Sean Hannity, its your turn… (via)
“The average person can take this for 14 seconds,” Marine Sergeant Clay South answered, adding, “He’s going to wiggle, he’s going to scream, he’s going to wish he never did this.”
With a Chicago Fire Department paramedic on hand, Mancow was placed on a 7-foot long table, his legs were elevated, and his feet were tied up.
Turns out the stunt wasn’t so funny. Witnesses said Muller thrashed on the table, and even instantly threw the toy cow he was holding as his emergency tool to signify when he wanted the experiment to stop. He only lasted 6 or 7 seconds.
Sean’s too busy talking to his racist friends Mark Fuhrman, Andy Martin, Hal Turner and Dog the Bounty Hunter to get waterboarded
I’m surprised Mancow is still on the air. Kudos to him for submitting to it, hopefully his opinion of what constitutes torture has been modified.
Con insults of Mancow in 3,2,…….
6 or 7 seconds! I’m sure ol chickeshit Sean can hold out for 8 seconds!
They wanted to Waterboard Ann Coulter, but apparently she’ll melt.
I’d like to see this challenge put to anyone who claims forced drowning isn’t torture. If it’s not so bad, then why don’t you try it?
(And can we refer to him as “Hannity”. It’s bad enough I share some heritage with the guy, I wouldn’t want to be confused with him.)
That’s the point you morons. It’s not supposed to tickle, it isn’t supposed to be fucking fun. Dolts. He also didn’t die.
If you’re expecting me to slam Mancow over this, never mind.
I’ll just reprint the official, legal definition of torture according to US law:
Mancow was speaking in a normal voice within seconds of it stopping. No choking, no gasping, no gagging.
OK, one cheap shot. The guy’s a shock jock. It might be challenging to prove “prolonged mental harm.”
It’s not a tool to extract confessions or win convictions. It’s a tool to get critical information in very short order, in the most extreme of situations.
And it was used on precisely three terrorists.
I’d love to see a total of the number of people who have volunteered to be “tortured,” in comparison with those who actually were waterboarded by the CIA.
J.
LOL Jay Tea, have you been waterboarded yet tough guy?
No, sg. I haven’t. But there seem to be a lot of people who are remarkably proficient at doing it.
It’s most commonly done at liberal anti-war protests, and I’ve never attended one. Partly because of geography (I live in West Nowhere, NH), partly because I have a job and can’t get away in the middle of the day to attend.
It does intrigue me, though. Obviously, it has no real effects that last longer than a few seconds (maybe a minute or two). I have some health issues, but I think I could take it without croaking.
I love to swim (especially under water) and don’t have a childhood trauma of nearly drowning like Mancow to flash back on, so that might help.
I’m a seven-gallon blood donor, vasectomy survivor, and have voted for Democrats, so it’s clear that I have a high tolerance for pain. Doesn’t seem too relevant here, though — no one ever describes it as being painful. Terrifying, yes — but but I once watched an entire hour of Keith Olbermann, so I think I can handle pretty much anything.
J.
Well sounds like it would be a piece of cake for you so why not ask someone to give you the experience? I mean you might want to have paramedics there like the rest of these regular folks that go through it, and you might want to make them promise not to quit doing it after you tell them to stop. But other than that you should be good to go. Let us all know how it goes.
“It’s a tool to get critical information in very short order, in the most extreme of situations.”
Which explains why they used it well over 100 times on some terrorists, over a period of months?!
Nevermind that interrogators say that mostly it just results in detainees telling you what they think you want to hear… anything, really, in order to get you to stop torturing them.
And to say that it was used on “precisely three terrorists” overlooks the fact that the CIA said they, themselves, used it on three Al Qaeda terrorists. What we haven’t heard is how many people military intelligence or others have used it on, or whether the CIA has used it on non-Al Qaeda detainees.
This, of course, doesn’t include other forms of torture, such as genital torture: http://www.boingboing.net/2009/05/20/military-attorney-wa.html
In short, you don’t know and can’t claim to know just how many detainees have been tortured in some form or another.
Jay Tea,
Is this from the law that was passed in 07 after the tourer?
The law that dose not mention retro activity to cover crimes that had already been committed?
“the threat of imminent death”-Kinda like drowning huh? Must you make this so easy? I’ve said it numerous times: This “torture” talk is conservatives living out a macho violence fetish and nothing more. Its the “your a pussy if…” scenario. Its torture, plain and simple. You ever hear that you can drown in a teaspoon of water? This debate would actually move forward if conservatives would study just alittle human psychology and figure out that getting medeval on thier ass isn’t going to get results.
I’m gonna be in DC this summer, sg — maybe I’ll ask our Gracious Host to put me in touch with some of the professional malcontents and convince them to take a break from “torturing” each other over and over again to give me a whirl.
Like I’ve said, I’ve survived 56 blood donations, The Big Snip, and several other terrifying experiences — including nearly marrying a Jewish mother and visiting Media Matters’ offices. (On a serious note, I’ve also been told that I have an incurable medical condition that will eventually kill me after it first destroys major portions of my body and makes my life hardly worth living — and managed to keep going for 15 years. (I was diagnosed the week Kurt Cobain redecorated his garage.))Judging by what I’ve seen from all the zillions of people who’ve been waterboarded, it can’t be that bad long-term.
J.
Which explains why they used it well over 100 times on some terrorists, over a period of months?!-Mr. Kraft
Don’t bring that up! You just punch holes in the argument that this crap is actually effective. At first you fail, try again 187 times. Yeah thats the ticket!
Mancow had the benefit of knowing what was going on. He was in a safe controlled environment with a safe word that would stop the procedure if it got too much for him to handle
Compare to some detainee who has been taken to some hell hole prison who gets his ass kicked repeatedly by guards, then exposed to the cold for weeks then dragged out of his cell naked with barking german shepards one meter away from his balls. Then he gets waterboarded. The psychological impact in that situation versus the talk radio host cannot be compared.
And many conservatives still are out there saying it’s not torture. Too funny. They truly buy into the notion that we had no choice other than to use this tactic to get the information we needed. Sick little cowards. Just like Dick and his hideous spawn Liz.
Jay Tea, you should be ashamed of the Republican party for forcing you to believe such stupid, stupid things as a condition of your support.
Jay Tea: I’ll just reprint the official, legal definition of torture according to US law:
I don’t believe any of the parts I’ve left out to focus on the key pieces materially changes the meaning.
Many accounts I’ve seen describing waterboarding say that it is actual drowning in that water enters the breathing passages and the victim cannot breathe. Even those accounts which only describe it as “simulated” drowning says its purpose is to at least convince the person they are drowning so that the fear for their life.
In other words, it is an act “specifically intended” to cause the person “mental suffering” by convincing them that they are drowning and facing “imminent death”.
So tell me, how does that not meet the definition of torture?
Mancow was speaking in a normal voice within seconds of it stopping. No choking, no gasping, no gagging.
And yet, even that brief experience changed his opinion dramatically on whether it was torture. Imagine the impression it would make if he had no control and it happened a dozen times a day.
You’re standing over there in your nice safe home in West Nowhere, NH pointing at Mancow and saying “See, he wasn’t hurt.” While Mancow is standing there wet saying “That was torture.” Honest question: Why should we give more credence to your opinion than his?
It’s a tool to get critical information in very short order, in the most extreme of situations.
No.
And it was used on precisely three terrorists.
So at what point does it become torture? When it’s used on ten? Not until it’s used on a hundred? Clearly the number of people is critical because you keep emphasizing that point. If it doesn’t matter how many, it isn’t torture even if used on a thousand, then why keep pointing out it was “only” three?
Jay Tea,
I ask again.
Is this from the law that was passed in 07 after the tourer?
The law that dose not mention retro activity to cover crimes that had already been committed?
Jay Tea: Obviously, it has no real effects that last longer than a few seconds (maybe a minute or two).
Really?:
And that’s after a single, seconds-long session that ended immediately when he called for it to stop.
But I’m sure you, who’s never undergone it or even seen the procedure in person, knows better than someone who has.
Like I’ve said, I’ve survived 56 blood donations
Yes, sitting comfortably while you voluntarily give blood and get juice and cookies afterward is exactly like being strapped down against your will and having water forced into your nose and mouth.
Jay Tea
You do realize that Chris Hitches has said he still wakes up in cold sweats since being waterboarded right. And I mean he was waterboarded exactly twice and didn’t last over 15 seconds either time. Do you think he is bullshitting? This is the guy who got his ass kicked by some terrorists/gang members over seas but what he has nightmares about is getting waterboarded all of two times in a safe environment.
