The Next President of the USA will be?

[The Bomber]

Oh just great,now we are advocating torture?How dare you!?And McCain opposes waterboarding! (He has experienced it) So these people are not human to you?If you acknowledge waterboarding is torture and still practice it then we're headed in the direction of 1984 and PR China.

[DRUNK]

Yes, I advocate torture because it is the only thing that works on Muslims.

Muslims have been governed by the iron fist for so long, and are so used to violence, that the only thing that will work, is violence.

I wish it weren't this way just like most people, but unfortunately, it just has to be.

[Pb Derigable]

Oh just great,now we are advocating torture?How dare you!?And McCain opposes waterboarding! (He has experienced it) So these people are not human to you?If you acknowledge waterboarding is torture and still practice it then we're headed in the direction of 1984 and PR China.

Why can't we use waterboarding by excutive order only. The President can launch the nukes, but he can't order waterboarding for a P.O.W. who may have info to prevent a nuke attack.

I will not let it be used on U.S.Citzen, but you can make it an impeachable offense if the president uses unlawfully.

Is that somthing we can agree on?

[zosodude13]

Yes, I advocate torture because it is the only thing that works on Muslims.

Muslims have been governed by the iron fist for so long, and are so used to violence, that the only thing that will work, is violence.

I wish it weren't this way just like most people, but unfortunately, it just has to be.

its not totally true since roughly 10% of muslims advocate violence and the fundamentalist governments... the problem is most of them happen to be focused in the middle east and that is where the trouble is

dont get me wrong, I believe they (the 10%) are our "greatest threat" this day, as was communism was after WWII... both are a war of ideologies, except today's War on Terror is an actual war, unlike the Cold War

back to my point... the other 90% are monotheistic worshipers (one supreme God), who beleive in Jesus (not in the same reverance as christians, but they beleive in him) and follow the some of the same basic values as christians and jews

i dont agree with the generalization of the entire muslim population... saying that all muslims are suicide bombers who want death to the west... would be like saying all christains bomb abortion clinics and think all gays will burn in hell

not everyone is that extreme in any ideology and to say that they are is not taking the entire situation into consideration is bad, in my opinion

[DRUNK]

its not totally true since roughly 10% of muslims advocate violence and the fundamentalist governments... the problem is most of them happen to be focused in the middle east and that is where the trouble is

dont get me wrong, I believe they (the 10%) are our "greatest threat" this day, as was communism was after WWII... both are a war of ideologies, except today's War on Terror is an actual war, unlike the Cold War

back to my point... the other 90% are monotheistic worshipers (one supreme God), who beleive in Jesus (not in the same reverance as christians, but they beleive in him) and follow the some of the same basic values as christians and jews

i dont agree with the generalization of the entire muslim population... saying that all muslims are suicide bombers who was death to the west... would be like saying all christains bomb abortion clinics and think all gays wil burn in hell

not everyone is that extreme in any ideology and to say that they are is not taking the entire situation into consideration is bad, in my opinion

Where are you getting this 10% number my friend, because it's not real.

The fact is there are 1.2 billion Muslims on earth, and 95% of them are in the middle east. Most of them do support what is going unfortunately.

Islam has proven throughout history as well as through it's own scripture, that it is a religion of violence. In fact, Islam isn't a religion, it is a system, a government, a way of life, whatever you want to call it. Islam is Islam, and nothing else is allowed between.

I really suggest you read a bit about the truth about Islam because it is extremely important to understand. What you are saying sounds very PC, like what they teach in school and what the media says. Whenever a piece of information fits that criteria, you must always dig further because it is likely bullshit.

[Hermit]

1. The only person being dumb is you, who thinks that the next President is going "the savior". What age are you Hermit? Why are you getting sucked into this nonsense?

I don't recall ever suggesting that the next POTUS would be a "savior", DRUNK

[That's what you thought, literally, when you voted for GWB, isn't it? ]

I've merely been suggesting that America needs to change course and that it will require a POTUS who is willing to chart a different course. That person is obviously not More Of The Same McCain. I think either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would take America back in the right direction.

I'm under no illusions that any one person can change everything that's wrong in America. But I do know that we need new leadership if there's to be any chance of change taking place. With McCain there's no chance of change. With Clinto or Obama, change is guaranteed.

Presidents DO make a difference. If you doubt that, all you need do is

look at the damage GWB has done to our nation during his presidency.

Do you really expect significant changes to education, health care, social security and all the other classic political issues which every candidate has talked about for the last however many years? Cm'on man, don't you see this is a big fucking game.

