Prior to 1950 we had Harding, Coolidge, Hoover and then a Conservative Coalition that controlled Congress for over a decade.
Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover especially were not conservative in the classical sense, and more importantly in the American context, did not consider themselves to be conservatives. Eisenhower was the first American president to label himself a conservative, and succeeding him, Reagan, Bush&Bush. This hardly meant a thing; since an American conservative is, in the context of American political history, something of an oxymoron.
I had thought that you were talking about a shift in ideology and not in definitions.
On May 26 2009 16:36 SingletonWilliam wrote: Most credible republicans only laugh at Ann Coulter. But there aren't that many credible republicans anymore so >.<
I like Ann Coulter because she exists solely to antagonize the left, and it's the same with Michael Savage. Sometimes, though, it's difficult to identify the line they've drawn between satire and genuine insanity. Even in those cases they're pretty funny because you're thinking "oh you guys :3" You really have to take what those two say with several grains of salt.
Of course, there is a difference between those who appreciate the outlandish attitude of Ann Coulter and those who are in lock-step with some of the more extremist points of view she presents. I don't believe many liberals are capable of distinguishing the two.
EDIT: CIP: Yesterday I was driving back up from Big Basin and was listening to an encore broadcast of Savage on the radio, and he was convinced that the Swine Flu was a terrorist attack perpetrated by groups who knew the Obama DHS wouldn't close the borders because they're too afraid of offending Mexico. Nobody could seriously be thinking that that is rational, and if they do, they're probably a nut.
Oooo I see, Ann Coulter isn't just an idiot, she's weaving a saavy social commentary by lowering the level of political discourse to rock bottom and then starting to dig. Are you sure you understand what satire is? Satire means you are attacking something that you disapprove by being sarcastic or overly ridiculous. What about Coulter fits that exactly? Over the top, yes. Are you saying that she is satirizing extreme right-wing Republicans? Somehow I don't think you would like her if that was the case. Because that's what Colbert does, and it's pretty clear to most people what he's doing.
So I don't understand why rational Republicans would ever listen to her. For entertainment value? If she's satirizing anybody, it's YOU. Because she exists "solely to antagonize the left"? Ok, wouldn't it be better to listen to someone who can argue your points in a rational and respectable way? So it's fun to get "liberals" (and I use this term loosely because I don't think most democracies would call Democrats liberals) riled up? That's just shameless mudslinging and, again, dragging the level of discourse down to pathetic levels.
How is that a reflection on me? She's over the top just to get people's goats. I gave you a prime idea of how Michael Savage does the same thing. It's basically "shock jocking" but on a political stage. I don't see where you're drawing the line between my belief that she is amusing and taking what she says literally. I think you're coming up with some pretty baseless accusations, frankly. When I hear Ann Coulter say "we should convert them to Christianity" I'm not saying "yeeeah lits set fahr ta them tahwelheads", I'm saying "that's Ann Coulter!" The fact that you're not seeing the distinction is more than a little unsettling.
On May 26 2009 16:36 SingletonWilliam wrote: Most credible republicans only laugh at Ann Coulter. But there aren't that many credible republicans anymore so >.<
I like Ann Coulter because she exists solely to antagonize the left, and it's the same with Michael Savage. Sometimes, though, it's difficult to identify the line they've drawn between satire and genuine insanity. Even in those cases they're pretty funny because you're thinking "oh you guys :3" You really have to take what those two say with several grains of salt.
Of course, there is a difference between those who appreciate the outlandish attitude of Ann Coulter and those who are in lock-step with some of the more extremist points of view she presents. I don't believe many liberals are capable of distinguishing the two.
EDIT: CIP: Yesterday I was driving back up from Big Basin and was listening to an encore broadcast of Savage on the radio, and he was convinced that the Swine Flu was a terrorist attack perpetrated by groups who knew the Obama DHS wouldn't close the borders because they're too afraid of offending Mexico. Nobody could seriously be thinking that that is rational, and if they do, they're probably a nut.
