Bullshit. Have you been living in a cave? On Mars? There are plenty of people who support torture. Haven’t you been reading the torture threads here on this very message board?
There are lots of people who flat out support torture. And then there are those like yourself who try to pretend that while torture is bad, what we did to our prisoners wasn’t torture. Which is fucking bullshit too.
These torture techniques were LITERALLY copied straight from Joseph Stalin’s Big Book of Torture Techniques. These were the torture techniques that our soldiers were trained to expect from the fucking communists in Korea and Vietnam, and the Koreans and Vietnamese copied them straight from the Soviet Gulags. Read your fucking Solzenitzen. Anyone who claims that we didn’t torture is a fucking moron.
And fuck you again for trying to drag Nancy Pelosi back into the conversation. Nancy Pelosi is not the issue here. It doesn’t matter whether Nancy Pelosi signed off on torture, it’s still torture.
Ten years from now we’re going to look back on this period, and divide everyone into two groups. Those that supported torture, and those that didn’t. And the ones who supported torture will be consigned to the ash-heap of history. Just like the people who supported slavery and segregation. You’re going to stand on one side or another, and if you stand on the side of torture you’re going to have to live with the knowledge that you’re the kind of guy who supports torture.
Fucking hell. When the fuck did it become controversial to oppose fucking torture? What the fuck is wrong with you people?
Lemur, if you are so committed to opposing torture on principle, why are you so eager to change the subject when a Democratic name comes up in connection with the subject?
Someone really interested in finding out “who knew and when did they know it” would be just as interested if the path takes a sudden turn to the left. Whereas, someone interested more in a stick to beat the Republicans over the head might react with a sudden decline of interest. Very much as we see on these boards.
I look forward - in a way - when a memo surfaces, signed by Obama, authorizing waterboarding of some creep or other. If for no other reason than to see the rationalizations.
If a prosecuting attorney commits a misdemeanor, we don’t appoint a bank robber he recently convicted to prosecute him. Only an uninvolved third party is qualified.
Republicans have been far, far more hypocritical than Democrats, and yet they refuse to accept criticism or express contrition. They dwell upon the splinter in their neighbor’s while ignoring the plank in their own.
If you weren’t much of a Bush supporter then you’ve got some credibility, but otherwise, to criticize the Dems for hypocrisy is meta-hyporcisy.
You think I’m eager to change the subject just because Nancy Fucking Pelosi might have known about it?
The thing is, Nancy Pelosi didn’t order the torture, she didn’t carry out the torture. If she knew about the torture and didn’t say anything, that makes her the same as probably thousands of other people in the Bush administration.
The only reason you care about Nancy Pelosi is because she has a D after her name. That’s it. I don’t care about Nancy Pelosi because I’d rather go after the people who actually, you know, ordered the torture. The people in the executive branch, who are supposed to follow the law, not torture people.
And if you’re looking forward to a memo with Obama’s name on it authorizing torture, well, that’s great. Really great. Now how about instead of fantasizing about how great it would be if your political opponents authorized torture, why don’t we focus on the actual torture that was actually authorized by the actual Bush administration?
Nancy Pelosi is a smokescreen. All it does is explain why there isn’t much enthusiasm on capitol hill for deeper investigations into Bush administration wrongdoing. But it doesn’t clear the criminals who ordered torture.
Does your church support torture? Does Jesus support torture? Or does Jesus only support torture if Republicans order it, but hates torture if Democrats knew about it?
Actually a lot of lefties are bitching about inconsistencies. We wanted more from Obama but political realities are making are making him fudge a bit. I hear the lefties here saying that.
The repubs tried to find a way to pretend Bush’s actions were fine ,no matter how stupid and bad they were. They just gave excuses over and over.
If they were actually paying attention, they would see the difference. The Lefties are not giving Obama a free ride.
WTF is going on? The OP is pitting shit-for-brains who clutter GD up with inane bullshit. Do those same Cindy Bradies come in and address the OP? No, they engage in more of the same shit.
You want to disagree with the OP, fine. Go read Bricker’s post, take notes, and attempt to follow suit. You want to miss the bus so badly Greyhound goes out of business? Fine, make more petty accusations of hypocrisy in the same thread that is pitting petty accusations of hypocrisy.
No, the OP is saying, “Look, I know we reemed you right up the butt for the last 8 years for every mistake Bush made, but now a Democrat is in office, and we like him, and it’s ok if he makes the same mistakes, see, because he’s a Democrat. And we like him. So lay off, ok? Big bullies. Gosh.”
<checks OP again to make sure I’m not crazy>
Yeah, that’s pretty much exactly what it says. What the fuck OP did you read?