I know for a fact that those issues won't be addressed in any meaningful way under another republican administration. If any progress is going to be made for the better on those issues its going to require a democrat POTUS and a democratic majority in Congress.

You only thing you can complain about is the war, because that will likely change a little bit if a democrat gets elected, but that is one issue. And please, don't waste your time with links, stats, and other propaganda, cause I've seen it all, and it means nothing. Let's just save ourselves some time here.

Oh,.. you've "seen it all", have you? Wow, I'm impressed, DRUNK.

..impressed by how extremely full of shit you are sometimes.

"I've seen it all".

2. The economy has been extremely strong for most of the last 8 years. It can't be perfect all the time.

Strong.. for whom? Certainly not the middle class.

Are you economically better off than you were 7 years ago?

3. The tax cuts for the wealthy are appropriate. The wealthy spends their money on more important things. A corporation might develop some new technology in which they can use to profit from in the future. Most of these tax breaks are used for investments in something better. As far as rich people go they tend to buy more significant things.

Now, give those tax breaks to "people" of the middle and lower class, and they might temporarily drive the up sales of Doritos, Budweiser, clothing, or some other superficial bullshit, but that's about it. That sort of spending doesn't make a significant impact on the economy and certainly doesn't contribute anything towards long term growth. Giving tax breaks to the wealthy makes more sense to me, and I am not wealthy.

Yeah,.. that's why Reagan and Bush,.. proponents of trickle down economics..

ended their presidencies with huge deficits and struggling economies,... right?

And that's why after 7 years of GWB tax cuts for the

wealthy, our economy is in such great shape, right?

For a guy who likes to chastise others about being "brainwashed" and falling prey to "propaganda", you sure seem to be spouting the same old same old voodoo economic propaganda that you hear from Bush and his corporate welfare supporting cronies. Methinks you've been listening to Rush Limbaugh too long, dittohead.

4. So you just want to pull everyone out of Iraq, and waste the contributions of everything who has served, and those that have died? For what? To grant a supreme Islamic victory, fueling further Jihad? To show America is weak?

Are you seriously suggesting that "fueling further Jihad" hasn't already been

"mission accomplished" by GWB? Good lord, you are brainwashed, muh-boy!

Our troops have done everything they've been asked to do. They've performed heroically. Unfortunately, in being sent into Iraq, they were put into a situation in which there was no plan for stabilizing the country after the fall of Saddaam. Our troops ended up in the middle of a civil war.. in a situation that they cannot resolve. The inability/unwillingness of the Iraqi factions to come together to form a unified Iraq has left our troops stuck in a quagmire. The US military cannot impose unity on the various Iraqi factions, and the Iraqi politicians have been impotent in establishing unity.

Supporting the troops, afaic, means drastically redefining the mission and

asap getting them out of a situation in which they are needlessly at risk.

McCain envisions a scenario like what we did in Korea or Germany. That doesn't sound so bad to me, and is likely to happen NO matter who gets elected. Hate to burst your bubble.

Iraq is in a civil war.

I hate to burst your bubble, bub, but.. the US military cannot resolve the civil war in Iraq.

And of course we know the war isn't being fought for oil. Give me a break and stop blatantly using lies. Explain to me why we are "fighting this war for oil" if you want to throw those claims around.

Follow the money, muh-man.

*Oil in Iraq: the heart of the Crisis*

*Bush's Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq's Oil*

October 16, 2006. Even as Iraq verges on splintering into a sectarian civil war, four big oil companies are on the verge of locking up its massive, profitable reserves, known to everyone in the petroleum industry as "the prize."

Iraq is sitting on a mother lode of some of the lightest, sweetest, most profitable crude oil on earth, and the rules that will determine who will control it and on what terms are about to be set.

The Iraqi government faces a December deadline, imposed by the world's wealthiest countries, to complete its final oil law. Industry analysts expect that the result will be a radical departure from the laws governing the country's oil-rich neighbors, giving foreign multinationals a much higher rate of return than with other major oil producers and locking in their control over what George Bush called Iraq's "patrimony" for decades, regardless of what kind of policies future elected governments might want to pursue.

Iraq's energy reserves are an incredibly rich prize. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, "Iraq contains 112 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the second largest in the world (behind Saudi Arabia), along with roughly 220 billion barrels of probable and possible resources. Iraq's true potential may be far greater than this, however, as the country is relatively unexplored due to years of war and sanctions." For perspective, the Saudis have 260 billion barrels of proven reserves.

