I think someone has been drinking some of these guys kool-aid. LOL
The U.S. government is behind the campaign to remove Gadhafi, he added.
"The United States has already said it's ready to invade Libya, don't you see? And almost all the countries of Europe are condemning Libya ... What do they want? They are rubbing their hands together. Oil is what's important to them," he said.
Uh...I think this is in the wrong thread.
Uh...I think this is in the wrong thread.I think someone has been drinking some of these guys kool-aid. LOL
The U.S. government is behind the campaign to remove Gadhafi, he added.
"The United States has already said it's ready to invade Libya, don't you see? And almost all the countries of Europe are condemning Libya ... What do they want? They are rubbing their hands together. Oil is what's important to them," he said.
Is it? I thought we were talking about the US is such a conspiring evil entity. LOL.
Is it? I thought we were talking about the US is such a conspiring evil entity. LOL.Uh...I think this is in the wrong thread.I think someone has been drinking some of these guys kool-aid. LOL
The U.S. government is behind the campaign to remove Gadhafi, he added.
"The United States has already said it's ready to invade Libya, don't you see? And almost all the countries of Europe are condemning Libya ... What do they want? They are rubbing their hands together. Oil is what's important to them," he said.
Isn't this for the Gadhafi thread?
lastknightleft: First, we are discussing what America IS, not what it was. What it used to do is beyond this discussion.
Second, yes, the people using waterboarding were a portion of the leadership. And yes, they were opposed by another portion of society. However, that opposition was not exactly overwhelming. If you could get honest answers from most americans, I would suspect they generally thought something like "It's probably for the best that you treat those terrorist scum pretty rough". After all, the american public voting doesn't seem to have been affected too seriously, has it? A good society would see a leader even trying to push for waterboarding as a dangerous and revolting pest that should not even be allowed in office one single day more.
No, not even neutral.
Isn't this for the Gadhafi thread?Is it? I thought we were talking about the US is such a conspiring evil entity. LOL.Uh...I think this is in the wrong thread.I think someone has been drinking some of these guys kool-aid. LOL
The U.S. government is behind the campaign to remove Gadhafi, he added.
"The United States has already said it's ready to invade Libya, don't you see? And almost all the countries of Europe are condemning Libya ... What do they want? They are rubbing their hands together. Oil is what's important to them," he said.
Nope, I mean it could go there also probably, but as the posts that followers show, it is good for here. Evil US! LOL.
lastknightleft: First, we are discussing what America IS, not what it was. What it used to do is beyond this discussion.
Second, yes, the people using waterboarding were a portion of the leadership. And yes, they were opposed by another portion of society. However, that opposition was not exactly overwhelming. If you could get honest answers from most americans, I would suspect they generally thought something like "It's probably for the best that you treat those terrorist scum pretty rough". After all, the american public voting doesn't seem to have been affected too seriously, has it? A good society would see a leader even trying to push for waterboarding as a dangerous and revolting pest that should not even be allowed in office one single day more.
No, not even neutral.
That all depends on what news reports you were seeing. There were a lot of people who were quite out and loud about their opposition to waterboarding(who also saw the leader in question as a dangerous and revolving pest that should not even be allowed in office one single day more), and an equal number of people who were very much in favor of it(who all thought it was for the best that you treat those terrorist scum pretty rough). However, the method used to attack or defend it to people who felt the strongly about it regardless of where they fell upon that line relied heavily on interpretation of law and the question of whether or not it was legal to begin with- something that is very much the hallmark of a LN society. Those who spoke out against it were protected in their right to do so by law, those who spoke out in favor of it were protected by the same. In a LG society, those who spoke out in favor of such a practice might be targetted for passive reprisal(avoiding doing business with them, etc), while in a LE society, those who spoke out against such a practice might be targetted for active reprisal(arrested for speaking out against a government practice/inciting rebellion on some level). But here, all were given a chance to state their piece on the subject, agree or disagree with each other vociferously, and then more or less go home(although I'm sure there was some shoving at rallies, perhaps a punch or two thrown- and even then, those that did would have been upbraided by police officers for violating the law). All LN, to me, and I'm very much against waterboarding myself. LN means Lawful Neutral, not Lawful Nice.
Nope, I mean it could go there also probably, but as the posts that followers show, it is good for here. Evil US! LOL.Isn't this for the Gadhafi thread?Is it? I thought we were talking about the US is such a conspiring evil entity. LOL.Uh...I think this is in the wrong thread.I think someone has been drinking some of these guys kool-aid. LOL
The U.S. government is behind the campaign to remove Gadhafi, he added.
