominant culture.

Trying to label me a "racist" or some kind of conservative radical or hater doesn't begin to address the realities of the facts you try to bypass with a few slanderous labels.
I welcome immigrants to America, but not colonizers. And they would assimilate just fine, if not for dangerous liberal indoctrination, and insane liberal immigration policy.

me thinks thou doth protest too thine own muchness.
thou verilly.

The Cubans are taking over!!!!!

My white utopia is no more!!!!

Maybe if they'd stop giving automatic citizenship to Cuban expatriates then you wouldn't be up your perceived shit creek in Florida.

Now back torture....

WOW!, Just wow!

Of course Wonder Boy will hate this....

That guy in the YouTube clips is a joke, he's so unprofessionally bristling with spite and hatred for Bush.

Again, Bush is not my guy, so I don't give a fuck. I didn't vote for him in 2000, and I only voted for him as the lesser of two bad options in 2004. I support him on a few issues, I oppose his actions on many others. In my view, and in the eyes of many other conservatives, Bush is not even a conservative, on spending, on big government, and on immigration.


And another slander on your part, trying to paint me as a racist, despite what I actually said.

For the record, Cubans are reliable conservatives, and generally very well educated. My friend Fernando, a retail business owner, said when he first came here, he saw himself as a Cuban living in America. But after more than 20 years, on 9-11, he realized he saw himself as an American. He was outraged by what happened, and he said he would fight and die for this country. At some point along the way, without even realizing it himself, he had fully assimilated.

I have a number of other Cuban friends, and have dated quite a few Cuban women.

Nice try on the smear job, though. Despite my high regard for Cubans, Argentinian, Brazilians, Colombians and many others, you want to paint me as a "hater" for wanting to limit immigration to what we can assimilate. Well, guess what, many of them don't like the idea of amnesty either. Because many of them waited a year or more after applying for a visa, before they were allowed to come here, then went through a long process and paid a lot of fees so they could finally stay here, and more time, money and effort before they could become citizens.

Amnesty for illegals makes a mockery of what they had to go through. So the idea of amnesty pisses them off too.

It's not about race for me, it's about who assimilates and who doesn't, who respects our laws, and who doesn't. Who loves this country, and who abuses it and works from within to destroy it.

if you voted for him in the last election then he is "your guy." you, and people like yourself, are to blame for the way things are going because you voted for Bush. you voted for him after the war was going bad, after the WMD evidence turned out to be false. You voted for him, he is your guy.

Keith Olbermann commenting on FOX labelling Clinton's heated exchange with Chris Wallace as "crazed".



I think it applies equally to your spin on the "hate filled liberal" dismissal.

Waterboarding is Torture… Period

Malcolm Nance, one of the most insightful observers of the Iraq insurgency, takes a break from his usual trenchant analysis of strategy and tactics to weigh in on waterboarding.

From his personal experience. If you have any questions about torture in general or waterboarding in particular, it's really a must-read. Money quote:




Torture is for despicable regimes. It's beneath us, and if we could get past fascism and communism without resorting to it, we don't need to lower ourselves to that level now. Torture advocates are trying to put us at the level of the people we despise, and it's a disgrace.

It's not torture to use electrodes on the testicles if it's done with close supervision.

Heck, why not start building work and concentration camps already, it's the humane thing to do anyway.

so John Mccain and Colin Powell are anti-tortue. Two guys who have long military careers, one of whom was actually tortured during Vietnam. And yet you, G-man, and so many Republicans choose to side with the pro-torture chickenhawks.

Authoritarianism:

Encyclopædia Britannica Article

principle of blind submission to authority, as opposed to individual freedom of thought and action. In government, authoritarianism denotes any political system that concentrates power in the hands of a leader or a small elite that is not constitutionally responsible to the body of the people.

So you took a page out of a fellow left-wing lunatic's handbook and then posted here. Now what does that prove again?

Pariah sure does help our case when it comes to fanatical/deluded right wingers, doesn't he?

non-sequiturs are fun!

Not according to the Straight Dope archives. It seems likely that the victim lives for several seconds after death and is aware of their decapitation. A very very horrific story is recounted of a man who witnessed a decapitation victim's dying seconds.