Iraqi oil is close to the surface and easy to extract, making it all the more profitable.

[click link for full article]

Sorry to break it to ya, bro. the war wasnt about WMD or Al Qaeda; those

were merely opportunistic excuses that were exploited by neocon ideologues.

"Bringing democracy to the Iraqi people" really meant "bringing oil profits to US oil companies". Low and behold.. have you noticed how oil company profits have skyrocketed since the war began? And have you noticed how much money is being made by companies with ties to Bush cronies? Have you noticed how little GWB seems to care about this war dragging on and on? Connect the dots, DRUNK. It's a hard reality to face,.. but it is what it is.

5. Torture is 100% necessary. When dealing with people that only know how to respond to violence, there is nothing else that will do that job.

Torture is illegal.

Torture is a war crime.

Torture does not lead to reliable information.

Torture is barbaric.

Besides.. information gathered via torture is not admissible in court.

Justice is arrived at by holding criminals accountable in a court of law.

That's how we do things in America, DRUNK,.. remember?

Democratic principles, ya know? That thing we tout as being the best system in the history of the world.. that set of principles for which you donned the uniform of these United united States of America? Remember?

6. The education system is worthless in America and needs to be completely overhauled. Of course, that's not going to happen no matter who gets elected. The democrats will do like they have always done, throw a ton of money into the education system, supporting a broken and ineffective system, which no positive results whatsoever. None of the money that has been thrown into the system has ever significantly improved it.

No Child Left Behind needs to be scrapped. That won't happen under a republican administration because republicans simply don't value government funded public education.

I'm sorry that your personal experience has left you feeling so jaded and cynical, DRUNK. I think it's a shame that you haven't taken advantage of the opportunity that your disillusionment has offered you; the opportunity to deveolp a more balanced perspective on America. Instead, you've chosen to go from having an extremely naive and idealistic perspective [America is the greatest!] to an extremely jaded and pessimistic perspective at the opposite end of the spectrum [America is totally fucked up and nothing can be done to fix it!]. Both extremes are unrealistic. You might consider seeking the middle ground, my friend.

[Pb Derigable]

Just because you've got an Axe to grind with your Black co-workers, Pipe boy, don't presume that my concern about troops doing 7 tours has anything to do with your personal work problems. I assure you, your problems motivating your crew are of no concern whatsoever to me.

I have no Axe to grind with black people, I do have and Axe to grind with people who abuses the system for their own benefit, while hurting others. I would gladly to inform you that the three welders I'm hiring for my job are black and have said they rather go somewhere else because they don't believe they should be punished for other people actions, but as i told them, you can sit or you can work. If you believe $40hr is not worth putting up with, go work for the post office, my hands are tied and it will be stupid to give up now.

My concern for the troops is when they sign that piece of paper, they are told what to do until they get out in exchange for numerous benefits. Yes they can voice their opinions, (i have yet to meet somebody in the military who thinks Iraq is as fucked up as it is being told), but they must follow orders and do the best job they can do. I have 6 close Friends in the military all but one reenlisted in the past year and all have wives and family. The one who didn't, said he was glad to join and would do it again, but have stated "i rather do other things with my life". For his 5 years and 3 tours. He gets a free ride to Univ.Of Ill. and a 1,200 check from the govt. from the G.I. bill, all Illinois resident who served in the military gets a free ride to any state school and he gets a govt. backed loan to buy a house. None of them want to go to war, but the understand their commitment and they all think they are doing great in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only thing they hate is the politicians using them as pawns to get elected.

My opinions about Iraq are based on what Ive learned from former and current military personal. Ive had many discussions and listen to many about the Iraq war and i believe what i believe based on that. I'm sure i can scan the Internet to change my opinion on the war, but at the same time i can come across different info that reinforce my beliefs.

[zosodude13]

Why can't we use waterboarding by excutive order only. The President can launch the nukes, but he can't order waterboarding for a P.O.W. who may have info to prevent a nuke attack.

I will not let it be used on U.S.Citzen, but you can make it an impeachable offense if the president uses unlawfully.

Is that somthing we can agree on?

I like that... except treat it like a warrent, where the president must state what he wants to find out before it happens

and the War Powers Act, so there is an explination of how the information was helpful to our intelligence, without saying the specific facts to protect our national security

ie "we learned the location of 8 underground bunkers in

Iraq

,

Pakistan

and

Iran

of important Al Quida leaders"

the full, uncensored report will go to our respective intelligence agencies... and a report without the locations, names, data and other such info will be sent to congress... after the situation has been resolved, the uncensored info will be released to congress and the people

does that work?

