Janeane Garafalo owns the **** out of some word twisting Neo-Cons

KaiserWarrior said:

And yes, if Pelosi was in on it, she goes right up there with the rest of them. There is a reason those sorts of activities do not happen on US soil, and there is a reason they were kept hidden from the American public as long as possible: Because they are wrong.

Click to expand...

Crotale said:

Then prosecute anyone and everyone involved and quit making it out that only members of a certain political party are guilty of this crap.

Click to expand...

See:

KaiserWarrior said:

A) Lol.

Click to expand...

I mean seriously, you're not even trying.

Crotale said:

One thing some of you forget is that these guys are not some simpleton civilians plucked off the street in random fashion. They are known terrorists and criminals. Do they deserve human treatment? Yes. But if you can squeeze some information out of them by going a little further than holding their hands, so be it. For a lot of reasons, the US is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. For that alone, why not go ahead and waterboard? Oh, but you will argue that little if any information can be obtained through these techniques. You would be missing the big picture if you think these techniques are fruitless. You see, in the intelligence world, you use multiple sources to verify. And these dudes when p-whipped are good sources for verification. What, did you think we were going to use them as sole sources of info? What a frackin' joke.

The only reason we need to be careful how we handle these folks is so that our enemies cannot use this against us. We don't need to act more civilized, for where has THAT gotten us? Did our enemies give a **** during Clinton's "feel good" terms in office? Yeah, sure, 'tis why they bombed the WTC the first time and planned the eventual destruction of the towers.

Click to expand...

It's good to know that in 2009, people are still justifying inhumane acts of cruelty by saying that the ends justify the means. It's great to know that society hasn't progressed since the mother****ing dark ages because you think it's alright to commit grievous crimes against people as long as the government that you don't even trust in the first place tells you it's A-OK and will "stop teh terrorists".

You people are monstrous. You are willing to throw away the very things that are supposed to separate you from the people you are waging war on at the drop of a hat. You are willing to sacrifice every shred of your humanity as long as some man in a suit who gets paid to lie to you tells you that it was for a good cause.

I mean hey, if torturing people to save lives is okay, why stop there? Why don't we just carpet-bomb every 'terrorist' nation with nukes, just to be sure? I bet it'll save American Lives™. Hey, we can even extend this! If torturing people stops terror plots and saves lives, imagine what it can do for armed robbery? What's the moral difference? I mean, if "saving American Lives™" is our measure for whether secret prison camps and blatant violations of human rights are justified, there's a whole hell of a lot of American Lives™ to be saved by torturing all kinds of suspects for crimes right here on good ol' USA soil.

What's the difference between a suspected serial killer and a terrorist? Why is it 'legal' to torture one and not the other? Are you going to say that something as asinine as what country he's from makes the difference on whether or not you can completely ignore the law regarding your treatment of him?

"Oh, but we do it to our own soldiers, so it's okay!" If you believe that's equivalent, you are retarded. If a random crazy hobo off the street tells you your mother is dead, you're not going to give a ****. If your brother tells you your mother is dead, it suddenly means something entirely different. If your own people 'torture' you in what you know for a fact to be a training exercise where no actual harm is going to come to you, it is a completely different story from a group of hostile people from another country that want to kill you doing it.

But that's okay, because none of it matters. Americans have no problem re-creating the leadup to Nazi Germany, because you're all stupid jingoists with little if any knowledge of history, and certainly no appreciation for the significance of throwing away your humanity to fight an invisible enemy you will never defeat.

The nuke-bombing was hyperbole, granted. The rest wasn't. Gay marriage is not even in the same ballpark as torture. The slippery slope with marriage takes the idea of "two consenting adults regardless of gender" and takes it to "adults and children or animals or inanimate objects". The example here takes it from "torturing people is okay if it saves lives" to "torturing people is okay if it saves lives". How many lives does it have to be before torture becomes justified? Is there a threshold somewhere? If the justification is "because it procures information that could save lives", then there's no valid way to argue against it in other scenarios where you could procure information that could save lives by torturing US citizens.