"The United States has already said it's ready to invade Libya, don't you see? And almost all the countries of Europe are condemning Libya ... What do they want? They are rubbing their hands together. Oil is what's important to them," he said.
Uh...okay...
America's alignment? Oooooooooh the sheer possibilities of patriotic flame wars, AND an alignment debacle too? There is a god. At least some god would find this hilarious. =)
Okay, I just have to. A society that currently has the world's biggest population of lawyers is NOT a chaotic society. America is lawful with the absolute best of them. The fabled volume of federal laws is... intimidating. Yes, definitely lawful.
As for moral alignment: A society that employs waterboarding, sorry, "enhanced interrogation techniques", and invades countries at costs of tens of thousands of lives, where they can't even give a good explanation why, that push for abolishment of freedom of speech across the world by sneaking through international treaties, that chooses to destabilize countries so these countries will no longer become strong democratic societies that could become a threat, and so on, and so on, and so forth... that is not a good society. Not even a neutral one, except on the very best days. Sorry.
But this ruling proves that some people actually understand what freedom of speech is.
Actualy all of those lawyers in my opinion creat a more chaotic society...as lawyers main job is (rather for good or for ill) to protect people from the law not to enforce it.
So....what country is not evil? As we can all probably the same or worse worse of any country (some just hide better from the public.
What counrty are you from? Is it Evil?
And how is waterboarding a person who to get infomation that might save even a single life evil?
|
Reality doesn't have the paladin's magic third option, what must be do to protect life and freedom must be done even if those that demand saintly behavour get upset. Of course most of those folks want other things done that are not saintly themselves.....
What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?
|
Worst decision the SCOTUS has handed down since they said that corporations are really individuals. If anybody has a right to grieve in peace, it is the families of fallen servicemembers. This case is about a group of fundies acting in an abusive manner...period. They can believe however they want...I really don't give a f&&+ what they believe, it's not my place or desire to dictate how others believe. What they shouldn't be able to do (but now can apparently) is inflict their beliefs upon others at the most inapropriate of times with the sole intent being mental abuse.
Worst decision the SCOTUS has handed down since they said that corporations are really individuals. If anybody has a right to grieve in peace, it is the families of fallen servicemembers. This case is about a group of fundies acting in an abusive manner...period. They can believe however they want...I really don't give a f&%% what they believe, it's not my place or desire to dictate how others believe. What they shouldn't be able to do (but now can apparently) is inflict their beliefs upon others at the most inapropriate of times with the sole intent being mental abuse.
This makes me think of animal rights groups that would camp outside of McDonald's giving away free "UnHappy Meals" to kids and families. They then showed the unaware customers pictures of animals being slaughtered.
I certainly can see someone being equally upset that animal rights groups are using such tactics to target children. Should the SCOTUS ban such displays?
|
|
Worst decision the SCOTUS has handed down since they said that corporations are really individuals. If anybody has a right to grieve in peace, it is the families of fallen servicemembers. This case is about a group of fundies acting in an abusive manner...period. They can believe however they want...I really don't give a f&%% what they believe, it's not my place or desire to dictate how others believe. What they shouldn't be able to do (but now can apparently) is inflict their beliefs upon others at the most inapropriate of times with the sole intent being mental abuse.This makes me think of animal rights groups that would camp outside of McDonald's giving away free "UnHappy Meals" to kids and families. They then showed the unaware customers pictures of animals being slaughtered.
I certainly can see someone being equally upset that animal rights groups are using such tactics to target children. Should the SCOTUS ban such displays?
I believe they should, yes. While their larger goal may be to further their agenda, the more immediate result of their action is the traumatization of children. If a parent decided to show those type of images to their children, they would probably be accused of child abuse in some form or fashion.
|
|
I believe they should, yes. While their larger goal may be to further their agenda, the more immediate result of their action is the traumatization of children. If a parent decided to show those type of images to their children, they would probably be accused of child abuse in some form or fashion.Worst decision the SCOTUS has handed down since they said that corporations are really individuals. If anybody has a right to grieve in peace, it is the families of fallen service-members. This case is about a group of fundies acting in an abusive manner...period. They can believe however they want...I really don't give a f&%% what they believe, it's not my place or desire to dictate how others believe. What they shouldn't be able to do (but now can apparently) is inflict their beliefs upon others at the most inappropriate of times with the sole intent being mental abuse.This makes me think of animal rights groups that would camp outside of McDonald's giving away free "UnHappy Meals" to kids and families. They then showed the unaware customers pictures of animals being slaughtered.
I certainly can see someone being equally upset that animal rights groups are using such tactics to target children. Should the SCOTUS ban such displays?
I agree.