[DRUNK]

Sorry to break it to ya, bro. the war wasnt about WMD or Al Qaeda; those

were merely opportunistic excuses that were exploited by neocon ideologues.

"Bringing democracy to the Iraqi people" really meant "bringing oil profits to US oil companies". Low and behold.. have you noticed how oil company profits have skyrocketed since the war began? And have you noticed how much money is being made by companies with ties to Bush cronies? Have you noticed how little GWB seems to care about this war dragging on and on?

Besides.. information gathered via torture is not admissible in court.

Justice is arrived at by holding criminals accountable in a court of law.

First off, stop saying "POTUS". It sounds like some sort of venereal disease. It's terrible.

The war is not about bringing oil profits to oil companies and we would never go to war for such a stupid reason. This is far more complex than that. As far as the oil in Iraq goes, we haven't seen the benefits of it. Let's stop the crazy talk.

Our you going to tell me about what is going on in Iraq? I've been there. So, you can throw all of your media propaganda out the window because the media is wrong.

[zosodude13]

Where are you getting this 10% number my friend, because it's not real.

The fact is there are 1.2 billion Muslims on earth, and 95% of them are in the middle east. Most of them do support what is going unfortunately.

Islam has proven throughout history as well as through it's own scripture, that it is a religion of violence. In fact, Islam isn't a religion, it is a system, a government, a way of life, whatever you want to call it. Islam is Islam, and nothing else is allowed between.

I really suggest you read a bit about the truth about Islam because it is extremely important to understand. What you are saying sounds very PC, like what they teach in school and what the media says. Whenever a piece of information fits that criteria, you must always dig further because it is likely bullshit.

In February 2002, however, Gallup Poll released the results of polling data that may yield a more scientific estimation of the size of Islamic Fundamentalism. About 10,000 adult Muslims in nine Islamic countries were polled. 15% of those polled said that the September 11th attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon were morally justified. If this percentage is found to be representative of the entire Muslim worldwide population, then it could be argued that there is statistical evidence to support the claim that there may be as many as 180 million adult Fundamentalist Muslims who believe that the September 11th attacks were morally justified. If an equal number of Muslim children agree with their adult counterparts, then it could also be argued that there may be as many as 360 million Fundamentalist Muslims who believe that the September 11th attacks were morally justified.

SOURCE

An Article About Fundamentalist Muslims and 9/11

the info is spread through the article, so I will let you read the whole thing for yourself

----------------------

here are two sources to start with...

to keep this a debate and not an argument, what sources do your numbers come from?

[DRUNK]

SOURCE

An Article About Fundamentalist Muslims and 9/11

the info is spread through the article, so I will let you read the whole thing for yourself

----------------------

here are two sources to start with...

to keep this a debate and not an argument, what sources do your numbers come from?

First off, polls are usually fishy, and that one is especially.

Everything in America and the west, are completely incompatible with Islam, and are a threat to Islam. It is completely opposite to their system of living, and they will always hate us because of that, no matter what anyone says.

So, you must understand Islam in depth in order to really understand the threat of Islam.

[Del Zeppnile]

I've merely been suggesting that America needs to change course and that it will require a POTUS who is willing to chart a different course. That person is obviously not More Of The Same McCain. I think either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would take America back in the right direction.

I'm under no illusions that any one person can change everything that's wrong in America. But I do know that we need new leadership if there's to be any chance of change taking place. With McCain there's no chance of change. With Clinton or Obama, change is guaranteed.

Sounds like you are back peddling a little bit Hermit.

So are you now possibly looking to Hillary given that Obama might not be electable?

However, I think you will find that Hillary and McCain are probably just about as ingrained in the "Washington DC establishment" to pretty much guarantee very little little real change when it comes down to putting their money where their mouths are.

Clinton and McCain will BOTH continue the Iraq war. McCain because he believes the 'mission' is not over. And Clinton because she would never compromise her domestic agendas over a real fight with the military establishment in her first term. Her husband tried that in his first 100 days to no effect. Remember the 'Gays in the military' battle that he lost?

Let's not forget that we are dealing with politicians bud.

[Dzldoc]

<<<<< Cold Dude!

You win, I changed it. Like it?

[Dzldoc]

The guy's a bumbling buffoon.

As opposed to all the bumbling bufoons that can't "Smell what the barack is cookin"

SEVEN tours of duty??

A Real American Hero!

[Hermit]

A Real American Hero!

Indeed.