But hey I am sure you are tougher than that chump. And I bet you could find someone locally who would waterboard you for free if your offline persona is anything like your online id. I mean as you pointed out it only took a few seconds and Mancow was obviously ok right after so why wait until you get to DC. Hell you might be able to git er done tonight and then you can come back and gloat to all us wussy libruls. Doesn’t that sound inviting to you? I only ask that you video tape it so we can all see just how tough you are and watch in awe.
That’s the point you morons. It’s not supposed to tickle, it isn’t supposed to be fucking fun. Dolts. He also didn’t die.
It’s torture you monster. Tor-ture. A young, innocent man named Dilawar did die from torture. As have dozens of others–though we can’t know for sure how many just yet–you subhuman fuck.
It’s pussies like Dick “I had Other Priorities” Cheney and masturbatory assholes with self-glorifying handles like “Armed2theTeeth” who eagerly embrace what the Nazis called “enhanced interrogation techniques,” while actual war heroes like John McCain and Colin Powell speak out against it.*
And by the way, the point of torture is to elicit a predetermined answer like “Admit it, John McCain, you committed war crimes.” or “Al-Queda had ties to Saddam Hussein, right?”, terrorize an occupied population, and sadism.
Have fun at your Republican get-togethers, asshole.
*though they may not always vote that way, I’ve noticed
The killing part is Mancow isn’t really even waterboarded all the way. He wasn’t truly on a declined plane although he did have his feet up. And they didn’t put the towel over his mouth which would have made it a lot worse seeing as how he wouldn’t have been able to spit the water out. And he STILL only lasted 7 seconds.
Once again, The Onion nails it:
It’s not a tool to extract confessions or win convictions. It’s a tool to get critical information in very short order, in the most extreme of situations.
is this supposed to actually mean something?
As much as everyone is talking about the fact that he now admits that waterboarding is torture there is little or no attention being paid to the real break through from “Mancow.”
After the waterboarding was done he admitted that had it been kept up much longer he would have admitted to anything in order to get the torture to stop.
So to all of you defending the fact that it is suppose to be uncomfortable. I hope you are taking comfort in the fact that it is also unreliable.
Defend these practices all you want but at the end of the day it this simply put us in a situation where we are no better than our ememies.
True bravery is not changing you values in the face of danger. True bravery is sticking to your values despite the danger around you.
My brother was waterboarded in SERE training. He said it sucked (which is the fucking point), but was obviously not lethal. If waterboarding a member of al Queda would save a member of your family, would you approve then?
If waterboarding a member of al Queda would save a member of your family, would you approve then?
No. Which makes me a far better person than you.
If you don’t want to face the consequences, don’t participate in terrorism. I don’t want to get a DUI, so I don’t drink and drive. I don’t want to go to prison, so I don’t commit felonies. I don’t want to get ass-raped, so I won’t go to ed’s house. Take responsibility for your actions…
“No. Which makes me a far better person than you.”
No, it makes you a self-rightous prick, and you are full of shit.
obviously not lethal.
Torture isn’t supposed to be lethal. That defeats the purpose, which is to cause suffering without killing you. I’m beginning to wonder if all right-wingers are this stupid.
Not lethal, like, cutting off a head lethal. See, when al Queda takes a hostage they have this crazy habit of cutting off the head of the captive. I consider that pretty harsh. For instance, if you gave me the choice of having water poured over my head, or losing my head, I would choose the former.
My brother was waterboarded in SERE training. He said it sucked (which is the fucking point), but was obviously not lethal. If waterboarding a member of al Queda would save a member of your family, would you approve then?
If you had to pay an extra 5% taxes to save a family member from losing their job, would you do it?
If you don’t want to face the consequences, don’t participate in terrorism. I don’t want to get a DUI, so I don’t drink and drive. I don’t want to go to prison, so I don’t commit felonies. I don’t want to get ass-raped, so I won’t go to ed’s house. Take responsibility for your actions…
Or, if you don’t want to be arrested for anything, don’t live in Maricopa county. Hate to break it to you, but people are wrongfully imprisoned all the time. Of course, admitting that would compromise your coveted socialized vengeance program, so I didn’t expect it.
For instance, if you gave me the choice of having water poured over my head, or losing my head, I would choose the former.
And just as a bonus you coyly revealed your preference between euphemistic fantasy and reality, too! You sly dog, you.
If you don’t want to face the consequences, don’t participate in terrorism …Take responsibility for your actions…
The logic is truly flawless. If other people don’t want to be the victims of our inability take responsibility for our actions, well, they just better take responsibility for theirs!
Cuz, really, we just can’t control ourselves! We’re all crazy like that!
No, it makes you a self-rightous prick, and you are full of shit.
And yet, still more principled than you.
“And yet, still more principled than you”
Liberals and their “principles!!
I doubt you have any member of your family directly involved in this war on terrorism, am I correct? I also doubt you have talked to anyone who has spent any time in Iraq, or Afghanistan. I doubt you have seen pictures of a dead, disabled Iraqi pictured with his crutches by his side, blindfolded and TORTURED by alQueda. Murdered simply because he was disabled. I doubt you truly know the evil that exists outside your sheltered little world.
fafaroo, go look at shiny stuff, it’s clearly what you are good at.
“If you had to pay an extra 5% taxes to save a family member from losing their job, would you do it?”
WTF? Do you really get up every morning and dress yourself?
“Hate to break it to you, but people are wrongfully imprisoned all the time. Of course, admitting that would compromise your coveted socialized vengeance program, so I didn’t expect it.”
So, you are equating al Queda terrorists, to illegal immigrants? Really? Wow! It is no wonder that this country is truly fucked. President Unicorn Farts and Skittle Shits is a Damned Pied Piper!!
Waterboarding was torture during WWII. During Vietnam. During the Korean War.
Dick “five deferments” Cheney doesn’t get to sanitize it as an “enhanced interrogation technique” just because he wants to.
Mancow was waterboarded once in a controlled environment. Kudos to him (although Hitchens did it first), but being waterboarded hundreds of times in a month (as we know was done to suspected terrorists, who gave up information of no significance) is a different beast.
But seriously, wing-nuts — there are countries where torture, unwavering loyalty to Dear Leader, and a healthy intermingling of religion and government exist. Why not move to Iran or Saudi Arabia?
Perhaps more to the point, a skilled torturer could put electrodes on your genitals and apply excruciating pain without leaving any marks as well. So, if I do this to your mother or father or child, is it no longer torture?
Until George W. Bush, America didn’t torture legally. A person who can’t understand the moral black hole we’ve entered thanks to Chimpy and Cheney deserves to be shunned by all those who hope to see America return to greatness in the near future.
“I doubt you have seen pictures of a dead, disabled Iraqi pictured with his crutches by his side, blindfolded and TORTURED by alQueda.”
So if Al Qaida tortures, that means American can do it? Or should do it?
Please put down your sippy cup and turn off the computer.
The whole crux of this argument is that America is morally superior to terrorists because we don’t act like they do. Dumbass.
But please, tell us in what branch of the military you served and where. Methinks I smell yet another chickenhawk. Which is good, because I imagine Jay Tea is getting a little lonely.
I doubt you have any member of your family directly involved in this war on terrorism, am I correct?
Hey dude, it was your hypothetical question. But is that supposed to make a difference?
I mean your the guy telling everyone they need to take responsibility for their actions. If someone signs up for the military and voluntarily puts themselves in harms way, is that a reason for me to suddenly decide that torture is okay?
And, dude, are you saying we should torture people because al Qeada does it? It’s hard to know why else you would write this:
Is our morality now utterly dependent on what other people do? We have no choice in how we respond to them?
I doubt you truly know the evil that exists outside your sheltered little world.
Well, I think I get the generally gist of it … I am, afterall, reading a blog thread full of people espousing their support for torture.
Liberals and their “principles!!
Yeah! No more principles! Awesome! Let’s torture people!
“The whole crux of this argument is that America is morally superior to terrorists because we don’t act like they do. Dumbass.”
1. al Queda doesn’t “torture” they KILL (we don’t)
2. And, dude, are you saying we should torture people because al Qeada does it? NO: I am saying if it will gain information on future attacks, waterboard em!
3. “And, dude, are you saying we should torture people because al Qeada does it?”
No, i am saying we should maybe, get a little good cop, bad cop if thousands of lives are on the line..
