We have gotten off-topic (in the off topic board no less) with our discussion. I believe the OP is right. During the primaries Obama did say that Hillary was a return to politics as usual while he wanted to go in a new direction. How does that jive with what seems to be his current efforts to bring back as many Clinton administration people as possible?
Obama touted "Change we can believe in" yet as I see his choices for cabinet positions it looks like Clinton era part two.
If people wanted another Clinton administration, why didn't they just nominate Hillary?
|
Is that the same Republican congress that shut down the US government in 1995 over Gingrich's ego, then spent the last few years of the Clinton presidency ranting on about Lewinsky?
I do find it curious that there was never talk of a Democratic Congress to balance out the Republican presidency during Bush's terms. There was talk of establishing a permanent Republican majority though.
To be fair, the democrats really didnt come into power in the Congress until the 2006 elections and when they did they tried to balance/nerf Bush policies (ie wire tapping, economics, blah blah blah). The voters had enough and tried to balance the powers of government, but Bush kept saying he had rights under the Constitution that others didnt think he had and really nobody wanted to say anything after the 9/11 attacks...as they would have seems like traitors.
|
Is that the same Republican congress that shut down the US government in 1995 over Gingrich's ego, then spent the last few years of the Clinton presidency ranting on about Lewinsky?
I do find it curious that there was never talk of a Democratic Congress to balance out the Republican presidency during Bush's terms. There was talk of establishing a permanent Republican majority though.
He lied under oath.
But leave that part out, because it doesn't sound good.|
|
If people wanted another Clinton administration, why didn't they just nominate Hillary?We have gotten off-topic (in the off topic board no less) with our discussion. I believe the OP is right. During the primaries Obama did say that Hillary was a return to politics as usual while he wanted to go in a new direction. How does that jive with what seems to be his current efforts to bring back as many Clinton administration people as possible?
Obama touted "Change we can believe in" yet as I see his choices for cabinet positions it looks like Clinton era part two.
I voted for her in the primary. (heh heh...)
Nobody is perfect(apologies to Sebastian).
Of course I'm not perfect. "Perfect" is far too limited a term to describe my magnificence.
I'm totally with that ticket!
That's because you don't live in the country right now.
Added to that the fact that I am a Canadian.
At least I am living.
|
At least I am living.
If you want to call an existence in Canada "living".
|
|
Is that the same Republican congress that shut down the US government in 1995 over Gingrich's ego, then spent the last few years of the Clinton presidency ranting on about Lewinsky?
Actually the charges were perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power. Lewinsky was just part of the perjury charge. It was more the media that made it all about Monica and sex.
As for Obama picking former members of the Clinton Administration: as long as they're qaulified and capable, I've got no problem with it.
Really I dont either...BUT why have we becomed so focused on the party and not the qualifications?
If I was president, I'm not gonna pick Monte Cook to be secratary of state. I will pick the most qualified person. I would look at people in the State Dept in the last 15 yrs who had experience in situations like that. Most senators dont have qualifications like that...most are lawyers or career politicians.
I cant say with any certainty, that Obama said to Hil, "Hey ease up, drop out, and I will make you Sec of State, my lil democrat buddy." I am sure you get my point....
|
|
...BUT why have we becomed so focused on the party and not the qualifications?
In this case, at least for some folks, I don't think it's so much about party as it is the seeming disparity between Obama's promise of "Change you can believe in" and the hiring of many former Clintonians. Some see the two as mutually exclusive (for lack of a better term).
I cant say with any certainty, that Obama said to Hil, "Hey ease up, drop out, and I will make you Sec of State, my lil democrat buddy." I am sure you get my point....