Sounds like you are back peddling a little bit Hermit.

So are you now possibly looking to Hillary given that Obama might not be electable?

Don't kid yourself, muh-man,.. Obama is plenty electable.

And I'm not back-peddling at all Delbro. Ever since John Edwards dropped out of the race, my support has been squarely behind Barack Obama; but I've also been saying very consistently that I believe both Obama and Clinton would make fine PsOTUS and that I'd support whichever of the two gets nominated.

I stand by what I've been saying.

Rolling along.. full steam ahead!

Go Obama!!

[Uncle Bill]

"Obama's appeal to working-class whites faltering, polls show

WASHINGTON (AP) — Barack Obama's problem winning votes from working-class whites is showing no sign of going away, and their impression of him is getting worse."

Most people I know are in this category, and what I've heard from them confirms what this polling shows. Which could be a problem in fall because:

"They made up 43 percent of all voters in the 2004 presidential contest "

source

Anyone

But

Obama

08

[allthekingshorses]

Yes, I advocate torture because it is the only thing that works on Muslims.

Muslims have been governed by the iron fist for so long, and are so used to violence, that the only thing that will work, is violence.

I wish it weren't this way just like most people, but unfortunately, it just has to be.

That's sad you think that way of Muslims in general, could you at least say fundamental extremist Muslims. Just saying Muslim is talking about a whole lot of people that don't fit the profile you are refering to.

on another note...

May 02, 2008

POLL: Zogby Indiana, North Carolina (4/30-5/1)

Zogby

North Carolina

n=668

Obama 50, Clinton 34

Indiana

n=680

Obama 42, Clinton 42

and we won Guam by 7 votes! That's when you know every vote counts... a win is a win right?

[Rhodey]

Yes, I advocate torture because it is the only thing that works on Muslims.

Muslims are so used to violence, that the only thing that will work, is violence.

Then how can the rest of the world be outraged when they chop off a few heads?

All's fair in love and war, not just the US policy of torture!

[wanna be drummer]

Nah, intelligent people aren't buying what the Rev. tried to do.

He already is doing fine in Indiana.

* The Power Of Positive-no negative Thinking *

No, intelligent people are not buying into the Rev. I don't care about his remarks, Obamas not the one who said them.

But how many intelligent people are left? We're talking about a country where we vote more for American Idol than the president. How smart is the American public?

[Uncle Bill]

[Pb Derigable]

I like that... except treat it like a warrent, where the president must state what he wants to find out before it happens

and the War Powers Act, so there is an explination of how the information was helpful to our intelligence, without saying the specific facts to protect our national security

ie "we learned the location of 8 underground bunkers in

Iraq

,

Pakistan

and

Iran

of important Al Quida leaders"

the full, uncensored report will go to our respective intelligence agencies... and a report without the locations, names, data and other such info will be sent to congress... after the situation has been resolved, the uncensored info will be released to congress and the people

does that work?

Agree.

[Del Zeppnile]

Indeed.

Don't kid yourself, muh-man,.. Obama is plenty electable.

And I'm not back-peddling at all Delbro. Ever since John Edwards dropped out of the race, my support has been squarely behind Barack Obama; but I've also been saying very consistently that I believe both Obama and Clinton would make fine PsOTUS and that I'd support whichever of the two gets nominated.

I stand by what I've been saying.

Rolling along.. full steam ahead!

Go Obama!!

Did you see the Bill O'Reily interview with Hillary on FOX News? Who would have thought that Hillary would need FOX News in order to get a fair and balanced interview (and it really was a good interview for her). I guess George Sorros and the far left media got the rug pulled out from under them by O'Reilly. Hillary has in the last few months been getting shafted by the liberal media, while Obama has gotten all the glory (although Rev Wright/wrong may have finally poisoned that well).

A strange year my friend, when Hillary only gets fair treatment from FOX News... go figure.

[Hermit]

First off, stop saying "POTUS". It sounds like some sort of venereal disease. It's terrible.

Fwiw.. I don't say "POTUS" phonetically. When I see that

string of letters, I read "President of the United States".

Are you going to tell me about what is going on in Iraq? I've been there. So, you can throw all of your media propaganda out the window because the media is wrong.

Because you were (past tense) in the war doesn't necessarily mean you have insight into the bigger perspective on this war any moreso than anyone else. You absolutely do have more insight into the experience of fighting in the war, but your having fought in the war does not make you an expert on all aspects of the war (why it started; it's overall objectives; it's overall progress or lack thereof, etc). And unless you fought everywhere in Iraq, which you didn't, even your firsthand experience is of a limited portion of the overall conflict. You don't necessarily have the big picture perspective, friend. As valuable as your firsthand perspective might be with regard to the part of the that you experienced, your perspective on the overall war does not trump any/all other perspectives on the overall war.