Would you rather be “Morally Superior” or breathing? Because, no matter how much you think they want to COEXIST, Islamists want you DEAD!!
Because, no matter how much you think they want to COEXIST, Islamists want you DEAD!!
I think we’ll be fine.
WTF? Do you really get up every morning and dress yourself?
Hey, it makes more sense than your stupid hypothetical.
So, you are equating al Queda terrorists, to illegal immigrants?
No, I”m comparing people like you who support needless torture to sociopaths on power trips like Sheriff Joe.
Would you rather be “Morally Superior” or breathing?
Both have worked out for me so far.
al Queda doesn’t “torture” they KILL (we don’t)
I’m pretty sure there are plenty of Iraqis that would disagree with that statement.
No, i am saying we should maybe, get a little good cop, bad cop if thousands of lives are on the line..
Sounds like someone watches too much TV. So tell me, how many lives has waterboarding saved so far? Gimme a link. Doesn’t have to be exact, just an estimate.
“1. al Queda doesn’t “torture” they KILL (we don’t)”
Torturing someone and then killing them isn’t torture?
“Would you rather be ‘Morally Superior’ or breathing?”
Because we all remember Patrick Henry’s famous line against the British, “Give me liberty or give me a morally compromised nation where I can hide in my house 24 hours a day and cower in fear underneath my bed while wetting myself!”
Keep it up A2tT. You are a welcome addition to the backwards, cowardly wing-nut trolling that passes for “discussion” here at O-dub.com.
Unlike you, I don’t live in constant fear of terrorists. I do want them stopped, but that will only occur if we remain better than them in a moral sense. Because you know what happens when you start acting like a terrorist? You become (shocker) a terrorist.
“Both have worked out for me so far”
Because you don’t break the law.
“I’m pretty sure there are plenty of Iraqis that would disagree with that statement”
Do you want me to send you the pictures my brother-in-law took when he was in Mosul?
Do you want me to send you the pictures my brother took when he was in Baghdad?
Why don’t you just send us your own pictures, A2tT? I mean, you couldn’t be yet another pissy-diapered Republican chickenhawk, now could you?
fafaroo-
Give me the date and time am I am going to buy you a ticket to the middle east! Where do yuo want to go first? Palestine?
fafaroo-
Give me the date and time am I am going to buy you a ticket to the middle east! Where do yuo want to go first? Palestine?
“No, I”m comparing people like you who support needless torture to sociopaths on power trips like Sheriff Joe.”
THIS DOESN’T EVEN MAKE ANY FUCKING SENSE!!! WTF
“No, I”m comparing people like you who support needless torture to sociopaths on power trips like Sheriff Joe.”
THIS DOESN’T EVEN MAKE ANY FUCKING SENSE!!! WTF
You’re on, man. I’ll that take ticket.
First two weeks of December. AM departure. PM return. Window seat.
How you wanna get that to me?
Jaim-
I am not in the Military, so I haven’t been over there. What is your point? I am older than the age that they accept new recruits, a degreed adult. Again, what is your point?
Plenty of people with degrees join the Armed Forces.
My point is that in addition to being a moron, you’re also a chickenhawk. Which doesn’t surprise me one bit.
Jaim-
give me your e-mail address and I will send you some pics from Mosul…
Jack Bauer (or ‘armed,’ if you prefer), people will confess to the McKinley assassination if you fuck with them long enough. That’s the reason your whole argument is for shit. Even if it was justifiable (which it isn’t) based on the delivery of actionable intelligence, it doesn’t work. So you’re just sickos being sick. And the fact that there are greater sickos elsewhere in the world doesn’t diminish your sickness.
Give me the date and time am I am going to buy you a ticket to the middle east! Where do yuo want to go first? Palestine?
Considering there is no Palestine, it would be pretty hard to get plane tickets there.
Because you don’t break the law.
How does breaking the law relate to your earlier statement of “Would you rather be “Morally Superior” or breathing?”?
THIS DOESN’T EVEN MAKE ANY FUCKING SENSE!!! WTF
What’s the matter? Did I use too many big words for you?
First two weeks of December. AM departure. PM return. Window seat
OK, where are you flying out of?
LAX dude.
Jaim-
do you wipe your own ass? I AM TOO OLD TO JOIN THE ARMED FORCES!! Is that clear, or do you need additional assistance?
“Plenty of people with degrees join the Armed Forces”
No shit you fucking moron!! I said, “I am too old to join the Armed Forces.” What part of that complex sentence didn’t you understand?
What would pictures from Iraq prove? Yes, things were terrible over there. Yes, terrorists did horrible things. I’ve seen plenty of them myself (pictures, that is).
But no amount of this justifies torture. Simple as that. Just because the enemy is bad doesn’t mean we get to be bad.
Logic, man. Look into it.
And I’m curious, how old were you in 2001?
Allright fafaroo-
Where is your #1 Communist, socialist, fascist destination?
Israel?
And as long as we’re handing out free tickets — I’d love to visit Egypt, Lebanaon, or Israel. Could you hook me up with a multiple-destination type of thing? My next vacation in in July.
tia!
Where is your #1 Communist, socialist, fascist destination?
Well, in that region of the world you can’t get much more “Communist, socialist, fascist” than the birthplace of Jesus so let’s make it Bethlehem.
And as long as we’re handing out free tickets —,/i>
Hey, hey, Jaim, back off! Go find your own wing nut travel agent.
Armed2theTeeth: I said, “I am too old to join the Armed Forces.” What part of that complex sentence didn’t you understand?
The part where you’ve always been too old.
There hasn’t ever been a point where the armed forces weren’t recruiting. Why didn’t you join when you were younger? Why didn’t you serve when you had the chance?
fafaroo: Hey, hey, Jaim, back off! Go find your own wing nut travel agent.
You just know he’s gonna try to book you on Pan Am.
Reposting this since Armed2theTeeth’s drivel has caused the first post to scroll up quite a ways and I’m seriously interested in Jay Tea’s explanation of how forced drowning doesn’t meet the definition of torture.
—–
Jay Tea: I’ll just reprint the official, legal definition of torture according to US law:
I don’t believe any of the parts I’ve left out to focus on the key pieces materially changes the meaning.
Many accounts I’ve seen describing waterboarding say that it is actual drowning in that water enters the breathing passages and the victim cannot breathe. Even those accounts which only describe it as “simulated” drowning says its purpose is to at least convince the person they are drowning so that the fear for their life.
In other words, it is an act “specifically intended” to cause the person “mental suffering” by convincing them that they are drowning and facing “imminent death”.
So tell me, how does that not meet the definition of torture?
Mancow was speaking in a normal voice within seconds of it stopping. No choking, no gasping, no gagging.
And yet, even that brief experience changed his opinion dramatically on whether it was torture. Imagine the impression it would make if he had no control and it happened a dozen times a day.
You’re standing over there in your nice safe home in West Nowhere, NH pointing at Mancow and saying “See, he wasn’t hurt.” While Mancow is standing there wet saying “That was torture.” Honest question: Why should we give more credence to your opinion than his?
It’s a tool to get critical information in very short order, in the most extreme of situations.
No, it’s not. It’s a tool to get people to say what you want them to say
And it was used on precisely three terrorists.
So is that what keeps it from being torture? It wasn’t done to enough people to, uh, count?
Clearly the number of people is critical because you keep emphasizing that point. If it doesn’t matter how many, if it isn’t torture even if used on a thousand, then why keep pointing out it was “only” three?
Armed2theTeeth,
When the weatherboarding was done it was against the law.
Or dose that matter?
Arguing about whether or not it is torture is pointless. Waterboarding is torture. That’s why the Spanish Inquisition used it. People like Jay Tea, attempting semantic gymnastics–and failing–are not to be taken seriously on that front. It’s like arguing with somebody who swears blind that fire is cool and pleasant to the touch.
The issue is not whether or not it is torture, but whether or not we, as America, should ever engage in its use.
Every time the torture argument comes up in this space I ask the exact same question and then don’t hold my breath waiting for an answer. Perhaps our newest resident terrified American, Armed2, can rise to the challenge where others have failed.
How far are you willing to go?
If you believe, as Darth Cheney does, that torture extracts lifesaving information quickly, then why stop at waterboarding? Wouldn’t you get information even more quickly by cutting off digits? Gouging out eyes? Kidnap the suspect’s family members and brutalize them before their eyes?