Oooo I see, Ann Coulter isn't just an idiot, she's weaving a saavy social commentary by lowering the level of political discourse to rock bottom and then starting to dig. Are you sure you understand what satire is? Satire means you are attacking something that you disapprove by being sarcastic or overly ridiculous. What about Coulter fits that exactly? Over the top, yes. Are you saying that she is satirizing extreme right-wing Republicans? Somehow I don't think you would like her if that was the case. Because that's what Colbert does, and it's pretty clear to most people what he's doing.
So I don't understand why rational Republicans would ever listen to her. For entertainment value? If she's satirizing anybody, it's YOU. Because she exists "solely to antagonize the left"? Ok, wouldn't it be better to listen to someone who can argue your points in a rational and respectable way? So it's fun to get "liberals" (and I use this term loosely because I don't think most democracies would call Democrats liberals) riled up? That's just shameless mudslinging and, again, dragging the level of discourse down to pathetic levels.
How is that a reflection on me? She's over the top just to get people's goats. I gave you a prime idea of how Michael Savage does the same thing. It's basically "shock jocking" but on a political stage. I don't see where you're drawing the line between my belief that she is amusing and taking what she says literally. I think you're coming up with some pretty baseless accusations, frankly. When I hear Ann Coulter say "we should convert them to Christianity" I'm not saying "yeeeah lits set fahr ta them tahwelheads", I'm saying "that's Ann Coulter!" The fact that you're not seeing the distinction is more than a little unsettling.
The problem is not that there are conservative windbags spewing ridiculous opinions on the air. You get that from both sides. The problem is that these fuckingmorons are seriously considered by many to be "leaders of the Republican party".
On May 24 2009 23:30 Physician wrote: - anyone one that swallows euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" and still does not understand what torture is or is not, is plainly speaking: retarded, i.e. as in low I.Q. etc.. (which can not be corrected).
- anyone that understands that it is torture but still advocates torture under "special" circumstances as justified simply reveal their ignorance on the issue (i.e. about the effectiveness and counter productive consequences of torture) and their backward values; they seem to be oblivious to the legal, ramifications, both at home and international; they seem to be oblivious to the detrimental consequences the use and legalization of torture.
- they will deny it adamantly but the sad part is that some of the torture "advocates" in this thread, a few years ago would probably have had the opposite opinion but now spew out what they are fed by their leaders and what the "TV" tells them to think: it is "not torture", it was just "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" In other words they have weak minds, as in easily fooled, poor convictions etc.. I find it ironic to see many "religious" or "moral" people or self proclaimed "American constitutionalists" supporting torture; they only reveal their absolute ignorance about their own beliefs and how easy it is to manipulate them..
- on a personal level anyone that advocates torture and understand what it is, is a douche i.e. a person I rather keep away from because they will probably be sort that would be doing the torturing if they ever got the chance.
- simply speaking, if you support torture under any circumstance, your either a douche, ignorant or an imbecile. Take your pick.
You put everything in categories with every category having its own outcome. You could make a nice flowchart of it for people to follow and see if they are a douche or not. Unfortunately I don’t think life is that simple. There is a whole spectrum of situations between two extremes to consider. On one side of the spectrum we have a cute innocent little girl eating a lollypop, who people in their right mind obviously wouldn’t torture. On the other extreme end of the spectrum we have this highly unlikely and terrible scenario: Some terrorists have kidnapped your family and loved ones and threaten to kill them in a horrible way this time tomorrow. You managed to capture one of these terrorists and there is 100% certainty that he’s involved. Would you have this man tortured to give up the location of your family?
I personally would understand why someone answers “yes” to this last question and wouldn’t call them “a douche, ignorant or an imbecile”.
I think it’s best for the society for torture to be illegal, but that doesn’t make me pro or against torture. Personally I believe the majority of people can think of a worst case scenario in their minds were they think it would be acceptable to torture. It all depends on the situation in the spectrum.