… to be the body of the OP. I took the I’m an Obama Supporter and I’m a Hypocrite ([all]Hi MaxTheVool![/all]) as preamble and acknowledgment that there are variances in benefit of the doubt and inconsistencies within anyone’s views. But, to me, the subjects of the pitting were people who post “hey others with opposing viewpoint, your viewpoint is invalid because you a) didn’t post OUTRAGE over something that conflicts with your view, or b) you’re not as upset when your guy does the same thing our guy does.”
I took the OP as saying this is silly and misses the larger opportunity to explore the underlying issues (i.e., the nuances and subtleties of the views themselves) to instead engage is meaningless Limbaughesque mincing about side issues and generalizations – putting more emphasis on Gotcha Ya rather than what’s actually happening.
It’s crap that the torture defenders are only interested in “ur a hypocrite” rather than either:
Claim that what we did wasn’t torture.
Claim that it was torture, but torture is good.
Claim that it was torture, and torture is wrong.
They aren’t even interested in saying whether they think the torture photos should be released or not. No, they carefully avoid mentioning their position on the issue. The only thing they’re interested in complaining about other people’s position on the torture photos. They only care about Nancy Pelosi’s stand on torture. They’re unwilling to take a stand themselves.
No, because of every mistake Bush made. And all the bullying that accompanied it. They may have been reamed up the butt, but I don’t recall hearing them squeal like a pig.
Republicans need to admit to wrongdoing and apologize. Instead, they’re like a cartoon villain who, after being run out of down, immediately comes back wearing a ridiculous disguise and is the first in line to harangue the good guy for not living up the most impeccable standards.
No, but there were people who said non-traitors should just shut up and accept the decisions of the Deciderer Guy. Because the President is the President, and questioning him while he’s pursuing a war (that won’t end, imagine) is the equivalent of wiring your life savings to Osama.
Yes it is about torture. It’s about whether torture is worse than hypocrisy. Y’all don’t wanna talk about torture, you’d rather talk about what hypocrites certain people are.
This has been the standard MO for right-wingers for the last few years. Rather than admit the administration screwed up even when it incontrovertibly did, they nitpicked others’ arguments, brought up tu quoques, and otherwise tried to keep the focus of the discussion on those acknowledging the wrongdoing rather than the wrongdoers themselves. The next best thing to clearing someone of wrongdoing is to shame the other side into not saying anything at all.
Mhmm, and who is “y’all”, again? If you’re including me in that, you’ve never even read, well, the post you’re responding to, much less anything else I’ve ever written here. Usually if a thread is about something, that word is mentioned in the original post. “Torture” doesn’t come up until the 13th post of this thread. Get a pair of fucking reading glasses.
The one thing that sticks out to me about this is that for a year and a half, I heard that Obama was this far, far, far, left socialist liberal; the most liberal Congressperson ever in the history of the entire world. Now, when Obama is governing from the middle and not doing everything the far left wants, those same people are basically saying “You liberals should really hate this guy. How could you vote for him?”
As far as I can tell, you are being serious and not sarcastic. Which surprises me, because you are so completely missing the point of my OP. So I’ll assume I phrased the OP poorly.
Let me try one more time: let’s suppose that Obama (gasp!) makes a mistake. You are absolutely encouraged to start a thread saying “Obama made a mistake”. In that thread, people will debate whether Obama made a mistake, how bad that mistake was, etc. On the other hand, you (not accusing Cisco of doing anything, just using the generic “you”) could start a thread like “I bet you liberals won’t think it’s a mistake NOW…” or “when BUSH did it, it was a mistake, but when OBAMA does it…”. There are several things (imho) wrong with doing so:
(1) it’s just plain snide
(2) it makes the presupposition that there are two situations which are so clearly equivalent that anyone holding different opinions about them must be doing so due to partisan hypocrisy. (Granted, it’s possibly that that’s the case, but two such utterly identical situations are very rare in real life, and it seems arrogant for you to just assert that that’s the case before the thread even starts.)
(3) it vastly reduces the likelihood of any actual interesting debating occurring, because everyone’s immediately going to clam up defensively behind party lines, since they’ve already been accused of hypocrisy. Basically it skips right over all the interesting parts of a discussion (which occasionally do happen around here) and pre-Godwinizes it, purely in the hopes of scoring partisan points.
(And by the way, there’s a pretty good example of this phenomenon going on in the other partisan direction right now, which I also pit, and which I hope you’ll never see me engaging in, which is a conservative poster criticizing Obama, and the response being “hey, back when Bush was in office, criticizing the president during wartime was treasonous. ur a hypocrite lol.”)
Hey. I’m too tired to go back and find the post I’m refuting, but y’all are smart enough to figure it out.
I’m a Republican conservative right-winger and I admit that Bush did a lot of things that were wrong. And furthermore, my like-minded friends have done the same. My friends that do not stand out like a sore thumb, and, frankly, are not the most intellectual.
The distinction being that no one on the SDMB has ever said that criticizing Bush was treasonous. Left-wingers have accused Dopers of saying it, but no one either centrist or conservative has actually said it.