That could be potentially dangerous legal ground.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Apologetically, there are some arguments that my party continues to give up on in the interest of looking like 'nonpartisans'.
nonpartisan isn't that important a word for me. While I want poeple looking for solutions, and I want people working together, a fundamental disagreement about the role of government is going to lead to some partisanship. I am not gonna give up ground on my belief that raising minimum wage is bad for the economy, especially for those it's 'designed' to help. So as a "partisan" I'm not going to support bills that raise minimum wage. It's not about taking sides with the Republicans, it's about opposing measures that are intended to bribe voters, while burdening small businesses and actually reducing the income of minimum wage earners.
torture is cutting someone's head off on the internet. Torture is a government that won't let women vote, but places them in rape rooms for state employees to abuse at their pleasure. Sleep deprivation is not torture, and terrorists are not American citizens. If you locked me in a room with someone I know is a terrorist, and I know there's a supply of equipment being used to blow up civilians and American soldiers, I am going to come out of that room with helpful information if I can. I would never condone bleeding or beating or such, but I don't feel a shred guilty about holding out on food or sleep or peace and quiet until our people are safe. And we should be so lucky if our enemies abroad held themselves to that same standard, which they often have not.
Bill Clinton was not a good president and didn't get stuff done. Where is his number 1 priority, healthcare? You might point to a (sort of) balanced budget, or welfare reform, or a strong economy. But I will quickly remind you that the Republican revolution had as its plank (the contract with america), improved budget handling (never got the votes for that amendment) and welfare reform. Healthcare never happened, and I'm grateful for that. And after 12 years of Reagan's economic policies, I should hope we could ride a strong economy for some time. I note that we entered a slight recession before Clinton's years were over, the result of higher taxes and domestic spending, and that the Bush tax cuts helped recover in pretty good time. Imagine if those cuts hadn't been aproved before 9/11. Instead, we saw the DOW break 12, 13, and 14 thousand. Of course....
Bush 43 wasn't that great a president either. While he was sharp on defense and tax cuts, he spent a lot of time trying to be 'nonpartisan' and his reward was vilification by the media, by his political opponents, and by corrupt members of other governments who lost millions when oil for food ended. Bill Clinton lied in court, and while looking America in the eye, and has a history of sexual harrassment that would get any other executive fired. All he got in the media was "It's the economy, stupid."
Wife is yelling at me to give up the talk, but the point here is, we Republicans are worried about America and it's direction. We're not circling the wagons because we have something at stake as GOP members. I don't pay dues and I don't remember any Republican meetings. I'm as upset with them as I am the opposition sometimes. The whole 'partisan' thing is concern for the country and the people in it, and the 'partisanship' of post-election Republicans pales in comparison to the vitriol of liberal celebrities, politicians and the media the last eight years.
Still, I blame liberal leaders, not liberals. I like a lot of you. Just rmeember my opinion has some reason and belief behind it. I'm not a Republican because it's popular among fellow hobby gamers.
|
torture is cutting someone's head off on the internet. Torture is a government that won't let women vote, but places them in rape rooms for state employees to abuse at their pleasure. Sleep deprivation is not torture, and terrorists are not American citizens. If you locked me in a room with someone I know is a terrorist, and I know there's a supply of equipment being used to blow up civilians and American soldiers, I am going to come out of that room with helpful information if I can. I would never condone bleeding or beating or such, but I don't feel a shred guilty about holding out on food or sleep or peace and quiet until our people are safe. And we should be so lucky if our enemies abroad held themselves to that same standard, which they often have not.
That definition of torture is not correct, and I must disagree with you on moral and rational grounds. There is no justification for hooking someone up to electrodes, or starving them, or simulating drowning simply to get a confession that is probably not true. Coerced interrogation has been proven unreliable time and time again. The Bush torture policy makes us less safe, as our law enforcement is busy torturing people, inciting mass hatred of the United States across the world, instead of actually looking for real terrorists. Speaking of which, terrorist is such a loose and loaded term. The War on Terror is unwinnable, as terrorism is a method, not an ideology or even group of people. This is America, where even non-citizens have rights. Human rights. I'm a fan of the Geneva Convention. Most of these "terrorists" have been granted no ability to prove their case, or to have their case disproved. It is simply assumed that they are guilty. After being forced to actually investigate the cases of these countless detainees, a large number of them have been found to simply be foreign people who found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time, and were subsequently imprisoned illegally for a few years. I would never sacrifice another person's unalienable human rights just for a false feeling of security, and I am saddened that many of our citizens are more than happy to do so.
/rant
|
|
Speaking of which, terrorist is such a loose and loaded term.
It is neither. It is a very specific term, with a very specific intent. It is merely abused for political ends.
The War on Terror is unwinnable, as terrorism is a method, not an ideology or even group of people.