What stops you? AMERICAN LIVES ARE AT STAKE!!!
If it were gravy instead of water, OW could have lasted 4 hours.
Here is the false premise being played out by Armed2theTeethbutstillabigscaredycat.
But that is a bunch of bullshit. Torture doesn’t work dumb ass. The quickest and most effective way to get the information if your family is threatend is through traditional methods. So by hiding behind the ticking timebomb excuse to justify torture what you are really saying is you want your whole family to die a violent death as long as you get to hurt the person you think knows all about the terror plot. Let me remind you about what a man who HAS actually saved lives and caught terrorists and broke up terror plots had to say about it. Ali Soufan.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/statement-of-fbi-agent-ali-soufan-at-torture-hearings/
So you see Armed2theteethbutstillacoward for all your braying over what you would do to save your family trying to up your tough guy index, what you would really be doing is the exact opposite of saving them, You would instead be cheerleading their death. But hey at least you would be able to waterboard some Arabs right.
I doubt you have any member of your family directly involved in this war on terrorism, am I correct?
What a pussy this anonymous coward with self-glorifying name is. He has to hide behind his awesome brother. Armed2theTeeth is five years old.
1. al Queda doesn’t “torture” they KILL (we don’t)
“Taxi to the Dark Side,” bitch.
2. And, dude, are you saying we should torture people because al Qeada does it? NO: I am saying if it will gain information on future attacks, waterboard em!
Hasn’t happened yet, so don’t waterboard ‘em (or otherwise torture ‘em)!
3. “And, dude, are you saying we should torture people because al Qeada does it?”
No, i am saying we should maybe, get a little good cop, bad cop if thousands of lives are on the line..
“24″ isn’t real. It’s fiction. It’s a TV show, not based on a true story.
Thanks for playing, and thanks for not being around in the 1930’s.
J.G.Thayer: “I’ll just reprint the official, legal definition of torture according to US law:”
Okay. But did you actually read the law?
The threat of imminent death. Waterboarding is drowning. It is controlled drowning. That’s what the experts have said, that’s what the people who have had it done to them as part of training have said. That’s what Mancow said it was. And he has first had experience of drowning.
Waterboarding is drowning.
“And it was used on precisely three terrorists.”
How do you know this?
Armed2theTeeth: “That’s the point you morons. It’s not supposed to tickle, it isn’t supposed to be fucking fun. Dolts. He also didn’t die.”
Did you not watch the video? Mancow said he would have confessed to anything to get it to stop.
ANYTHING.
It was designed to elicit false confessions. How useful of a interrogation tool could it be?
I will see Armed2theTeeth’s pictures and raise him some. Pictures my dad has of the camps from WWII, when he helped liberate Dachau, or pictures my brother has from Vietnam, of what was done to our soldiers there.
Or pictures my uncles had from WWII, from Iwo Jima, from Okinawa, from all over the Pacific since they were in the Navy and Marines.
I guarantee, nothing you could show from Iraq would be any worse than any of those. NOTHING. Water boarding was torture during all those times and before, it is still torture and it will always be torture.
Why there is even a discussion is only because Dickless Cheney decided to change the name to EIT and have some memos written that tried to say it was legal. That’s all. That and the fact that everyone was scared of him, and a lot of people were afraid there was going to be another plane into a building and that Bush was going to let it happen again because he couldn’t read the memos given to him.
He certainly didn’t read the first ones and pay attention to them.
The GOP used that fear to monger the people into believing they were the only ones who could keep us safe.. and too many people bought into it. Now we are smarter.. and we rejected that idea.
Get used to it.
I can’t believe there is a bigger idiot than “Dennis” or “Yo Mama” on the comment section, did a few combine to form super moron or something?
Some insights from a General:
I AM TOO OLD TO JOIN THE ARMED FORCES!!
“And I have ALWAYS been too old!”
I’m a vet, assho!e. What’ the BIGGEST sacrifice you have ever made in the name of your so-called “patriotism?”
What’ the BIGGEST sacrifice you have ever made in the name of your so-called “patriotism?”
I’m guessing buying me a Holy Land vacation package?
I’m a vet, assho!e. What’ the BIGGEST sacrifice you have ever made in the name of your so-called “patriotism?”
Well, he gave himself a tough-sounding nickname and anonymously talked real tough-guy in a blog’s comments. So there’s that.
rat_bastard: “I can’t believe there is a bigger idiot than “Dennis” or “Yo Mama” on the comment section, did a few combine to form super moron or something?”
I know. It’s “Meet the new idiot. Dumber than the old one.”
But J.G.Thayer is right up there. This is a man who thinks waterboarding is only simulated drowning, therefore it is not torture. He then posts the US law that says if the victim thinks they are going to die, like they would in simulated drowning, then it is torture.
He did our research for us and proved he was wrong.
Simply awesome.
SAM NY
May 23, 2009 at 8:53 am
If it were gravy instead of water, OW could have lasted 4 hours.
THERE it is. You never disappoint, asshole.
What’ the BIGGEST sacrifice you have ever made in the name of your so-called “patriotism?”
Got a whole BUNCH of yellow ribbon magnets for his SUV. Some even have the ‘merican flag on ‘em.
Armed2theTeeth: If waterboarding a member of al Queda would save a member of your family, would you approve then?
If you’ve watched as many action movies and TV shows as I have, then you know that “The United States does not negotiate with terrorists.” This is the policy adopted by our government because if we capitulate to the demands of terrorists even just once, it will embolden more terrorists to commit more acts of terror against us.
What does this have to do with your hypothetical question? It brings to light a similar hypothetical: If capitulating to a terrorist’s demands would save a member of your family, would you approve of it?
If an individual’s answer to this question is yes, I wouldn’t fault them for it. Similarly, what you, me, or Jack Bauer might do with an inclined board, some cloth, a bottle of water and a terrorist who we know has information that would save a loved one might be understandable. Illegal, probably ineffective, and at the very least morally gray, but understandable.
What one has to realize is that a government has more to consider than a single individual trying to save his or her family member. Just like a policy of capitulating to terrorists only emboldens them in the long run, so does a policy that includes waterboarding and other methods of torture. It gives fodder to those who seek to radicalize young men to the point that they think it is in their peoples’ best interest to drive a truck full of explosives into a US embassy. It gives cover to those who would mistreat a US prisoner of war. It makes it more likely our enemies will fight to the death, instead of surrender at the first sign of a US tank. It makes it more difficult for other democracies to justify picking our side in future conflicts.
The bottom line is that even if you think that allowing the state to waterboard or use other forms of torture will succeed in stopping a terrorist act, all you’ve done is stop one attack while putting the country at an even greater risk.
If you’ve watched as many action movies and TV shows as I have, then you know that “The United States does not negotiate with terrorists.” This is the policy adopted by our government because if we capitulate to the demands of terrorists even just once, it will embolden more terrorists to commit more acts of terror against us.
Bullshit. As good as it sounds, as sound as it is, it’s never been practiced.
We’ve always negotiated with terrorists. We negotiated so well with terrorists that one of their leaders ended up winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Obama wants to negotiate with the terrorists who currently rule the Gaza Strip and the terrorists who run Lebanon (Hamas and Hezbollah respectively), as well as negotiate with the terrorist masters of Iran.
What we almost never do is negotiate OPENLY with terrorists.
I’ve long been an opponent of appeasement, but I have to recognize that there is little resemblence between the official “no negotiations with terrorists” and reality.
J.
Sean, your editing of section 2 cut out a key part:
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from…
Cutting it down to the core, omitting the parts that don’t apply to this case, here it is:
“torture” means an act committed by a person… specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering…“severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from… the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering… the threat of imminent death…
The Mancow video, to my eyes, does NOT constitute “severe” physical pain or suffering. Nor does it constitute “prolonged mental harm.”
“Severe” is a very, very high standard. So is “prolonged.” As well for “imminent.”
I believe there are numerous interrogation techniques that meet those standards. I do not believe that “waterboarding,” as practiced by the CIA, met those standards.
J.
Bullshit. As good as it sounds, as sound as it is, it’s never been practiced.
Why just ask Dutch Reagan.
Precisely, ed. I didn’t go back as far as Reagan negotiating with Iran, but that’s certainly a solid example.
J.
Jay Tea: Bullshit. As good as it sounds, as sound as it is, it’s never been practiced.
I don’t really see how poor implementation of the policy would weaken my argument. We agree that it’s a good policy and that we should stick to it.