And just how many lives is it saving, anyway? However many the departments responsible calculate? Since this is done without any sort of trial or other method of adjudication, what proof do they actually have that it's accomplishing anything? And this isn't even counting the fact that it often produces false information, which is why it is not practiced by civilized societies. Do the people in charge of the operation disagree and say it stopped plots? Of ****ing course they do. What, you expect them to stand up and say "Yep, we broke several laws for no good reason, you got us there."

Sir_Brizz said:

Let me just plant a little seed in your brain. How many serial killers do you know of that can tell you where other serial killers hang out or what they might be planning? I'm guessing none.

Click to expand...

Replace "Serial killer" with "Gang leader". Or "Kidnapper". The point remains -- If you can justify it for one person with information, how can you possibly not justify it for another? What is the moral difference? In fact, it's quite safe to say that US gangs wipe out many, many times more American lives than all acts of foreign terrorism to date combined. And yet we don't round up their officers and leaders and people that hang around them and subject them to torture. Why not?

Go to bed, Brizz, and answer the questions tomorrow.

no stay awake, and question the answers!
________
PRILOSEC LAWSUITS

KW, it's like this for me: if the Bush Administration is guilty of high crimes, then prosecute. But if this happens, then the other leaders who were involved at the time should be prosecuted as well, and since Pelosi knew of the methods of torture and who was receiving them, why does she get a pass? This makes the whole effort a partisan witch hunt, and that is why I do not feel it necessary to continue this course of legal action.

You can call me names all day long, but it will not change my mind nor does it make you the better person. While I can agree with you that America should be above doing some of the things it has done, sometimes the end does justify the means. Do you remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What did all those innocent civilians do to deserve being disintegrated or maimed for life? Nothing. But did those bombings stop the war? Yes. It saved possibly over a million lives, for that is the number of estimated US casualties if the war with Japan continued. Our country has done things we are not proud of but only when pushed to do so.

Iron Archer said:

Awwww how dismissive of you.

Click to expand...

No, that was an honest question... ironic that your reply reeks of dismissial where no dismission is needed.

Noone would dare prosecute even if a missionary nun had been shot point blank in the face. It would set a precedent and break all confidence in the government. Besides, I'm sure a few other presidents got away with just as bad stuff. No, this is another case of let's sweep this under the carpet and leave the questions to the historians.

Darkdrium said:

Not even a highly experienced surgeon who could potentially save your life if you ever need it?

[I don't know the salary of a surgeon, so if it's way under 250k correct me on that]

PS: I'm not trolling, just asking Because for me it seems weird to show no respect for someone dedicated to saving lives and helping others.

Click to expand...

If they save lives and work so hard at their craft, they don't have time to spend millions of dollars a year on entertainment and luxury, or at least they shouldn't. Sorry, golfing on your private island you sailed to on your private yacht is not practicing an altruistic saintly career path, it's just being a greedy remorseless chud, and propping yourself on a pedastool so you can look down on all the peons. Many of whom are slaving away in ****ty dead end jobs, whether or not they had the potential to be skilled surgeons or masters of some other more "respected" career. Meanwhile any dullard who had mom and dad's money to push them through college gets a chance to take a scalpel to people so they can cater to the health "insurance" industry and spend their career jumping through those flaming hoops of bureaucracy and green tape... all in an effort to save a multi-bilion dollar a year corporation from spending any of the free money they collect from people they dupe into thinking they have their best interests at heart... Sorry I kinda rambled there,.. I seem to have lost track of the "respect" part.. hmm oh it must be under this pile of money and greedy fat people. Yeah most doctors start their careers with the best of intentions (/snicker) but all of them eventually become a small cog in the wheel of "oh god liability! quick, dont don't do anything, maybe the problem will go away and die, and my career/WALLET will be safe.)