Analogy: A person in a car during a car wreck surely knows better than anyone else what his own firsthand experience was of being in that car wreck. However, that person's firsthand experience also skews his overall judgments and assessments of the car wreck. Same goes for the driver of the other car. An outside observer would have a broader and more objective perspective on the car wreck, even though he'd have no experience whatsoever of what it was like being in that car wreck. Neither of the perspectives tells the full story of the car wreck, but by bringing the three perspectives together a more complete picture can emerge of the car wreck. No one can deny or refute either drivers' report of their own fear, anger, and whatever else they experienced while being in a car wreck,.. but that does not necessarily mean that their overall assessments of the car wreck are accurate.

The driver of car 1 might say "I was there so I know what happened! I had the green light; I had the right of way! That other guy is a dangerous driver!". The driver of car 2 might say "I was there so I know what happened! I had the green light; that guy ran a red light! That guy is a dangerous driver!". The outside observer might say "I was there; I wasn't directly involved but I did see the whole thing unfold. The light was yellow for car 1 before he got to the intersection; he sped up to get through the intersection. The driver of car 2 was on his cell phone and he started into the intersection before his light turned green. The two cars then collided in the intersection".

See?

You claim to have insight and perspective that goes beyond the media spin and propaganda, and yet you've shed light on nothing different from what's been portrayed in the media. The only thing you've brought to the discussion of the war is your self-touted "expert" opinion that 'all Muslims are dangerous and therefore the use of torture is justified'. Sorry, bud, I find your perspective to be unilluminating.

The fact that you condone torture tells me that your perspective is skewed and that

your basic values and principles have been somewhat distorted by your experience.

Tell me something, DRUNK,..

Notwithstanding the fact that torture does not yield reliable information,.. if you condone torture for obtaining from our enemies information that you deem crucial for our safety and survival, what right do you then have to condemn our enemies for implementing torture on US troops to get information that they deem crucial for their safety and survival and therefore worthy of obtaining by any means?

The war is not about bringing oil profits to oil companies and we would never go to war for such a stupid reason. This is far more complex than that. As far as the oil in Iraq goes, we haven't seen the benefits of it. Let's stop the crazy talk.

The soldiers are certainly not fighting to bring oil profits to the oil companies (and to all the Bush-crony companies that have been awarded lucrative contracts in Iraq). The soldiers are fighting to bring stability and democracy to Iraq and safety to the American people. But what the soldiers are fighting for and why the war was started by the neocons (who just happen to be getting rich on the war) are not necessarily the same thing.

Military Industrial-Oil Complex.. ..ya know?

Anyway.. how can you argue that the war is about bringing democracy to the middle east while at the very same time you condone torture; you condone the abandonment of basic democratic principles such as "due process"; and you condone the infringment of the civil rights of American citizens (domestic spying)?

Are you for democracy.. or against it?

I say again..

Torture is illegal.

Torture is a war crime.

Torture does not lead to reliable information.

Torture is barbaric.

Besides.. information gathered via torture is not admissible in court.

Justice is arrived at by holding criminals accountable in a court of law.

That's how we do things in America, DRUNK,.. remember?

Democratic principles, ya know? That thing we tout as being the best system in the history of the world.. that set of principles for which you donned the uniform of these United States of America? ..Remember?

I thank you much for your service to our country, DRUNK,.. but

afaic, that doesn't make you an expert on all aspects of this war.

Particularly not when you're an unabashed proponent of torture.

[bigstickbonzo]

By any standards you have marginalized your opinion and clearly lost this debate. Personal attacks are not welcome and if you keep it up someone will undoubtedly report you to admin like they do with ICQYB/ LZ4/ overthehillsandfaraway/ absolutentonic on a regular basis.

Have a nice day.

If the shoe fits.

Ohhh no, not the administrators!

[Del Zeppnile]

I thank you much for your service to our country, DRUNK,.. but

afaic, that doesn't make you an expert on all aspects of this war.

Particularly not when you're an unabashed proponent of torture.

But waterboarding is not really torture. It may be unomfortable or even hightly unpleasant and sacary. But it generally leaves no permanant damage. It only makes people think that they are drowning.

I am all for waterboarding and any kind of psychological tools that may get information.