So why shouldn’t we stick to our policy on torture as well?
The Mancow video, to my eyes, does NOT constitute “severe” physical pain or suffering. Nor does it constitute “prolonged mental harm.”
A doctor treating you with a painful procedure, such as a spinal tap, may ask you to let them know the level of your pain and suffering, on a scale of one to ten. When the pain becomes unbearable you find yourself shrieking ten, ten, ten, over and over again.
The doctor does NOT say “Are you sure? What I’m doing should only be a five, weenie.”
My point being: your eyes mean fuck all in the assessment of what is and is not somebody else’s physical or mental suffering. The only reason you would be so arrogant as to think otherwise is that you’re a callous, wrongheaded sadist.
Which is why you are not to be taken seriously on this topic, Jay Tea.
Jay Tea-
“fear of imminent death”- Like drowning? Just keep ignoring that part Sparky.
Aside from the bloodlusters like Armed and Jay Tea, if the alternatives to waterboarding do work(and they OBVIOUSLY do) then why stoop to torture? Its the weak intellectual mind that somehow believes that inflicting pain will unlock a prisoners mind. I wonder if these folks have kids and subscribe to the “beat the hell out of them” method in order to establish discipline? We all hate terrorists, but I am secure enough in my manhood not to project such violence fantasies like the conservatives do regularly on this site.
Jay Teabag, veteran combat hero of multiple blood donations and one vasectomy has the moral ground to declare what is and what isn’t torture. Stay classy, Teabag.
Jay Tea: Nor does it constitute “prolonged mental harm.”
One can only imagine the effect if he’d not been in control and had been almost drowned a dozen times a day for a month.
So, you were saying, Jay?
And, Jay Tea, at the risk of sounding like Strowbridge, still waiting for you to try to answer these:
You’re standing over there in your nice safe home in West Nowhere, NH pointing at Mancow and saying “See, he wasn’t hurt.” While Mancow is standing there wet saying “That was torture.” Honest question: Why should we give more credence to your opinion than his?
Clearly the number of people this has been done to is critical because you keep emphasizing that it was “only three” people. If it doesn’t matter how many, if it isn’t torture even if used on a thousand, then why keep pointing out it was “only” three?
Sean D. Martin: “And, Jay Tea, at the risk of sounding like Strowbridge…”
Go fuck yourself. If a question is worth asking the first time, it is worth asking again and again till you get an acceptable answer. The fact that I will ask the question over and over again isn’t not a failing on my part. It’s a failing on the part of the people who refuse to answer the questions and would rather run away.
And on that note…
1.) How did Jay Caruso’s response of ‘That’s what the per 100,000 is for’ make sense?
2.) Why did Paul McKim sue Nasser Kazeminy?
3.) What were the GOP trying to say when they mentioned Obama’s dog in that attack ad?
All three questions are very simple to ask, if you have the reading comprehension skills of a high school drop-out.
This has got to be the funniest thread I’ve ever read here.
“Zython”, “fafaroo”, “Jaim”, “ed”, ya’all cut me up.
More seriously:
Morally depraved sociopaths like “Jay Tea” and “Armed2theTeetch” and other right wingers argue that America should employ the tactics of the terrorists.
They’ve become the terrorists.
Right winger “Jay Tea” compares “torturing” to “nearly marrying a Jewish mother”.
Which is bigoted on so many different levels: Misogynistic, Racist/Anti-Semitic and a slur against Judaism all in one tightly wound insult.
Way to represent your employer Commentary Magazine, “Jay Tea”, I’m sure it’s editor, the right wing psychopath Norman Podhoretz would be impressed.
“limulus” offers the most interesting argument on the subject I’ve heard in a while:
Right winger “Armed2theTeeth”: “If waterboarding a member of al Queda would save a member of your family, would you approve then?”
“limulus”: “If you’ve watched as many action movies and TV shows as I have, then you know that “The United States does not negotiate with terrorists.” This is the policy adopted by our government because if we capitulate to the demands of terrorists even just once, it will embolden more terrorists to commit more acts of terror against us.
What does this have to do with your hypothetical question? It brings to light a similar hypothetical: If capitulating to a terrorist’s demands would save a member of your family, would you approve of it?”
…
“limulus”: “Just like a policy of capitulating to terrorists only emboldens them in the long run, so does a policy that includes waterboarding and other methods of torture. It gives fodder to those who seek to radicalize young men to the point that they think it is in their peoples’ best interest to drive a truck full of explosives into a US embassy. It gives cover to those who would mistreat a US prisoner of war. It makes it more likely our enemies will fight to the death, instead of surrender at the first sign of a US tank. It makes it more difficult for other democracies to justify picking our side in future conflicts.
The bottom line is that even if you think that allowing the state to waterboard or use other forms of torture will succeed in stopping a terrorist act, all you’ve done is stop one attack while putting the country at an even greater risk.”
CSS: The fact that I will ask the question over and over again isn’t not a failing on my part.
At the risk of sounding like Gertrude Stein, there is no there there. At the risk of sounding like Voltaire, he perceives what he will whether it is there or not. At the risk of sounding like Barry Pepper, some people may just like to play the victim. At the risk of sounding like Freud, sometimes a noting a trait is just noting a trait.
Oh, my. I guess I just insulted all those folks, too!
Sean, you are concern trolling again.
Whatever “CSS” did to offend you, get over it.
Seriously, Sean, lashing out childishly at allies that aren’t even speaking to you doesn’t help you win your coveted Broderite Prize of Concern Trolling, it just makes you look foolish.
And Sean, it won’t come as any surprise that I almost always get a kick out “CSS’s” comments.
I’ll take a passionate ally over a concern troll any day.
“Jaim”: “Waterboarding was torture during WWII. During Vietnam. During the Korean War.”
Waterboarding was torture during Pol Pot’s genocidal regime and during the Inquisition as well.
Waterboarding was prosecuted as a war crime after WWII.
“Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime” until Right Wing sadists redefined “torture” as “enhanced interrogations”.
“Jaim” asks those right wing sadistic torturers a hypothetical question: “Perhaps more to the point, a skilled torturer could put electrodes on your genitals and apply excruciating pain without leaving any marks as well. So, if I do this to your mother or father or child, is it no longer torture?”
According to Republican Bush’s sadist lawyer John Yoo, yes, the President can torture children and even sexually savage them.
That’s what the modern day Republican Party has degenerated into: unconscionable sadistic monsters.
Republican President Bushs’s sadist lawyer John Yoo on being asked about torturing children:
Notre Dame Law Professor Cassel: “If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?”
Republican President Bush’s lawyer John Yoo: “No treaty.”
Cassel: “Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.”
Yoo: “I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.”
You can listen to Republican Bush’s lawyer John Yoo saying the President can torture children.
Chilling stuff.
As Jaim said, “Until George W. Bush, America didn’t torture legally. A person who can’t understand the moral black hole we’ve entered thanks to Chimpy and Cheney deserves to be shunned by all those who hope to see America return to greatness in the near future.”
Thanks for the prompting, “Newsy” — I just called the ex-girlfriend and repeated the entire line to her to get her reaction. She laughed and said there was a touch of truth to it. Then she said you were an idiot for rushing to her “defense.”
I do not dispute that Mancow called it “torture.” I do doubt the wisdom of waterboarding someone who nearly drowned as a child — that must have brought back some very, very bad memories. I do dispute his standing, however, to determine whether what he experienced falls under the category of “torture.”
(Pedantically speaking, it does not — he was not a captive, and it wasn’t done under color of law. But the act itself — and the consequences thereof — do not rise to the level of “torture.”)
I have a simple test that I apply to something that is considered “torture:” would any sane person submit to it willingly simply to prove a point?
In this case, people are doing it literally all the time to each other to “prove” their point. As noted, Christopher Hitchens tried it out. Mancow just did. Some guy on Fox News did it. Countless anti-war dipshits do it to each other in public.
And most of them in far less controlled circumstances than the CIA.
J.
Oh, and “Newsy,” let me add to the torturous experiences I have survived — I looked at your site. After that, the Iron Maiden seemed almost tolerable.
J.
I have a simple test that I apply to something that is considered “torture:” would any sane person submit to it willingly simply to prove a point?
Jay Tea, through out history, politically committed people have voluntarily endured all manner of suffering and pain to prove a point. Hell, Jay Tea through out history politically committed people have endured all manner of involuntary suffering and pain to prove a point. All of them were sane.
But that doesn’t even matter here and I would never want to put Mancow or Hitchens on the same level as, say, Ghandi.