If somebody kidnapped somebody i love, i would torture them to get the truth, then after i get the truth i would slit their throats open of every single kidnapper i find.
Does that make revenge murder ok? NO, because we are individuals controlled by emotions, thats why we have jails, and an impartial and civilized system to deliver punishment.
The system or government cannot conduct itself as an emotional entity, its ridiculous and dangerous, it must always remain civilized.
That is why I said that it's best for the society for torture to be illegal. You perfectly explained WHY it should be like that. I was just arguing the point of Physician saying you're a douche etc. if you support torture under ANY circumstance. To make my example more government related: A terrorist plans to detonate a nuclear bomb in a couple of hours. The government have tried everything they could, but couldn't get the information to stop the bomb. In this case I would say torture the guy, even if there is a small chance of getting the information.
On May 24 2009 23:30 Physician wrote: - anyone one that swallows euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" and still does not understand what torture is or is not, is plainly speaking: retarded, i.e. as in low I.Q. etc.. (which can not be corrected).
- anyone that understands that it is torture but still advocates torture under "special" circumstances as justified simply reveal their ignorance on the issue (i.e. about the effectiveness and counter productive consequences of torture) and their backward values; they seem to be oblivious to the legal, ramifications, both at home and international; they seem to be oblivious to the detrimental consequences the use and legalization of torture.
- they will deny it adamantly but the sad part is that some of the torture "advocates" in this thread, a few years ago would probably have had the opposite opinion but now spew out what they are fed by their leaders and what the "TV" tells them to think: it is "not torture", it was just "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" In other words they have weak minds, as in easily fooled, poor convictions etc.. I find it ironic to see many "religious" or "moral" people or self proclaimed "American constitutionalists" supporting torture; they only reveal their absolute ignorance about their own beliefs and how easy it is to manipulate them..
- on a personal level anyone that advocates torture and understand what it is, is a douche i.e. a person I rather keep away from because they will probably be sort that would be doing the torturing if they ever got the chance.
- simply speaking, if you support torture under any circumstance, your either a douche, ignorant or an imbecile. Take your pick.
You put everything in categories with every category having its own outcome. You could make a nice flowchart of it for people to follow and see if they are a douche or not. Unfortunately I don’t think life is that simple. There is a whole spectrum of situations between two extremes to consider. On one side of the spectrum we have a cute innocent little girl eating a lollypop, who people in their right mind obviously wouldn’t torture. On the other extreme end of the spectrum we have this highly unlikely and terrible scenario: Some terrorists have kidnapped your family and loved ones and threaten to kill them in a horrible way this time tomorrow. You managed to capture one of these terrorists and there is 100% certainty that he’s involved. Would you have this man tortured to give up the location of your family?
I personally would understand why someone answers “yes” to this last question and wouldn’t call them “a douche, ignorant or an imbecile”.
I think it’s best for the society for torture to be illegal, but that doesn’t make me pro or against torture. Personally I believe the majority of people can think of a worst case scenario in their minds were they think it would be acceptable to torture. It all depends on the situation in the spectrum.
If somebody kidnapped somebody i love, i would torture them to get the truth, then after i get the truth i would slit their throats open of every single kidnapper i find.
Does that make revenge murder ok? NO, because we are individuals controlled by emotions, thats why we have jails, and an impartial and civilized system to deliver punishment.
The system or government cannot conduct itself as an emotional entity, its ridiculous and dangerous, it must always remain civilized.
That is why I said that it's best for the society for torture to be illegal. You perfectly explained WHY it should be like that. I was just arguing the point of Physician saying you're a douche etc. if you support torture under ANY circumstance. To make my example more government related: A terrorist plans to detonate a nuclear bomb in a couple of hours. The government have tried everything they could, but couldn't get the information to stop the bomb. In this case I would say torture the guy, even if there is a small chance of getting the information.
You can't just jump to a conclusion from a fictional never occurring scenario and apply it to reality.
