If we’ve learned ANYTHING from the Cold War (which it sounds like we haven’t), it’s that assuming the enemy is irrational leads to irrational actions.

They’ll say they do, but pretty much whatever we do, they’ll find some way to blame us for their own inhumanity.

Oh my God! They’re Arabic Jay Teas!

No, you are eager to absolve them of any responsibility for their acts, and find a way to blame the victims.

Just like how you’re acting as an apologist for the torture enablers?

Jay Tea, desire for vengeance is natural and perfectly normal, but it is not appropriate for a civilized society, as it is one of our basest and inhumane emotions. What’s worse is that you actually want the government to do it for you on MY dime. Why should I pay for your hedonistic desires? Why should anyone?

You are the one who is elevating you above the perpetrators of torture when you decide to only respond to attacks against you and not our actual points.

Now, do you care to discuss Jesusland, which you brought up?

How about the legal definition of torture, which you brought up?

How about the uses of torture that you claim are continuing under Obama, which you brought up?

Or are you instead going to make the debate all about you, and then whine like a little baby that you are the center of attention?

But remember kids, Jay Tea is not a Republican, never listens to Rush and doesn’t care for Fox News.

It’s always interesting to read what you are proud of “Jay Tea”.

Have you ever considered that your advocacy of torture is terrorism on a personal level?

Torture is terrorism, “Jay Tea”. It’s the deliberate, calculated use of fear to produce a specific outcome.

Historically torture has been used to coerce false confessions.

Torture has also been used by governments to terrorize both foreign and domestic populations.

Torture is a political terrorist weapon for the governments that wield it.

And you are an advocate of torture, “Jay Tea”.

Someone let me know when “Newsie” says something of substance, and not just the same old same old, which all boil down to “you’re the worst human being ever on the face of the earth for daring to say things I don’t like!”

It’s almost a privilege, to have “Newsie” promote me above those who actually commit atrocities. To know that he considers me far, far worse than those who commit genocide, who torture and kill the innocent, who deliberately strive to brutally oppress people, who preside over reigns of terror… it’s quite heady, actually.

I might have to go lie down. The honor he does me positively gives me the vapors.

J.

“Jay Tea”, when right wingers say that they will use the tactics and strategies of the enemy to defeat the enemy, and the enemy is “terrorists”, than what the right wingers are saying is that they’ve intentionally become the terrorists.

And “Jay Tea”, when you say that “[terrorists will] find some way to blame us for their own inhumanity”, what you really mean is that you are blaming them for your inhumanity.

That’s an evil path you are on, “Jay Tea”.

You are responsible for your own actions and advocacies, “Jay Tea”.

You’ve degenerated to the point where you willfully and knowingly protect right wing terrorists, you support torture, and you even excuse war crimes, “Jay Tea”.

To repeat.

You’ve become a cheer leader for terrorists, torturers, and war criminals, “Jay Tea”.

On the other hand, because I firmly support a stand against the use of terrorism, when I read right wingers like yourself give verbal cover to terrorists and torturers and war criminals, I wonder just how insane and vicious and dangerous you really are.

In a way, “Jay Tea”, you are just as responsible for right wing terrorism in America as al Qaeda propagandists (that have others do their evil deeds around the world) are.

You are the equivalent of an al Qaeda ‘communications’ officer.

Which is why you protect so fiercely the free speech of genocidal militants.

By the way, “Jay Tea”, did you ever get that wish of yours, the wish to have “Nazi”‘s march through your neighborhood?

And what the fuck does that have to do with Jesusland, which you brought up, fucktard?

“Oh, and I don’t need to defend whatever you wanna call ‘torture’ or whatnot — ”

We don’t call waterboarding torture. The law you quoted calls it torture. Now instead of defending your indefensible position, you are shouting, ‘LOOK OVER THERE!’ and claiming Obama is continuing to torture people.

Of course, you have no real evidence of this claim. But that never stopped you before.

When you torture the enemy it gives the enemy reason to torture our American soldiers.

Because they wouldn’t if we didn’t “torture” first? That they need us to give them a “reason?”

You’re making the same mistake that I am here — presuming that you’re dealing with people who think rationally, like I do.

“Abdul, we captured an American soldier. What shall we do with him?”

“Well, Omar, I was going to say that we honor the Geneva Conventions, let the Red Cross know he’s alive and well, and treat him humanely, but I’m still mad that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded, so cut off his head.”

They don’t NEED excuses to act the way they are. They’ll say they do, but pretty much whatever we do, they’ll find some way to blame us for their own inhumanity.

You’re just pandering and enabling them. But that’s what you do best, isn’t it?

No, you are eager to absolve them of any responsibility for their acts, and find a way to blame the victims. After all, they’re not really responsible for what they do. They’re just poor, ignorant savages who can’t help themselves.

All I ask is that you treat them the same way you treat your fellow Americans who disagree with you politically. Is that too much to ask?

J.

“Oh, and I don’t need to defend whatever you wanna call “torture” … I’ve apparently won that argument.”

Not that you care, but torturing the enemy means that you endanger American troops.

When you torture the enemy it gives the enemy reason to torture our American soldiers.

Obama dropped the Republican torture programs.

His failure is in not pushing investigations and prosecutions of the clear evidence of Republican war crimes.

But you’ve excused war crimes, as well, “Jay Tea”.

And that further endangers American troops.

But the truth is that chickenhawk right wingers that have never and would never serve are the first to recklessly endanger American troops.

It’s shameful.

Wait, that’s not refreshing. What’s that other word? Oh, right, “disturbing”.