The point you’re missing, Jay Tea, is that what Hitchens and Mancow experienced was not, in fact, torture for the simple reason that they did willingly submit to it and they had complete control over the proceedings at all times.
And YET both of them came away from the experience horrified by what they felt.
What the detainees who were waterbaorded experienced was far, far worse, to begin with because it was done to them AGAINST THEIR WILL and they had NO CONTROL over the proceedings, whatsoever.
This is such a basic difference, it boggles the mind that you cannot understand it — it’s so, so sad that you choose not to.
“News Ref”: Sean, you are concern trolling again.
And just what is it you’re doing?
Whatever “CSS” did to offend you, get over it.
Oh, please. CSS didn’t offend me. He amuses me. If anyone it’s CSS who’s offended as I’d think would be obvious to anyone who read the actual exchange before they just jumped into (what is it they call it? Oh yeah.) to start acting like a concern troll.
Seriously, Sean, lashing out childishly at allies that aren’t even speaking to you
You mean all those times I’ve told Jay Tea he’s an idiot means he’s an ally of mine? Wow.
And since your sense of irony seems pretty impared, I don’t suppose there is much point in pointing out you’re lashing out at someone who wasn’t speaking to you.
Jay Tea: And most of them in far less controlled circumstances than the CIA.
And they found it to be horrific and called it torture. I know we’re supposed to be “allies” and all (sorry, still can’t help giggling when I typed that) but I can’t fathom how you seriously can continue to insist that, despite what the participants say, that it isn’t torture because you, a non-participant, say it is.
If I look out the window and it looks like it’s a warm day to me, but everyone ho has actually gone outside tells me it is really very cold I’d have to start deferring to their opinions. To continue to insist, while staying inside the house, that I know better than the growing number of people actually standing outside is indefensibly unreasonable.
Jay Tea writes “And most of them in far less controlled circumstances than the CIA.”
For a guy who only writes dumb things, this is one of the dumbest.
Hitchens and Mancow would have been better off being really waterboarded?
It’s torture Jay. Not sure if you have kids, but let’s assume you do. How about I waterboard your daughter? Not just once, but for a month. I keep her in a little cell in my basement. No lights, no fresh air for a month. Daily but at irregular intervals, I make her think I’m going to kill her by drowning her. She has no contact with family, or even a lawyer. She doesn’t know that at any moment I could simply kill her.
If you don’t understand why this is torture, both physical and mental I honestly hope you never have children. If you don’t understand why a human being, innocent or guilty, will tell you anything you want to hear after this, you’re unfit to be a parent to say the least. Hell, you’re unfit to be considered human as far as I’m concerned.
CSS: “The fact that I will ask the question over and over again isn’t not a failing on my part.”
Sean D. Martin: “At the risk of sounding like Gertrude Stein, there is no there there.”
You are telling me my questions are not legitimate?
1.) You said I was stalling when I asked Jay Caruso what he meant by saying, ‘That’s what 100,000 is for’, therefore, your interpretation of that statement is a valid point to discuss.
2.) You said Coleman had nothing to do with the Paul McKim v. Nasser Kazeminy lawsuit, therefore, your interpretation for the reasons for that lawsuit is valid point to discuss.
3.) You said the GOP were not attacking Obama’s dog in that ad, therefore, your interpretation of that attack ad is a valid point to discuss.
Now answer the fucking questions and stop running away like a fucking coward.
News: “Seriously, Sean, lashing out childishly at allies that aren’t even speaking to you”
Sean: “You mean all those times I’ve told Jay Tea he’s an idiot means he’s an ally of mine? Wow.”
Are you a high school drop out? I help my mother with her ESL work on occasion, and you have a weaker grasp of the English language than some of her first year, elementary school children.
This is not an insult meant to offend you. This is a statement of fact.
“And since your sense of irony seems pretty impared, I don’t suppose there is much point in pointing out you’re lashing out at someone who wasn’t speaking to you.”
He was lashing out at you? He asked you a question…
Oh, I get it. He asked you a question you don’t want to answer, so he’s lashing out at you.
It all makes sense.
If you really want to help our side, you would shut the fuck up.
Strowbridge, have you EVER written a comment that didn’t involve you immediately having to wipe spittle off your monitor? That is a serious question. I have, in all my years in the blogosphere, seen a commenter so full of rage and eager to lay bare their anger management issues, so prone to let their temper overwhelm whatever smidgen of common sense, civility, and plain old good manners they might have. You remind me of a four-year-old throwing a temper tantrum in a supermarket because Mommy won’t buy him the Cookie Crisp cereal — sans the requisite cuteness that prevents such children from being retroactively aborted.
And that is a statement of fact, not a personal insult.
I’ve had unpleasant exchanges with you, Strowbridge, as well as “Newsy” and Sean — more than I feel like counting of each. But with Sean, there’s one difference — I can recall at least one exchange that did not consist of him being an asshole. I can not say that about you or “Newsy.”
And that, too, is a statement of fact, not a personal insult.
I can see why you and “Newsy” are so eager to recruit Sean to the side of the Perpetually Assholish. It must get awful lonely…
Do you have any friends that tolerate you covering them in spittle every time you speak to them? That, too, is a serious question.
J.
J.G.Thayer: “Strowbridge, have you EVER written a comment that didn’t involve you immediately having to wipe spittle off your monitor?”
Yes. I am constantly very calm when I write my posts.
I believe your accusations to the contrary are merely projection.
“I’ve had unpleasant exchanges with you, Strowbridge, as well as ‘“Newsy’ and Sean — more than I feel like counting of each. But with Sean, there’s one difference — I can recall at least one exchange that did not consist of him being an asshole.”
Perhaps that’s because when you debate Sean, you are the one who runs away first.
Look at the three questions I asked him. Are they unreasonable? If so, why? If not, why won’t he answer them?
That’s the real heart of this debate. Turning this debate about me is merely a logical fallacy.
“Jay Tea” perfectly illustrates a right wing extremist.
Right winger “Jay Tea” can write, without a smidgen of self awareness, an accusation that someone else lacks civility and immediately follow it with a nasty insult.
“Jay Tea”, master of projection, accusing someone else of being “so prone to let their temper overwhelm whatever smidgen of common sense, civility, and plain old good manners they might have. You remind me of a four-year-old throwing a temper tantrum in a supermarket because Mommy won’t buy him the Cookie Crisp cereal — sans the requisite cuteness that prevents such children from being retroactively aborted.”
Reading those last two sentences by “Jay Tea” is like listening to one of Murdoch’s thugs (pick one: O’Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Malkin) give lectures on civility.
It’s grotesque.
Right winger “Jay Tea”: “I have, in all my years in the blogosphere, [? never] seen a commenter so full of rage and eager to lay bare their anger management issues”
Nutty sociopathic right wingers: umbrage over words in the same discussion they are rationalizing torture and war crimes.
It’s sick.
News Reference: “‘Jay Tea’ perfectly illustrates a right wing extremist.”
…
“‘Jay Tea’, master of projection…”
Exactly. This is a pattern on the right that has existed for a long, long time.
Please fafaroo, let us all know when Armed2 gets that ticket to you?
And everybody, when you have a chance to feed the trolls, please do anything else.
Can you reason with sadists? Or their groupies?
CSS: You are telling me my questions are not legitimate?
No, what I was doing there was merely recognizing that I was doing something you’ve done on enough occasions for it to be recognized as a trait. That wasn’t saying it’s a failing of yours any more than recognizing something said sounds like Stein or Freud is saying they have a failing. You’re taking offense where there was none (probably, if I had to hazard a guess, because despite claims you may make of being a dispassionate and logical on many topics (bwah-ha-ha) you’re incapable of seeing my name above a post and seeing it as anything else regardless of what it may actually say.)
As for your questions, as long as you continue to predicate them on a mis-representation of what I have said, no, I’m not going to answer them.
CSS: This is not an insult meant to offend you. This is a statement of fact.
You really don’t know what facts are, do you? Explains a lot.
CSS: Look at the three questions I asked him. Are they unreasonable? If so, why? If not, why won’t he answer them?
Yes. Already answered. See first answer.
CSS: Perhaps that’s because when you debate Sean, you are the one who runs away first.
And perhaps because I’m not someone who twists what he’s actually said into something he hasn’t said and then demand he defend a position he hasn’t taken just so then they can hide their insecurity under a barrage of spittle-laden bluster and claims of being right because he’s recognized there is just no point in having a debate with a child having a tantrum.