On May 24 2009 23:30 Physician wrote: - anyone one that swallows euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" and still does not understand what torture is or is not, is plainly speaking: retarded, i.e. as in low I.Q. etc.. (which can not be corrected).
- anyone that understands that it is torture but still advocates torture under "special" circumstances as justified simply reveal their ignorance on the issue (i.e. about the effectiveness and counter productive consequences of torture) and their backward values; they seem to be oblivious to the legal, ramifications, both at home and international; they seem to be oblivious to the detrimental consequences the use and legalization of torture.
- they will deny it adamantly but the sad part is that some of the torture "advocates" in this thread, a few years ago would probably have had the opposite opinion but now spew out what they are fed by their leaders and what the "TV" tells them to think: it is "not torture", it was just "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" In other words they have weak minds, as in easily fooled, poor convictions etc.. I find it ironic to see many "religious" or "moral" people or self proclaimed "American constitutionalists" supporting torture; they only reveal their absolute ignorance about their own beliefs and how easy it is to manipulate them..
- on a personal level anyone that advocates torture and understand what it is, is a douche i.e. a person I rather keep away from because they will probably be sort that would be doing the torturing if they ever got the chance.
- simply speaking, if you support torture under any circumstance, your either a douche, ignorant or an imbecile. Take your pick.
You put everything in categories with every category having its own outcome. You could make a nice flowchart of it for people to follow and see if they are a douche or not. Unfortunately I don’t think life is that simple. There is a whole spectrum of situations between two extremes to consider. On one side of the spectrum we have a cute innocent little girl eating a lollypop, who people in their right mind obviously wouldn’t torture. On the other extreme end of the spectrum we have this highly unlikely and terrible scenario: Some terrorists have kidnapped your family and loved ones and threaten to kill them in a horrible way this time tomorrow. You managed to capture one of these terrorists and there is 100% certainty that he’s involved. Would you have this man tortured to give up the location of your family?
I personally would understand why someone answers “yes” to this last question and wouldn’t call them “a douche, ignorant or an imbecile”.
I think it’s best for the society for torture to be illegal, but that doesn’t make me pro or against torture. Personally I believe the majority of people can think of a worst case scenario in their minds were they think it would be acceptable to torture. It all depends on the situation in the spectrum.
If somebody kidnapped somebody i love, i would torture them to get the truth, then after i get the truth i would slit their throats open of every single kidnapper i find.
Does that make revenge murder ok? NO, because we are individuals controlled by emotions, thats why we have jails, and an impartial and civilized system to deliver punishment.
The system or government cannot conduct itself as an emotional entity, its ridiculous and dangerous, it must always remain civilized.
That is why I said that it's best for the society for torture to be illegal. You perfectly explained WHY it should be like that. I was just arguing the point of Physician saying you're a douche etc. if you support torture under ANY circumstance. To make my example more government related: A terrorist plans to detonate a nuclear bomb in a couple of hours. The government have tried everything they could, but couldn't get the information to stop the bomb. In this case I would say torture the guy, even if there is a small chance of getting the information.
You can't just jump to a conclusion from a fictional never occurring scenario and apply it to reality.
Every philosophy class I've taken has said otherwise. In fact, that's what most moral principles are based on. The most outrageous situations you could think of, and then stepping backwards less and less extreme and seeing if there is some "line," etc. to distinguish what is moral and what is not.
And what he referred to is the "ticking time bomb dilemma"
On May 24 2009 23:30 Physician wrote: - anyone one that swallows euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" and still does not understand what torture is or is not, is plainly speaking: retarded, i.e. as in low I.Q. etc.. (which can not be corrected).
- anyone that understands that it is torture but still advocates torture under "special" circumstances as justified simply reveal their ignorance on the issue (i.e. about the effectiveness and counter productive consequences of torture) and their backward values; they seem to be oblivious to the legal, ramifications, both at home and international; they seem to be oblivious to the detrimental consequences the use and legalization of torture.