...and show no respect?? Money is not respect. Money buys false respect sure. But you seem to be confused, or your values are as screwed up as most of humanities so you haven't ever seen real respect. Money is a vile and stupid idea, and anyone who thinks it's somehow not is an idiot. Money didn't solve any of humanities complicated resource vs. availability problems in it's inception, it created all of them. How anyone doesn't see "Credit" as the icing on the retard cake is a complete mystery to me too.

kiff said:

Well, I hope you younger folks enjoy poverty and debt. When it all comes crashing down, it doesn't really matter which party is (was) spending the money.

But hey, might as well embrace the massive expansion of government and debt. It's better than being a tea-bagger, right?

I've had a pretty good life and I'll probably be on my way out when this all really hits hard. ENJOY!

Click to expand...

I'd rather live in a country with some more (actually enforced) govn't regulations, rather than the current state of company policy=law and corporate agendas=give us your money or f*off and die (literally in the case of the medical industry).

Sir_Brizz said:

wow this thread has sure gone to pot.

Click to expand...

The thread was pot before it was created.

Lizard Of Oz said:

If you volunteer, then yes, absolutely.

Click to expand...

we can play word games all day long, but the bottom line is that you'd condone waterboarding on innocent people just because they volunteer, yet you don't condone waterboarding on terrorists that volunteer to plot and kill innocent people in an effort to save lives.

Autopsy said:

I'd rather live in a country with some more (actually enforced) govn't regulations, rather than the current state of company policy=law and corporate agendas=give us your money or f*off and die (literally in the case of the medical industry).

Click to expand...

so you actually think government is going to solve that? Sure, some regulations and laws need reforming, but to totally tear down our system replace it with a fundamentally different one (system) is beyond what's needed and will most likely be worse.

You think that the debt we're running up is going to help solve our problems? How the hell do you think medicine is going to be cheaper when the government is running it?

Peavey said:

HAY GUYS MAI BUTT SI LEAKING

Click to expand...

no pics = lie

Sir_Brizz said:

wow this thread has sure gone to pot.

Click to expand...

just like anything you touch

Crotale said:

KW, it's like this for me: if the Bush Administration is guilty of high crimes, then prosecute. But if this happens, then the other leaders who were involved at the time should be prosecuted as well, and since Pelosi knew of the methods of torture and who was receiving them, why does she get a pass? This makes the whole effort a partisan witch hunt, and that is why I do not feel it necessary to continue this course of legal action.

Click to expand...

The thing is, we both agree that everyone involved should be prosecuted, regardless of party. I'm saying that you reply to me by repeating "stop making this a partisan witchunt" when the very post you're replying to says "This should be non-partisan, if Pelosi was in on it she goes down too." I'm just asking for some comprehension here instead of canned responses.

Crotale said:

You can call me names all day long, but it will not change my mind nor does it make you the better person. While I can agree with you that America should be above doing some of the things it has done, sometimes the end does justify the means. Do you remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What did all those innocent civilians do to deserve being disintegrated or maimed for life? Nothing. But did those bombings stop the war? Yes. It saved possibly over a million lives, for that is the number of estimated US casualties if the war with Japan continued. Our country has done things we are not proud of but only when pushed to do so.

Click to expand...

I've already made my views on nuking innocent civilians (and the supreme irony of then telling other people they can't have nukes) known. The thing is: There could have been other options. There almost certainly were other options -- the Kamikaze tactic itself was indicative of the Japanese desperation by that point, because if they had to ram planes into decks it means they were running out of other options; who's to say that sitting off the coast and shelling targets for a few months wouldn't have worked? But the bombs were dropped, and then the history books were written to say "the bombs had to be dropped, there was no other choice", and thus it goes down in history. Nobody except the higher levels of intelligence/power at the time will ever know.

I don't hold one set of a million people as more valuable than another set of a million people.

I don't think it matters if torture works or not.

We are the United States of America. We are supposed to have the moral high ground. We never want to see our troops tortured by an opposing force. We all expect Iran to be kind to that female reporter who was accused of spying, but with our reputation against enemy combatants our whole argument is basically void.

We do not-not torture because we are wimpy. We do not torture because we are better than them.