“‘Jay Tea’, master of projection…”
Exactly. This is a pattern on the right that has existed for a long, long time.
An only on the right, of course. At the risk of sounding like jr, “I can’t be racist because I’m black. – Michael Steele”
CSS: “You are telling me my questions are not legitimate?”
Sean D. Martin: “No, what I was doing there was merely recognizing that I was doing something you’ve done on enough occasions for it to be recognized as a trait. That wasn’t saying it’s a failing of yours…”
In the context of your statement, you were calling it a failing.
‘I don’t want to sound like CSS, but…’ means you think that what I do is an unwelcome trait. A failing, to use your term.
Perhaps you don’t know what context is, which would only further solidify my opinion as to your education level.
“…you’re incapable of seeing my name above a post and seeing it as anything else regardless of what it may actually say.)”
Now there’s some world class projection.
And by the way, we can have disagreements and attack them in constructive ways.
It just when you pull your, ‘I’m not going to defend what I said’ bullshit that we have a problem. And it’s not just with me. Fafaroo will back me up on that.
Sean: “As for your questions, as long as you continue to predicate them on a mis-representation of what I have said, no, I’m not going to answer them.”
I guess we have a new question to ad to the list you refuse to answer. Namely…
What mis-representation?
And by the way, we certainly can have disagreements and attack them in constructive ways.
It just when you pull your, ‘I’m not going to deal* with what you’ve actually said but rather what I’m telling you you said (and think)’ bullshit that we have a problem.
*That being hurling insults and challenges rather than constructively trying to actually spend the effort to understand what was said.
CSS: “Perhaps that’s because when you debate Sean, you are the one who runs away first.”
Sean D. Martin: “And perhaps because I’m not someone who twists what he’s actually said into something he hasn’t said and then demand he defend a position he hasn’t taken…”
What position, Sean?
I’m asking you to explain the reason Paul McKim sued Nasser Kazeminy. I’m not asking you for your position on anything. I’m asking you to explain something in your own words.
Also, I’m asking you to explain the GOP attack ad. What were they saying about Obama. I’m not asking for any position. I merely asking you to restate what the GOP said in your own words.
No position to defend in either case.
And way back when… I’m asked you to explain how, ‘That’s what per 100,000 is for’ comment in the context of the debate. Here you held a position. You said it made perfect sense and me questioning what it meant was merely stalling. If this is true, you can explain what it meant.
And by the way, when you take a conditional statement I’ve said, remove the condition, and then claim I’ve stated consequence as a unconditional statement, you are twisting what I’ve said.
CSS: “This is not an insult meant to offend you. This is a statement of fact.”
Sean D. Martin: “You really don’t know what facts are, do you? Explains a lot.”
No, Sean, I do know what it means.
I have helped my mother grade papers from elementary school kids who have been in the country less than a year who have a better grasp of the English language than you do.
You should feel something when I say that. You should feel a deep sense of shame.
But sadly, it’s true.
Sean D. Martin: “And by the way, we certainly can have disagreements and attack them in constructive ways.
It just when you pull your, ‘I’m not going to deal* with what you’ve actually said but rather what I’m telling you you said (and think)’ bullshit that we have a problem.”
Sean…
I’ve made a conditional statement. (If A, then B.)
You’ve taken that conditional statement, and removed the condition. (B.)
You’ve then claimed I stated B as fact, regardless of the value of A.
This is exactly what you are accusing me of doing.
When I explained what you did, you ‘feigned’ ignorance. Claimed that since you cut and pasted my words, you couldn’t be lying about what I said.
This has happened on a number of occasions.
Sean: “…just so then they can hide their insecurity under a barrage of spittle-laden bluster and claims…”
On a side note, you are starting to using the very phrases J.G.Thayer is using. Running away from debates, and now this.
You are turning into him.
CSS: I’m asking you to explain something in your own words.
Which I’d done repeatedly to apparently no effect. You didn’t like the answers/explanations I gave and continue to ask questions about things which have little to do with the original point of contention. I could say that blue shirt doesn’t go with those pants and you’d tell me it does and then demand I explain why one would wear colored clothing.
Apparently you won’t be satisfied, even on pure differences of opinion, until I admit you’re 100% right and I’ve been completely swayed by your superior logic to your point of view. I’m not going to do that and you’re not going to agree that my opinion on something can differ from yours. So I see no further point in it.
CSS: I have helped my mother grade papers from elementary school kids who have been in the country less than a year who have a better grasp of the English language than you do.
You should feel something when I say that. You should feel a deep sense of shame.
I do feel something. A passing bit of amusement. At your continued hyperbole when you claim you know what a fact is, for one.
Running away from debates…
No, not just running away and disappearing. Specifically stating that I see no point in continuing the discussion, explaining why I see no point, and then moving on. As I’m going to do here before this becomes any more of another SDM/CSS s/he said/he said “why don’t you two just get a room” waste of time. You should try it.
Now, anyone want to talk about whether forced drowning is torture?
Remember that this is a completely artificial situation where the person being waterboarded knows that it is not being done by an enemy. He knows that he can stop it at any time. Imagine what it is like when it is being done in a real-world setting where the subject does not have a bunch of supporters around him. We need to line-up Hannity, Limbaugh, and Cheney for this treatment ASAP.
BloggingDemocratic.blogspot.com
Mark Allen Report
CSS: “I’m asking you to explain something in your own words.”
Sean D. Martin: “Which I’d done repeatedly to apparently no effect.”
No you haven’t, Sean. You have never answered these question. You’ve claimed repeatedly that you have answered the questions repeatedly, but I’ve never seen these answers.
However, it is interesting that you said at first that you refuse to answer these questions because they, ‘were predicate[d] … on a mis-representation of what I have said’. while now you are saying that you have answers them, ‘repeatedly to apparently no effect.’
These two claims are incompatible. One of them must be wrong. They can both be wrong, but they can not both be correct.
So which is it? Are you refusing to answer them because they are not legitimate, or because you’ve already answered them.
If they are not legitimate, explain what position I’m assigned to you, which will be impossible because I have not assigned any position to you. In fact, I have stated that you could have no position at all, and still answer the question with ease. Explain how I misrepresented what you said, which is equally impossible, since I’m asking you to explain in your own words what someone else has said or done.
CSS: “I have helped my mother grade papers from elementary school kids who have been in the country less than a year who have a better grasp of the English language than you do.
You should feel something when I say that. You should feel a deep sense of shame.”
Sean D. Martin: “I do feel something. A passing bit of amusement. At your continued hyperbole when you claim you know what a fact is, for one.”
Sean, it is not hyperbole. I know want to think it is, but it is not. I can assure you, I’ve read papers written by kids who have been in the country less than a year who can correctly interpret a conditional statement, whereas you have failed to do so on a number of occasions.
The exact example from ESL involved fish and a pond. If there are no fish in the pond, then the fisherman won’t catch any fish. This does not mean the fisherman won’t catch any fish, because there could be fish in a pond.
Likewise, if someone is involved in a crime that is under investigation, they are assumed to be under investigation unless there is evidence to the contrary. This does not mean everyone is assumed to be under investigation unless there is evidence to the contrary, because they are likely not involved in a crime that is being investigated.
If you are allowed to question the motives of Child Safety Services, then I should be allowed to ask for an investigation of the parents who name their kid Adolf Hitler. I’m not saying you are not allowed to question the motives; I’m saying I’m allowed to ask for an investigation.
These are questions similar to those that would appear on reading comprehension tests given to elementary school kids.
Me: “Running away from debates…”
Sean: “No, not just running away and disappearing. Specifically stating that I see no point in continuing the discussion, explaining why I see no point, and then moving on.”
Except your explanations are not factually correct, nor are they compatible. They are excuses you are using to cover up for the fact that you are running away.
“As I’m going to do here before this becomes any more of another SDM/CSS s/he said/he said ‘why don’t you two just get a room” waste of time. You should try it.”
Except it’s not he said / she said. It me putting force factual arguments, and you running away.
I’ve explained exactly what I want you to do, and I’ve explained why your complaints are not valid. I’m not asking you to defend any position, so clearly I’m not asking you to defend a position you never took.
I’m merely asking you to rewrite something we were discussion to prove that you comprehend the subject matter. I am doing this because I don’t think you do comprehend it.
“Now, anyone want to talk about whether forced drowning is torture?”