- they will deny it adamantly but the sad part is that some of the torture "advocates" in this thread, a few years ago would probably have had the opposite opinion but now spew out what they are fed by their leaders and what the "TV" tells them to think: it is "not torture", it was just "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" In other words they have weak minds, as in easily fooled, poor convictions etc.. I find it ironic to see many "religious" or "moral" people or self proclaimed "American constitutionalists" supporting torture; they only reveal their absolute ignorance about their own beliefs and how easy it is to manipulate them..
- on a personal level anyone that advocates torture and understand what it is, is a douche i.e. a person I rather keep away from because they will probably be sort that would be doing the torturing if they ever got the chance.
- simply speaking, if you support torture under any circumstance, your either a douche, ignorant or an imbecile. Take your pick.
You put everything in categories with every category having its own outcome. You could make a nice flowchart of it for people to follow and see if they are a douche or not. Unfortunately I don’t think life is that simple. There is a whole spectrum of situations between two extremes to consider. On one side of the spectrum we have a cute innocent little girl eating a lollypop, who people in their right mind obviously wouldn’t torture. On the other extreme end of the spectrum we have this highly unlikely and terrible scenario: Some terrorists have kidnapped your family and loved ones and threaten to kill them in a horrible way this time tomorrow. You managed to capture one of these terrorists and there is 100% certainty that he’s involved. Would you have this man tortured to give up the location of your family?
I personally would understand why someone answers “yes” to this last question and wouldn’t call them “a douche, ignorant or an imbecile”.
I think it’s best for the society for torture to be illegal, but that doesn’t make me pro or against torture. Personally I believe the majority of people can think of a worst case scenario in their minds were they think it would be acceptable to torture. It all depends on the situation in the spectrum.
If somebody kidnapped somebody i love, i would torture them to get the truth, then after i get the truth i would slit their throats open of every single kidnapper i find.
Does that make revenge murder ok? NO, because we are individuals controlled by emotions, thats why we have jails, and an impartial and civilized system to deliver punishment.
The system or government cannot conduct itself as an emotional entity, its ridiculous and dangerous, it must always remain civilized.
That is why I said that it's best for the society for torture to be illegal. You perfectly explained WHY it should be like that. I was just arguing the point of Physician saying you're a douche etc. if you support torture under ANY circumstance. To make my example more government related: A terrorist plans to detonate a nuclear bomb in a couple of hours. The government have tried everything they could, but couldn't get the information to stop the bomb. In this case I would say torture the guy, even if there is a small chance of getting the information.
You can't just jump to a conclusion from a fictional never occurring scenario and apply it to reality.
This, when a nuclear bomb is about to detonate we can have a thead about it, but there is no nuclear bomb, so stop watching 24 and have a reasonable discussion without making dumb examples
for the second time, his policies relating to the war on terror are conservative and he is absolutely a hawk. agreed, he is not a conservative in other areas. should the title of the thread have been 'conservative waterboarded also hitchens who is a total hawk but not conservative in other areas - voluntarily'?
no. you're retarded (boo hiss). he has said he and the neocons have the same foreign policy goals. who the fuck are you? we're 18 pages in and this is the best you can contribute? read the thread before calling me names or shut up.
What's all the fuss about waterboarding anyway? Wasn't it only used on three detainees, who very bad people i.e. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to extract critical information; Immediately after 9/11?
On May 28 2009 21:09 choboPEon wrote: for the second time, his policies relating to the war on terror are conservative and he is absolutely a hawk. agreed, he is not a conservative in other areas. should the title of the thread have been 'conservative waterboarded also hitchens who is a total hawk but not conservative in other areas - voluntarily'?
no. you're retarded (boo hiss). he has said he and the neocons have the same foreign policy goals. who the fuck are you? we're 18 pages in and this is the best you can contribute? read the thread before calling me names or shut up.
