Funny how big-talking conservatives always have better things to do than fight a war themselves. Kerry fought, Limbaugh sat on his ass. McGovern and JFK fought, Reagan didn’t fight. Carter was in the military. McCain fought and suffered and does not approve of torture. The chicken-hawks make me puke.
Of course strong tactics to get life-saving information from our enemies is a good idea. That just makes it all the more disappointing that our leaders chose to use torture instead.
The people who engage in and support torture ARE my enemies, and more dangerous than any terrorist. Nor is torture a good means of gaining information. And many ( probably most ) Republicans do indeed support torture.
Torture is cruelty for the sake of cruelty, and the extraction of lies to support our own agenda. It’s not about fighting back against anything. Nor does it do anything but put us in greater danger, and destroy what little moral high ground we had.
I noticed nobody answered this one, so here’s my shot. When I registered in Indiana (open primaries), there were a few boxes for parties including one for Independent. Then, last year when volunteering for Obama in the primary, we had lists of people to call/visit/etc. to get out the vote. I would assume that the lists came from voter rolls which included what party box they checked, address, and when/if they last voted. So when registering, the parties know which box you checked, since its public info, but I didn’t have to go down to the nearest Dem HQ and tell them I want in.
I salute Dan, Chronos, and DT for taking up the fight. Dealing with someone throwing out Michael Savage-esque arguments takes more energy than I’ve got. I’ll wait for the conservatives who aren’t deluded about Dems and liberals.
I like this quiz www.politicalquiz.net/
hahahaha, really?
The lines have drawn ever closer together over the years and what we have been left with has been ‘the lesser of two evils’
This in on the American people for allowing that change to happen, but hey it’s “CHANGE”
It used to be republicans were fiscally conservative, limited government, pro-life.
Democrats used to be big government, liked to spend lots of money, and pro-abortion.
Libertarians think we need to run the country like a corporation with very little government.
I do realize that my definitions aren’t all encompassing but the people who really run the USG now-a-days are the ‘third party’ of Demicans.
Well, them and the interest groups who fund them.
Nonsense. They’ve never been for a small government; you can’t run people’s private lives for them and spy on them like the Republicans prefer with a small government. They just want to let the rich and powerful, the corporations and wealthy and churches run wild. That’s not the same as small government. Nor have they been fiscally conservative; they just wanted to spend money on different things. Nor have they ever been “pro-life”; just pro forced birth.
Hey now - I know lots of republicans who are fiscally conservative and support limited government. It’s just that none of them happen to be senators, and most of them are getting on in years and refuse to admit that theve been fed a giant bait and switch.
There’s a giant difference between the republican leadership and their electorate; it really does seem to be a case of people saying what will get them elected, and then afterwords dimissing that and doing whatever they want.
I guess I had a bit of a mental breakdown, I meant anarchist, opps!
As Robert Nozick wrote in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Chapter 7, “the minimal state is the most extensive state that can be justified, Any state more extensive violates people’s rights.”
On this side of Praxis, What this means in relation to application is that Government programs are big, ineffective, inefficient, and unjustified. The best way to remedy the situation is to rely on the private sector. Be it from private insurance that would, via competition, ensure the best price for health care. Encourage people to take responsibility and shop around for their health care to get the best price.
As to what kind of bills, although not strictly Libertarian in origin, the Fair Tax (HR 25, S 296) is one example of limiting governmental power over the individual. If I get started explaining it, it will probably take a while…
Besides, becoming a member of the Libertarian party entails that you sign a card that say,“I certify that I do not advocate the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.”
I was wondering about that one… 
There’s probably a bunch of threads around here about the Fair Tax, and I’m somewhat familiar with it. The signed card, though, seems to be the best example of how Libertarians would govern in practice (ideally, at least). Am I safe in assuming that, in general, government should butt out, but when it does need to get involved, as little as possible and with incentives rather than penalties?
:rolleyes: Complete and utter nonsense.
Cite, please.
Cite, please. Or at least some evidence that this is true and not just you spewing as usual. Please defend that torture is cruelty for cruelty’s sake. And no, I’m not even arguing with what you would consider torture. I’m accepting it. Let’s use water boarding. Back up your claim that the “torturers” in these instances are not interested in information and simply want to torture.
Anyone who actually believes, given the weapons available in the modern US military, that an armed populace could possibly “defend liberty” in the slightest way against a government bent on taking it, is living in a world where the sky is some color other than blue.