Terrorism is very much an ideology, and several groups of people. While it is indeed impossible to ever expunge the ideological components that lead to terrorist acts, or make sure nobody ever adopts them again in the future, it is indeed possible to win a war against terrorists if you have the willpower.
This is America, where even non-citizens have rights. Human rights. I'm a fan of the Geneva Convention. Most of these "terrorists" have been granted no ability to prove their case, or to have their case disproved.
If you read the Geneva Conventions, there is no requirement for either to be done.
POWs can be held until the war is over, and "protected civilians" suspected of violence can be held without charge until such time as the security situation makes it safe to release them.The only requirements are that if they are charged, they may not be charged with anything that is not a crime for citizens or soliders of the power holding them, be punished more severely than citizens or soldiers of the power holding them for the same crime, and must be accorded the same rights in court as citizens or soliders of the power holding them.
As long as they are not charged there is nothing requiring them to be released after any period of time according to the Geneva Conventions.
I would never sacrifice another person's unalienable human rights . . .
As a technical point:
If you can in fact sacrifice those rights, whether you would or not, then they are not actually unalienable.While political theory and moral philosophy always look better when expressed as absolutes, never forget that it is only hyperbole.
** spoiler omitted **
Yah that was some serious badassery.
|
|
Terrorism is very much an ideology, and several groups of people. While it is indeed impossible to ever expunge the ideological components that lead to terrorist acts, or make sure nobody ever adopts them again in the future, it is indeed possible to win a war against terrorists if you have the willpower.
I have to disagree with you there. Terrorism is not an ideology, so to speak. There are many, many groups that use terrorism as a tactic, but terrorism itself is not an ideology or a unified front. Yes, many groups are associated with terrorism, particularly Al Qaeda and other Islamic fundamentalist organizations with violent tactics. But other groups have been labeled terrorist with no association whatsoever to these causes. Some claim the IRA used terrorist tactics during its heyday, organized crime groups rather obviously use terrorism, even organized governments use terrorism, especially in dictatorships.
My computer's dictionary defines terrorism as "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." Webster's online dictionary defines it as "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion." The Oxford English Dictionary (online) has a number of definitions. Their first, simple definition is "a system of terror". It has two other listed definitions, "Government by intimidation as directed and carried out by the party in power in France during the Revolution of 1789-94; the system of the ‘Terror’", and "A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized." Assuming that when we use the word terrorism today, we are not talking about Jacobins, terrorism, as defined in three separate sources, is not an ideology, but a method.
To win a war on a method is impossible. Fighting a "War on Terror" is as unwinnable as a "War on War" or a "War on Diplomacy". Terrorism has existed since humans have sought power over one another, and I doubt it will ever go away. In fact, fighting a "War" on terrorism is counterproductive, as concentrating efforts on eradicating it as a method only proves that the method is effective, thus spurring others to utilize it.
I will agree with you that it is possible to win a war on terrorists, however. Terrorists are a definable group of people. We can win a war on Al Qaeda, just as we can win a war on a nation. I concede the technical point on unalienable rights, that's a clear example of my love of hyperbole. :D I'll have to look over the Geneva Convention myself. Even if the convention does not stipulate the treatment I thought it did, I can't condone our treatment of prisoners.
|
|
I have to disagree with you there.
And you would be wrong.
"Propaganda of the deed (or propaganda by the deed, from the French propagande par le fait) is a concept that promotes physical violence against political enemies as a way of inspiring the masses and catalyzing revolution. It is based on the principles of anarchy and appeared towards the end of the 19th century."
Norman Spinrad described a similar concept in Agent of Chaos. He called it "the ultimate chaotic act - victory through suicide", giving your life to achieve a goal you could never see.
To win a war on a method is impossible.
To win a war on a method is quite possible. Indeed it is often easier than winning a conventional war, as ideological methods are self-limiting, and inevitably back themselves into corners they cannot escape from.
You may not be able to commit "memecide", but that is not required for victory in such a war.I'll have to look over the Geneva Convention myself. Even if the convention does not stipulate the treatment I thought it did, I can't condone our treatment of prisoners.