I don’t think you are capable. I don’t think you have a strong enough grasp of the English language to do so.
That’s all I am asking for. For you to prove you can comprehend the topics we are discussing.
You are running away, because you don’t.
It is not that you don’t have the facts.
You can not comprehend the facts.
Well, that went well…
I think I proved one thing: when I try to emulate Strowbridge’s style, I fail miserably. I guess I don’t possess the “asshole” gene that lets one carry that off. And I was rather proud of the “retroactive abortion” line; it really seemed to capture both his philosophy on abortion and his tendency for over-the-top insults.
I’m not surprised he didn’t pick up on it; self-important blowhards like him tend to be immune to satire. And “Newsy” is too obsessed with cherry-picking to see the whole context of anything. But I’d hoped that SOMEONE would note the effort…
And normally I eschew spelling/grammar flames, but since Strowbridge is claiming to be the final arbiter of The Queen’s English, and calling Sean illiterate, I have to bring this up:
I’m merely asking you to rewrite something we were discussion to prove that you comprehend the subject matter. I am doing this because I don’t think you do comprehend it.
In this context, Strowbridge, I believe you meant “discussing.” The verb form, not the noun, of “discuss.”
You stupid fuckhead.
J.
J.G.Thayer: “Well, that went well…”
Translation: “Waaahhhh!”
“In this context, Strowbridge, I believe you meant ‘discussing.’ The verb form, not the noun, of ‘discuss.’”
Yes. You are correct. I made a mistake. However, mistakes like these have little to do with literacy and more to do with proofreading (or the lack thereof). On the other hand, not being able to rewrite what someone said does have a lot to do with literacy.
I said to Sean, in another thread, “So you are allowed to speculate without any direct evidence, but naming a kid Unwanted would not be enough to warrant further investigation.”
What do you think I meant by that?
Sean thought I was saying he was not allowed to speculate.
Seriously.
Sean: “Your question as to whether I should be allowed to speculate without any direct evidence.”
Feel free to use that next time you two get into a verbal argument.
He has serious reading comprehension problems, to the point where I find it unlikely he could pass a comprehensive literacy test.
This is not hyperbole.
My opinion of him is that low.
Yes. You are correct. I made a mistake. However, mistakes like these have little to do with literacy and more to do with proofreading (or the lack thereof). On the other hand, not being able to rewrite what someone said does have a lot to do with literacy.
So, you’re saying that the problem wasn’t that you used the wrong word, but you didn’t catch your mistake? I find it hard to believe that someone who is as intelligent and as educated and as erudite as yourself (by your own claims) would make such a mistake.
No, you must be wrong. You didn’t use the wrong word in the first place. You are incapable of doing that. Your application of “discussion” must be an obscure but acceptable variant that the rest of us are too stupid to know about, but you’re saying I was correct out of some sense of sympathy or pity.
Well, you can take your pity apology and cram it.
On a serious note: you really need to study Keith Olbermann more. He cops the same faux-serious attitude (his studied use of the sneering “sir” is the stuff of legend), but he comes across just a smidgen less batshit psycho than you.
J.
J.G.Thayer: “So, you’re saying that the problem…
he comes across just a smidgen less batshit psycho than you.”
I don’t give a fuck about your opinion. Anyone who believes waterboarding isn’t torture because it’s ’simulated’ drowning and not ‘controlled’ is not someone whose opinion I value. (By the way, waterboarding is controlled drowning, and simulated drowning would be considered torture under US law.)
However, I will note you completely ignored every other point I made. This is what we’ve all come to expect from you.
For someone who “doesn’t give a fuck” about my opinion, Strowbridge, you’ve certainly killed a lot of pixels in denouncing it.
And ain’t you big to take on the role of speaking for everyone else on this forum. I bet they’re all just THRILLED beyond words to have you present their opinions for them.
Must’ve missed the day when you were elected official mouthpiece of the readership here…
J.
J.G.Thayer: “Must’ve missed the day when you were elected official mouthpiece of the readership here… ”
Must have missed where I said I was the official mouthpiece of the readership here.
But thank you for ignoring my point and continuing to attack me instead.
I just proves my point.
CSS: He has serious reading comprehension problems
Well, it is the things you write that I’m trying to make sense of. GIGO.
CSSBut thank you for ignoring my point and continuing to attack me instead.
Well I suppose that’s only fair. Earlier I sounded a bit like Strowbridge, so only fair that he now sound like me.
OK, I’m gonna confess that apparently I don’t speaka da Queen’s English as well as Strowbridge. Obviously I don’t grasp the subtle meaning of this sentence:
This is what we’ve all come to expect from you.
Apparently this is NOT a claim to speak on behalf of everyone.
Maybe I need to sign up for an ESL class from Strowbridge’s mother…
(Someone cue up “Hot For Teacher…”)
J.
Apparently this is NOT a claim to speak on behalf of everyone.
Well, JT, what CSS is describing is pretty much the definition of trolling and it is exactly what I expect of you, though I won’t speak for everyone.
And Sean regularly makes some of the most astounding misinterpretations of rather straight-forward statements. And he generally doesn’t address criticisms, choosing instead to build new strawmen or just run away.
Now, anyone want to talk about whether forced drowning is torture?
Sure, it is. Easy. Now how do you feel about being defended by a guy with the most idiotic defense of waterboarding ever? I never thought I’d live to see someone play the “I had a vasectomy and gave blood so being drowned can’t be that bad”-card. That this was followed by “I have a simple test that I apply to something that is considered “torture:” would any sane person submit to it willingly simply to prove a point? is just gravy. I guess to Jay Tea there is no such thing as torture. Still, awesome stuff, it’s like hitting the moron hole-in-one and following it up with a double eagle of stupid.
Crusty, I KNOW there’s such a thing as torture. I’ve read accounts of torture. I’ve heard victims of torture describe it.
Further, I’ve read the legal definition of torture, as defined by US laws.
I don’t like it when words get diluted and lose their meaning. It’s part of the reason I don’t like Strowbridge — I have great respect for profanity, its rhetorical power and occasional necessity. But that idiot ruins it by dropping it casually at almost every opportunity, revealing himself to be just a pottymouthed, frothing idiot.
It’s hard to draw a legal definition of “torture,” to set up a bright line between “unpleasant” or “uncomfortable” and “inhumane.” The procedure outlined by the CIA is fairly near that line, no argument. But I don’t believe it crosses into the realm of such treatments as broken fingers, crushed testicles, electrocution, bamboo shoots under fingernails, dislocation of joints, removal of fingernails, nails driven into the body, burning, or inflicting hypothermia, or a host of other hideous procedures.
(Odd trivia: nearly all the data on treating hypothermia derives from meticulous Nazi records of immersing Jews and other “subhumans” in freezing water during the Holocaust. Many people owe their lives to those atrocities.)
It’s hyperbole. It’s rhetorical inflation. It’s like denouncing Bush as “BusHitler” or calling Obama a Communist.
J.
JT, it’s amusing to me what you consider torture. I’ve had several of your torture techniques done to me in the past, by accident, and I would choose all of them over the terror of drowning-induced near-death (can’t really speak for testicle crushing..). Your definition of torture appears to focus on pain while ignoring psychological trauma, either that or you don’t understand the severity of what’s being done here. If forced into one or the other, I’d choose pain. Maybe it doesn’t look like much, but what’s being stimulated is the physiological response of terror of immediate death. Imagine the response induced by a false execution (itself a form of special torment), the procedure done here is basically that on steroids. The response is visceral and uncontrollable. Additionally, unlike the case with Mancow or Hitchens, the victim of waterboarding has no control over when it starts or stops.
Crusty Dem: Now how do you feel about being defended by a guy with the most idiotic defense of waterboarding ever?
I’m okay with it. Just because I intensely disagree with someone one topic doesn’t mean I have to think they are completely wrong on every other topic. I may intensely disagree with anything a right-wing racist may shout on a street corner but I’d agree with them that they have a right to say it.
Are you suggesting that that there is never room for any common ground with someone you’ve had a disagreement with? More specifically, are you suggesting I agree with Jay Tea’s moronic “it ain’t torture if I say it ain’t” statements? Cause I’d like to see you back that up.
Jay Tea: I KNOW there’s such a thing as torture. I’ve read accounts of torture. I’ve heard victims of torture describe it.
And yet, when you have people who have been nearly drowned call that torture you disregard it.
I’ve read the legal definition of torture, as defined by US laws.
And have yet to show how forced drowning fails to meet this definition.