Hitchens says he's not a conservative of any type:
Hitchens is a vociferous supporter of human rights and most of his views on foreign policy stem from that. While he does agree with neoconservatives on some policy issues, his views on foreign policy are shaped by his intense support for human rights and opposition to autocracy and oppression. Regional power and potential economic gain aren't very important for him. Does this sound like a neoconservative's views on foreign policy?
Equating hawkish stances and conservatism is just plain wrong.
On May 26 2009 16:36 SingletonWilliam wrote: Most credible republicans only laugh at Ann Coulter. But there aren't that many credible republicans anymore so >.<
I like Ann Coulter because she exists solely to antagonize the left, and it's the same with Michael Savage. Sometimes, though, it's difficult to identify the line they've drawn between satire and genuine insanity. Even in those cases they're pretty funny because you're thinking "oh you guys :3" You really have to take what those two say with several grains of salt.
Of course, there is a difference between those who appreciate the outlandish attitude of Ann Coulter and those who are in lock-step with some of the more extremist points of view she presents. I don't believe many liberals are capable of distinguishing the two.
EDIT: CIP: Yesterday I was driving back up from Big Basin and was listening to an encore broadcast of Savage on the radio, and he was convinced that the Swine Flu was a terrorist attack perpetrated by groups who knew the Obama DHS wouldn't close the borders because they're too afraid of offending Mexico. Nobody could seriously be thinking that that is rational, and if they do, they're probably a nut.
Oooo I see, Ann Coulter isn't just an idiot, she's weaving a saavy social commentary by lowering the level of political discourse to rock bottom and then starting to dig. Are you sure you understand what satire is? Satire means you are attacking something that you disapprove by being sarcastic or overly ridiculous. What about Coulter fits that exactly? Over the top, yes. Are you saying that she is satirizing extreme right-wing Republicans? Somehow I don't think you would like her if that was the case. Because that's what Colbert does, and it's pretty clear to most people what he's doing.
So I don't understand why rational Republicans would ever listen to her. For entertainment value? If she's satirizing anybody, it's YOU. Because she exists "solely to antagonize the left"? Ok, wouldn't it be better to listen to someone who can argue your points in a rational and respectable way? So it's fun to get "liberals" (and I use this term loosely because I don't think most democracies would call Democrats liberals) riled up? That's just shameless mudslinging and, again, dragging the level of discourse down to pathetic levels.
How is that a reflection on me? She's over the top just to get people's goats. I gave you a prime idea of how Michael Savage does the same thing. It's basically "shock jocking" but on a political stage. I don't see where you're drawing the line between my belief that she is amusing and taking what she says literally. I think you're coming up with some pretty baseless accusations, frankly. When I hear Ann Coulter say "we should convert them to Christianity" I'm not saying "yeeeah lits set fahr ta them tahwelheads", I'm saying "that's Ann Coulter!" The fact that you're not seeing the distinction is more than a little unsettling.
I remember when she wrote about how we should attack France there were a lot of people thought she meant it. I mean yeah, she was serious about the reasons she gave for disliking them, but not the military attack. And yet you'd get people saying "of course she meant it! She seems so serious!" and totally not being able to distinguish what was said sincerely and what was exagerration to make a point. It was a really good troll. But I think I'd agree if someone were to say that politics is not the best place for a troll. Fortunately she isn't a politician.
Ann Coulter is a real life troll in a traditionally serious field of discussion. The responses in this thread to her show that people have issues distinguishing what she says and what she meant. Don't take her literally, don't take her seriously, just listen and think about what she just said.
I am no means a AC supporter, I actually despise her, but I have had the opportunity to hear her speak in person and she isn't what most people think she is.
On May 30 2009 01:25 Warrior Madness wrote: What's all the fuss about waterboarding anyway? Wasn't it only used on three detainees, who very bad people i.e. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to extract critical information; Immediately after 9/11?
YAAAAHHH What so wrong with just alil torture? Like if we promise to only torture people if they really deserve it.
You dont torture. Period. Not if there is a war. Not if there is a nuke in new york city. Not after a nuke has gone off in new york city. You dont torture.
EPT
