You’re right, you didn’t directly bring up the blowjob thing, my bad.
It’s true that if it were a Republican throwing the wang around they’d be less forgiving - but the issue is such a small issue compared to torture IMO that it’s an inappropriate comparison even if it’s to demonstrate that point. A case of sexual harassment or two is a drop in the ocean compared to possibly irreparable harm being done to what the US is, stands for, and is viewed as. Obviously you probably don’t agree with that premise.
All the tu quoques around here make me feel weird. Usually the accusation is true, and the poster is pointing out a legitimate double standard - but they often seem to be oblivious that the same criticisms apply to them. They can’t see the double standard they’re applying while attacking others for having double standards. Head explodes.
I brought myself up as an example of someone who staunchly opposes torture but isn’t liberal - since your position didn’t strike me as nuanced, but rather “oh you liberals are just complaining because it’s a conservative doing it”, I wonder how you’d view people like me. I understand that it may appear to me that your attacks are meant more for individual posters than the entire group when they may not be.
I don’t condone torture, against anyone, for anything, but…
… how many of the detainees at Guantanamo have been officially charged with a crime or, much less, convicted?
As I said, I don’t condone torture at all, however, I do wish GWB, Cheney, and a number of their cabal would be charged and actually stand trial for the crimes they’ve committed.
You’re right, I don’t agree but only because we’re talking about two different things. I am pointing out a double standard, whereas you are drawing an equivalence. To me the double standard with regard to issues of sexual harrassement or same-sex marriage is mentioned only to illustrate by virture of other examples what I see as the liberal propensity for screeching in outrage over not only certain types of behavior by conservatives but also the fact that conservatives don’t seem to share their outrage. It then becomes hard to take their outrage seriously when they seem to drop it so readily when the offender is one of their own.
You on the other hand, seem to be drawing an equivalency…or at least thinking that I am…between the seriousness of the various offenses, and inferring from that that I view them as being equally important or equally egregious, and that certainly isn’t so…even despite the fact that the level of outrage coming from the left seems to be more or less the same regardless of the conservative outrage of the day.
Welll, when in Rome and all that. My advice is just get used to it.
You are right. Absolutely right. It has long been my contention that there is very little difference between liberals and conservatives in the way they behave. We both respond in much the same way to each other, and we both exhibit the same biases and flaws in logic. The rub for me comes from the fact that although both sides are basicially the same flawed human beings, it is unique to the left to hold itself up as being more ‘enlightened’, more ‘evolved’, and more ‘tolerant’ than the right.
So once again I’m sure you’re right in your assessment of mutual double-standards, but I don’t think it necessarily negates the validity of a criticism of one particular double-standard simply because an equal double-standard exists coming from the other side.
I would be interested to know if you think I am guilty of applying a double-standard of some sort in this particular thread though, as to be perfectly honest I don’t see it.
Well, that is pretty much my position :), as it is with most of the complaints I see around here.
I’d say that they are meant for individual posters who often seem to represent most of the entire group. IMO reasonable liberals around here are in pretty short supply. Either that or they simply get drowned out by the ranters and ravers, and it is in an attempt to provide an alternative voice to those ranters and ravers that I wind up ranting and raving myself. It’s a fight fire with fire approach to be sure, but there is so much hatred and venom spewed from so many quarters around here toward anything conservative that anything less merely gets lost in the din.
And now that the sun is rising, I must finally call it a night. Thanks for the discussion.
I can respect that. I don’t agree with it of course, but I can respect both why you would feel that way and your right to do so. It’s only when people who feel as you do couch their sentiments in unabashed rightie-hate that I take offense.
Waterboarding isn’t the only method I’d like to see these guys experience. Kneeling on concrete for a few hours would do. Also standing on concrete for prolonged periods, sleep deprivation, being attacked with dogs, etc.
Everyone thinks kneeling on concrete is no big deal. Do it. No fidgeting.
Oh, bite me! The dipshits (excepting Scylla, of course) getting waterboarded on youtube have all done it voluntarily. I never suggested we should drag that bastard down to Gitmo and have the CIA waterboard him until he confesses where he hid all the incriminating evidence of his pact with Satan.