Yes, Republicans believe in the rights of the individual.
Except the rights of a woman to make her own decision about what happens to her own body.
Except the rights of two people of the same sex to enter into the same marriage contract as two people of the opposite sex.
Except the rights of a person to demonstrate his or her dislike for the US government by burning a US flag.
Except the rights of those scientist who wish to do research using already discarded embryonic stem cells.
Except the rights of adults to view material that the Republicans deem “pornographic”.
Except the rights of two (or more) consenting adults to engage in the sexual practices of their choice in the privacy of their own homes.
Except the rights of schoolchildren to be taught scientific truths that conflict with Biblical myths, such as evolution.
Yes, Republicans believe in the US Constitution.
Except the part of the US Constitution that very explicitly separates the government from any church or religion.
Heck, many Republicans currently don’t even believe in the right of the other major US political party to designate its own name, insisting on referring to the “Democratic” party instead as the “Democrat” party.
Not at all. Terrorists are weak; the United States Government is strong. A US Government controlled by torturers is far more dangerous to me than terrorists.
You want a cite for that ? :rolleyes: <google> There you are.
Really, we are talking about Republicans. What did you expect? Compassion? Mercy? Human decency? Ethics? From them?
It’s an awful method of interrogation; it’s known to not work well if at all which is exactly why actual professional interrogators oppose it. Torture is for cruelty and for getting false confessions.
Because they used torture, and that’s what torture is for. Because they shoved aside the real interrogators who were getting actual results so they could indulge themselves.
Absolutely correct, government is generally only needed for defense, everything else, roads, et al. can all be done via private contractors, passing the savings onto the consumers 
What—now you’re saying “torturers” and the “U.S. government” are one in the same?! That they are inseparable? That one is not a subset of the other? Your claim was: “The people who engage in and support torture ARE my enemies, and more dangerous than any terrorist.” Even accepting your no doubt broad definition of torture, how many people in the government do you think have engaged in it? Please provide a number.
And if you add them all up, do you really think they’ve done more damage than this?
There you go again… Is that Routine 1 or Routine 4? And do you not see a difference between 55% of people holding an opinion that there cases in which “the United States should consider torture against terrorism suspects” and “many ( probably most ) Republicans do indeed support torture.”?
While one can reasonably debate the usefulness of torture, your response does not answer what was asked of you. Here it is again: “Please defend that torture is cruelty for cruelty’s sake”. Defend that torture is the goal of the process.
Again, unresponsiveness. Please try again.
Didn’t they start a war? Keep in mind, he didn’t just say the torture was the problem, he’s talking about the people, presumably including all their actions.
Sounds like support to me. I count shrugging and nodding at it support enough - what more do you want?
Um, he did. The course of action selected indicates which motive inspired it. Alledging that there are better methods for gathering information, and they knew it, were using them, and then switched to torture suggests strongly that gathering information wasn’t their goal.
He responded.
When the torturers are working for the government on orders from the highest levels, of course.
I suggest to go look up the Holocaust to see what such people can do given free reign. And 9/11 was small compared to what we did to the Iraqis, who weren’t even involved.
No, I don’t. 55% qualfies as “many ( probably most )”.
You are the one claiming that it has another purpose, despite what the experts say. You are asking me to prove a negative.
Here’s a simple test.
Two people…one works hard, makes 150K a year, pays 50K in taxes and charitable contributions.
One sits on his but watching TV and takes in 50K in free food, housing, educational benefits etc. etc.
The Republican looks at this and says the guy with the job “is doing well…everyone should be hard working like him. He’s contributing 50K in taxes too. The other guy, on welfare, is a parasite, basically, contributing nothing.”
The democrat looks at this and says “guy no. 1 is taking in 150K per year…guy no. 2 is taking in 50K…that’s not fair!” In a democrats’ mind all money really belongs to the gov’t. Anything they let you keep is a “gov’t expenditure”.
The way you can tell a republican from a democrat is if their description of the republican side is deranged hyperbole, they’re a democrat. If their description of the democrat side is deranged hyperbole, they’re a republican. If their description of both sides is uncomplimentary but sane, they’re a moderate (which is called a socialist in the US). If their description of both sides is deranged hyperbole, they’re aligned with some extremest group, or are having a bad day.