That it does not, and that is indeed a failure of the Bush administration. It remains that the Geneva Conventions are not as sweetness and light as many believe, and that despite attempts to "negotiate from the bench", they do indeed implicity suggest the existence of a class of unlawful combatants.
Sleep deprivation is not torture, and terrorists are not American citizens
Speaking as someone once forcibly kept awake for 96 hours by a bvery unpleasant individual, I can assure you it IS deeply unpleasant torture.
The morality of torturing people who are your enemies... well, I leave that to your conscience.
|
|
It takes so long for things to fully be realized by the actions of politicians.
(I feel) That a lot of the current mortgage "crisis" is a result of actions that were started way back during Carter. He enacted a policy such that if people were "approved" for a mortgage loan, then the financial institution HAD to give the person a loan -- even though it wasn't necessarily a good idea or even if there was evidence that it would cause them problems in the future. During the Clinton administration, more things were pushed through giving people more ways to get approved.
And this really helped out the economy. A lot. People were spending more money than ever.
And now, many years later, we are where we are.
So if we are bringing on a Clinton administrative staff who doesn't seem to consider the long term effects of their actions -- well it makes me nervous to say the least.
|
|
Text of the Geneva Convention. This is actually the Third Geneva Convention, but is the one most people are referring to when they say the Geneva Convention.
terrorists are not American citizens
However, some American citizens are terrorists.
It sickens me that we torture now. We have added another stain to the history of America that will never come clean. The best we can hope for is that we stop making it worse.
It sickens me that we torture now.
Does anyone seriously believe that similar tactics (and most often more brutal) haven't been used through out history?
Just to point out, torture can give truthful information, it is just that it is likely to give false information as well. Because the person being tortured will probably say anything to get it to stop, which could be telling the truth but if they have no truth to tell they will tell a lie.
(EDIT: Also I am not making any comment on the morality of torture, merely its effects. Torture is too broad of a catagory and too many different things from different people get tossed into it to say if everything that anyone could remotely consider "torture" is immoral.)
I have to disagree with you there. Terrorism is not an ideology, so to speak. There are many, many groups that use terrorism as a tactic, but terrorism itself is not an ideology or a unified front. Yes, many groups are associated with terrorism, particularly Al Qaeda and other Islamic fundamentalist organizations with violent tactics. But other groups have been labeled terrorist with no association whatsoever to these causes. Some claim the IRA used terrorist tactics during its heyday, organized crime groups rather obviously use terrorism, even organized governments use terrorism, especially in dictatorships.
Terrorism is both a method and an ideology. It's just that not every group that could be labeled as terrorist significantly adopts it as an ideology to promote as well as a method to rationally use. Whether or not it's a group's ideology really depends on whether or not the terrorist acts taken are to promote a specific agenda beyond the terrorism itself. For a lot of groups, you could argue that the distinction between ideology and methodology becomes blurred.
But I would agree that there's no real winning a war on terrorism. You win a fight against terrorists, but terrorism itself will inevitably remain as both ideology and methodology. And that's because it's both hotly emotional and coldly rational.
Does anyone seriously believe that similar tactics (and most often more brutal) haven't been used through out history?
Some of us are shooting for progess here. Historically accepted doesn't always matter when we're trying to do better.
Does anyone seriously believe that similar tactics (and most often more brutal) haven't been used through out history?
Does anyone believe that makes it ok?
Does anyone seriously believe that similar tactics (and most often more brutal) haven't been used through out history?Does anyone believe that makes it ok?
Well so far we have waterboarded three individuals. These three individuals have given us important information and we've been able to stop various terrorist attacks. It's saved us many innocent lives. I think it's been worth it. Besides, if waterboarding was torture, we wouldn't be doing it to our own troops.
I think it's been worth it. Besides, if waterboarding was torture, we wouldn't be doing it to our own troops.
Isn't that done to train them to resist it when it's done to them as torture?
Isn't that done to train them to resist it when it's done to them as torture?
I think it's been worth it. Besides, if waterboarding was torture, we wouldn't be doing it to our own troops.
We train them to resist all forms of interrogation. Are those torture as well? I've talked to people who have been waterboarded(including my own brother). Have you? Not one of them have thought it to be torture.
We train them to resist all forms of interrogation. Are those torture as well? I've talked to people who have been waterboarded(including my own brother). Have you? Not one of them have thought it to be torture.