You might recognize him. He’s the guy who promised you he’d end all of them in exchange for your votes last November, and you idiots believed him.

Well, better than McCain who would have INCREASED the torture.

You want me to say that Obama’s wrong fine I’ll say it.

Obama is wrong and should stop torture by American troops NOW. Those who green lit this policy should also be charged for war crimes.

There, I have stood by my position, and you still have blood on your hands. Happy?

And, “Newsie,” it appears that “rules are for other people” is the first rule of the Obama administration. Tax rules, for one. Bankruptcy rules, for another. Employment contract rules, for yet another.

I better be careful, because Obama’s now talking about an “internet czar” to stand beside the legion of other unelected, unapproved “czars” he’s handing over hefty amounts of power to…

Oh, and I don’t need to defend whatever you wanna call “torture” or whatnot — Obama’s quietly continuing most of them anyway. You’re wasting your time going after me, for saying that such things are necessary — I’ve apparently won that argument. Take it up with the guy who’s got the power to end them, and isn’t.

You might recognize him. He’s the guy who promised you he’d end all of them in exchange for your votes last November, and you idiots believed him.

J.

a) I did know this ; and b) I would imagine that that would be an indicator that the body is automatically preparing for a full term pregnancy.

All you are saying is that there are lots of spontaneous abortions.

These differ from discretionary, voluntary abortions in that they are , well … spontaneous.

So while there can be spontaneous abortions, clearly, by definition, the usual outcome for a pregnancy can not be a voluntary, discretionary abortion.

That would be like saying that an “expected outcome” of driving is that a car goes off the road, and runs over someone walking down the street, when in fact, the driver has not lost control of the car.

Did you know that when a woman becomes pregnant her immune system is suppressed. If this didn’t happen, her body would identify the fetus as an invading organism and kill it.

In fact, according to some of the evidence, most pregnancies do not end in childbirth. Studies show that 30% to 50% of fertilized eggs are lost before implantation can take hold. and another 15% to 20% of the rest don’t make it to term either.

It seems abortion is the most ‘natural’ outcome of pregnancy.

More proof that you can’t even identify a joke when you see it.

You truly are retarded. There is some part of your brain that just does not function as it should.

If only all of the women I’ve known who had miscarriages understand “Frank’s” rules for women and childbirth!

Welcome to the right winger’s world where they demand that their ignorance be codified into law even when it’s refuted by reality over and over and over again.

Hey, “Frank”, tell us again how the Sun only shines 12 hours a day!

* unscientific? anti-scientific?

…well, because “Frank DiSalle’s” arguments on behalf of right wing terrorists and rapists rights (over a woman’s right to control her reproductive decisions) are the kind of thing that Commentary Magazine bloggers like to protect when it’s in their interests and then decry the next moment when it’s not.

Right Winger’s First Rule: Rules Are For Other People.

Hey, “Jay Tea”, don’t you need to be arguing on behalf of torture and war crimes somewhere?

You’ve been so eloquent in the defense of war crimes and torture (even while being completely evil) you’d think you could get a job as Republican Cheney or Republican John Yoo‘s press agent.

Miscarriage.

There would seem, IMHO, to be a legal nexus there between the inevitability of life at birth , and the preservation of life by not preventing childbirth.

By that logic, murder should be legal since death is an inevitable outcome of life.

Frank, your post just confirms my point that anti-choicers like yourself don’t like talking about the results of making abortion illegal. Whether it’s because you haven’t thought of it, or because you’re too ashamed to admit that you want to put onesixth of the American people in prison, either way, you should really reevaluate your position on this issue.

Abortions were legal in my home state before Roe V Wade.

A State can devise its own procedure for the enforcement of laws. It could say, for example, that the Federal Government cannot make us fund abortions for minors, without the written consent of the parent(s) or guardian.

I am not a lawyer, and I do not play one on TV or in weblogs. The untrammeled right to an abortion may have been “granted” to women by an absurd definition of “privacy”; it can be altered or removed in some way by case law…

I don’t see how you can deny the inevitability of childbirth as an outcome of pregnancy. There would seem, IMHO, to be a legal nexus there between the inevitability of life at birth , and the preservation of life by not preventing childbirth.

That you believe privacy rights are artifically constructed is personally interesting, but ultimately irrelevant. The SCOTUS didn’t agree.

For now .

Please, trace for me the legal argument by which a suit over payments would lead to total jurisdiction independent of federal oversight. The suit you posit would end state payments if it were successfully argued (which it wouldn’t be), it would most emphatically NOT lead to jurisdiction. Your hypothesis is like saying Kelo v. New London could have led to state property seizures w/out compensation.

and THAT right, therefore, supersedes the right of the Supreme Court to artificially construct a “right to privacy” .

No it wouldn’t. Federal law still supercedes states’ rights, as I assume you’re aware. Such a decision over payments would not overturn Roe. That you believe privacy rights are artifically constructed is personally interesting, but ultimately irrelevant. The SCOTUS didn’t agree.

Wow, Frank. You got “Newsie” worked up that he’s given you more monikers than a Car Talk staffer — “right wing,” “extremist,” and “Taliban!” That might be a record. Don’t expect it to last long, though — “Newsie’s” apparently lost his/her/its meds, and should be going even more apeshit soon.

So, “Newsie,” what’s your latest catch phrase that you think makes you sound so tough and patriotic and whatnot?

I’ve always been offended by traitorous secessionists trying to carve up my American Nation.

But I’m patriotic that way.

Someone better not tell “Newsie” about the whole Jesusland thing from 2004 or so…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesusland_map

J.