I simply said I would enjoy watching it…given the long shot that Cheney had the balls to volunteer himself for it.
Well, hell, if it’s good enough for Cheney, then it’s good enough for Cheney.
Damnit, on preview, **Onomalotsofvowels **beat me to it. Rawr!
Sorry, this simply doesn’t wash. You openly invite equivalence by saying
But the citation you use is the sex/misogyny one. Hence the expectation is that unless we get equally up in arms about philandering and/or alleged harrassment as we do about torture and murder (since some of these detainees were tortured to death) then it’'s
It’s also very sweet that you can assume such a hand-wringing posture about the bad ol’ hypocritical liberals who approve water-boarding, when, from the context of the thread, it should be abundantly clear that none of the people talking about waterboarding Cheney actually want it. That you would seriously think so is more reflective of your kneejerk projection of how we must all simply be anti-rightie, double-standard-loving hypocrites.
This thread is about a conservative waterboarding himself and seeing firsthand how truly torturous, even under the most friendly and benign of conditions, such a procedure is. Given that most pro-torture conservatives assert that water-boarding isn’t that bad, not really a big deal, etc., you can’t wonder why more of them aren’t willing to subject themselves to it just to prove what a bunch of panty-wastes we tree-hugging Al-Qaida enablers are. But they don’t, even as they continue to assert their authoritative expertise on what such a procedure is “really” like.
We don’t want them waterboarded–we just want them to see the light. And if it takes a few more self-inflicted, wholly voluntary incidents like this to convert them, I have no objection. Of course, it would be easier if they were simply intellectually and morally honest with themselves, but sometimes, if someone continues to espouse the moral highground of a shit sandwich, you want them to put up or shut up and chow the thing down.
But of course, I don’t really think you really, honestly believe that the people here truly, honestly want Cheney waterboarded, as truly detestable an excuse for a human being and political leader he is. I think you just get your rocks off pointing out the “double standard” on display. It’s a classic conservative ploy of squeaky wheel distraction (just look at all the attention Pelosi is getting right now, as marginally complicit she might actually be). It’s sooooo much easier to complain about how it’s all partisan sniping and everybody-does-it hair splitting than to actually deal with the moral gravity of what’s at stake here. That you fixate on the motes in our eyes is hardly surprising (it’s practically SOP for you), but please don’t act like you’re getting the vapors for such shocking behavior you see here. I don’t buy it for a second.
I would like to see Rumsfield go through some of it. He just waved the actions of the torturers away. He claimed standing was not torture because he stood for hours in his office. He is getting away free and was a big actor in the torturing.
I’m with you. I don’t want to see anyone waterboarded, tortured, hurt, or killed, especially if their only crime is not agreeing with me. There are a few posters in this thread that have disappointed me over this, and I sincerely hope it was getting caught up in the moment that made them say it.
…Even though that’s still not carte blanche to say those things.
Well, the thing is, for the most part Democrats have been saying that torture is bad, we shouldn’t do it. Unlike certain (not all) Republicans, who have been saying waterboarding isn’t torture, and even if it is, it’s not that bad, and the ends justify the means.
If the majority of Democrats/liberals in power were in favor of waterboarding, and then someone wrote in saying that they’d like to see those Dems waterboarded, then that would be a fair equivalent.
I guess this has turned into a not-so-humorous debate.
Moving thread from IMHO back to Great Debates, with a reminder to posters to tone it down with the Pit-worthy postings.
The question being, are they liars or irrational ? They have to be one or the other, since their position than waterboarding is no big deal, yet necessary to find out Vital Intelligence simply makes no sense. If waterboarding is no big deal, then how could it possibly break the resistance of religious fanatics ? But if it CAN break such people, how can it be anything other than intensely traumatic ?
My guess is, most of them are liars or they would do the obvious like Mancow did. Mancow on the other hand I’d put in the irrational category since he missed the obvious so completely as to subject himself to a torture technique.
I suspect that his sordid past and Howard Stern-like antics (think strippers, porn stars and other kinky hijinks), which his conservative fans have been tolerating for years as simple “boys will boys”-type behavior, will now become sufficient reason to denounce him.