I've talked to people who believe a lot of things, doesn't make them right.
I've talked to people who believe a lot of things, doesn't make them right.
We train them to resist all forms of interrogation. Are those torture as well? I've talked to people who have been waterboarded(including my own brother). Have you? Not one of them have thought it to be torture.
So, what you're basically saying is that the people I know who've been waterboarded and have experienced it are wrong and you and the democrats are right because you're more "enlightened". Thanks Bill for clearing that up for me.
We seem to be heading for a bad place again. Let's try not get this thread locked shall we?
You're right of course. My apologies to Bill. I shouldn't have gotten testy with you.
Does anyone seriously believe that similar tactics (and most often more brutal) haven't been used through out history?Does anyone believe that makes it ok?
Well my comment was in response to the statement that we are "now" torturing. The fact is we have always used some form of "enhanced interrogation techniques".
Again, whether some thing is "ok" depends on a lot of details. What are we exactly talking about. Under what assumptions do we decide if something is "ok" or not?
I hardly think anyone would consider taking away a child's cellphone is torture, but could the child potentially call it that? What is torture and is not is unfortunately so broad that it is hard to make any kind of moral judgement everything that could possibly labeled as such. Is sleep deprivation torture? Should many police departments that question people for many hours (to the point when they get exhausted) be punished for torturing? I don't know, do you?
|
|
I hardly think anyone would consider taking away a child's cellphone is torture, but could the child potentially call it that? What is torture and is not is unfortunately so broad that it is hard to make any kind of moral judgement everything that could possibly labeled as such. Is sleep deprivation torture? Should many police departments that question people for many hours (to the point when they get exhausted) be punished for torturing? I don't know, do you?
Spin, spin, spin!
I hardly think anyone would consider taking away a child's cellphone is torture, but could the child potentially call it that? What is torture and is not is unfortunately so broad that it is hard to make any kind of moral judgement everything that could possibly labeled as such. Is sleep deprivation torture? Should many police departments that question people for many hours (to the point when they get exhausted) be punished for torturing? I don't know, do you?Spin, spin, spin!
Theres a BIIIIIG difference between say 24 hours (tired), 48 hours (exhaused) and 72+ hours (Believe me, you're going nuts or having a nervous breakdown by then)...especially if they're playing a repeated set of music at you at full volume.
Theres a BIIIIIG difference between say 24 hours (tired), 48 hours (exhaused) and 72+ hours (Believe me, you're going nuts or having a nervous breakdown by then)...especially if they're playing a repeated set of music at you at full volume.I hardly think anyone would consider taking away a child's cellphone is torture, but could the child potentially call it that? What is torture and is not is unfortunately so broad that it is hard to make any kind of moral judgement everything that could possibly labeled as such. Is sleep deprivation torture? Should many police departments that question people for many hours (to the point when they get exhausted) be punished for torturing? I don't know, do you?Spin, spin, spin!
Sure, but what about 50 hours? 55? 62? Where exactly the line drawn? Is it different for each person? Could it be torture for someone after only 18 hours but not be for someone else after 80 hours? What if they had 2 hour "naps" in there? Does that change it?
Woah.
Did your brother voluntarily submit to being waterboarded? Then you are correct, he wasn't tortured, because he voluntarily chose to do it.
The people in US custody were not given a choice, that made it torture, it was done against their will.
Just to be clear, you are not suggesting that something is torture merely because the person didn't volunteer for it. I mean putting someone in prison for 10 years for committing a crime isn't something people volunteer for but it isn't torture is it? I am just trying to make sure we are all on the same page here.
Isn't that done to train them to resist it when it's done to them as torture?
I think it's been worth it. Besides, if waterboarding was torture, we wouldn't be doing it to our own troops.We train them to resist all forms of interrogation. Are those torture as well? I've talked to people who have been waterboarded(including my own brother). Have you? Not one of them have thought it to be torture.
Woah.
Did your brother voluntarily submit to being waterboarded? Then you are correct, he wasn't tortured, because he voluntarily chose to do it.
The people in US custody were not given a choice, that made it torture, it was done against their will.
Some people may very well like to be whipped. That doesn't change the fact that whipping someone is torture. Some people may get a thrill out of being burned by a cigarette, and voluntarily let some do it. That doesn't change the fact that burning someone you are questioning in custody with a cigarette is torture.
The fact that this even has to be debated is just one of the sad legacies of the Bush administration. Other administrations before Bush did use torture, but they hid what they were doing and lied about it, they didn't try and make Orwellian arguments and claim what they were doing was somehow legal.
Do you ever get a choice in anything when you're in in the service? :) I'm sorry you're not going to convince me that this is torture. But suppose I'm wrong for the moment and you're right. Would it have been better if we never would have extracted the info and let innocent people die? I guess we could have felt better about ourselves then because we took the moral high ground, huh? BTW, Bush tried to hide what he was doing. The American press wouldn't let that happen.
|
The people we are dealing with have no qualms about cutting off the heads of their prisoners (and for no other reason than just to make a point) and blowing themselves up along with as many OTHER people as possible...
And somehow making things a little uncomfortable for prisoners in our custody is totally unacceptable!
I don't get it...
You can't make nice with someone that believes YOU and YOUR whole family needs to die for no other reason than you do not believe as they do...
We (in the "western world" anyway) see death as an unpleasant thing, something to be avoided...
There are people in this world that do not have the same mindset as we do (like seeing death, especially a death as a martyr as something to aspire to). They simply think differently than we do, I mean honestly, can any of you women on this board imagine having to SUBMIT to wearing a burka without pitching a fit?)...
We think (rather arrogantly) that we can "talk things through", because we ourselves can be reasoned with. This thinking is just plain wrong, because it does not work. You cannot reason with the unreasonable...
The only thing people like this respect, is a greater show of force...
But hey, I'm just a conservative Republican. What do I know, right?
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
And somehow making things a little uncomfortable for prisoners in our custody is totally unacceptable!
My athletic cup is "a little uncomfortable".
Torture is torture. Not torturing, rule of law, democracy, human rights: that's what made America a great country. Toss it out and you're not a great country anymore.
Criminals break the law. Police don't. Police still catch criminals.
Terrorists terrorize. America doesn't have to...
The only reason anyone should have a problem with this is if you're trying to rationalize the the excesses that were perpetrated since 9/11.
And somehow making things a little uncomfortable for prisoners in our custody is totally unacceptable!
My athletic cup is "a little uncomfortable".
Torture is torture. Not torturing, rule of law, democracy, human rights: that's what made America a great country. Toss it out and you're not a great country anymore.
Criminals break the law. Police don't. Police still catch criminals.
Terrorists terrorize. America doesn't have to...
The only reason anyone should have a problem with this is if you're trying to rationalize the the excesses that were perpetrated since 9/11.
And again, does anyone really believe that the US didn't do "enhanced interrogation techniques" prior to 2001? Serious, all this, "Not torturing is what made America great" seems to be rose-glasses thinking. Just because you didn't know the details didn't mean it wasn't going on. And I would bet that things done in the shadows without any oversight at all were probably a hell of alot worse than what is happening with oversight.
|
|
The people we are dealing with have no qualms about cutting off the heads of their prisoners (and for no other reason than just to make a point) and blowing themselves up along with as many OTHER people as possible...
And somehow making things a little uncomfortable for prisoners in our custody is totally unacceptable!
I don't consider forcing someone to stand shackled to a wall naked for 40 hours to be "a little uncomfortable". I don't consider strapping a prisoner down, covering their face with cloth, and pouring water on their face until they begin to gag and drown "a little uncomfortable". And just because our enemies do it does not make it OK for us to do it. In fact, if anything, we should be appalled that some members of our administration wish to stoop to the level of terrorists in order to get unreliable confessions.
Torture (or "enhanced interrogation techniques," if you want to use Bush's euphemism) has been shown to be unreliable in obtaining truthful confessions. Say what you will about wikipedia, but their article on the use of torture by the United States is well written, and has a huge list of trustworthy sources to check at the bottom.
I'm deeply saddened that people still want to justify this flagrant abuse of human rights. I am hopeful that our new administration will cease torturing prisoners.
I do not intend to offend anyone, and I know I may sound a bit harsh sometimes, but this issue means a lot to me.