Worst decision the SCOTUS has handed down since they said that corporations are really individuals. If anybody has a right to grieve in peace, it is the families of fallen servicemembers. This case is about a group of fundies acting in an abusive manner...period. They can believe however they want...I really don't give a f~&% what they believe, it's not my place or desire to dictate how others believe. What they shouldn't be able to do (but now can apparently) is inflict their beliefs upon others at the most inapropriate of times with the sole intent being mental abuse.
You are completely missing the point. There is no need for the Supreme Court to solve this unpleasantness by issuing a blanket ruling that would restrict free speech for all.
The true issue at hand here is that the WBC harasses people in a distasteful manner near gravesites and such, which ould be easily solved by local ordinances restricting protests and demonstrations by area. If you don't want the WBC marching around near your graveyard, then pass a local law so that nobody can harass people there.
|
On what basis could he possibly dissent? I'm going to have to read that . . . .Interesting that it was nearly unanimous (8-1). Alito was the lone dissenting justice.
his dissension was actually well thought out and a very interesting read. however, if I am going to err, I would do so in favor of freedom.
|
|
Worst decision the SCOTUS has handed down since they said that corporations are really individuals. If anybody has a right to grieve in peace, it is the families of fallen servicemembers. This case is about a group of fundies acting in an abusive manner...period. They can believe however they want...I really don't give a f~&% what they believe, it's not my place or desire to dictate how others believe. What they shouldn't be able to do (but now can apparently) is inflict their beliefs upon others at the most inapropriate of times with the sole intent being mental abuse.You are completely missing the point. There is no need for the Supreme Court to solve this unpleasantness by issuing a blanket ruling that would restrict free speech for all.
The true issue at hand here is that the WBC harasses people in a distasteful manner near gravesites and such, which ould be easily solved by local ordinances restricting protests and demonstrations by area. If you don't want the WBC marching around near your graveyard, then pass a local law so that nobody can harass people there.
Why should we have local ordinances for every stinking little loophole?
|
|
I would like to remind you of all the humanitarian work the U.S. has done throughout it's rather brief history compaired to ANY other nation on this planet.
How much of our current tax dollars go to fund underdeveloped nations.
Am I denying our mistakes ? certainly not but we have and continue to learn from them and hopefully we can be used as a good and a negative example to help others learn.In 2009, the US gave 0.2% of its GNI per year in Foreign Aid, 0.5% below the number agreed to in 1970, while only Sweden (1.16%), Norway (1.13%), Luxembourg (1.01%), Denmark (0.86%) and the Netherlands (0.81%) were giving more than the 0.70% agreed to.
Not an attack on the US, just taking your statement with a grain of salt.
Not completely true, that is only ODA contributuions. America, unlike most other countries, relies on ptivate charities to amuch larger extenet because of the limitations we put on government. Including all US contributions, we give .98% of our GNI to foreign aid. The only countries that give more as a percentage of GNI are Canada, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Netherlands, and Sweden. Note that all those countries have immensely smaller economies than the US and that is what skews the percentage.
Why should we have local ordinances for every stinking little loophole?Worst decision the SCOTUS has handed down since they said that corporations are really individuals. If anybody has a right to grieve in peace, it is the families of fallen servicemembers. This case is about a group of fundies acting in an abusive manner...period. They can believe however they want...I really don't give a f~&% what they believe, it's not my place or desire to dictate how others believe. What they shouldn't be able to do (but now can apparently) is inflict their beliefs upon others at the most inapropriate of times with the sole intent being mental abuse.You are completely missing the point. There is no need for the Supreme Court to solve this unpleasantness by issuing a blanket ruling that would restrict free speech for all.
The true issue at hand here is that the WBC harasses people in a distasteful manner near gravesites and such, which ould be easily solved by local ordinances restricting protests and demonstrations by area. If you don't want the WBC marching around near your graveyard, then pass a local law so that nobody can harass people there.
Because its the little things that get you almost every time.
|
|
Because its the little things that get you almost every time.Why should we have local ordinances for every stinking little loophole?Worst decision the SCOTUS has handed down since they said that corporations are really individuals. If anybody has a right to grieve in peace, it is the families of fallen servicemembers. This case is about a group of fundies acting in an abusive manner...period. They can believe however they want...I really don't give a f~&% what they believe, it's not my place or desire to dictate how others believe. What they shouldn't be able to do (but now can apparently) is inflict their beliefs upon others at the most inapropriate of times with the sole intent being mental abuse.You are completely missing the point. There is no need for the Supreme Court to solve this unpleasantness by issuing a blanket ruling that would restrict free speech for all.
The true issue at hand here is that the WBC harasses people in a distasteful manner near gravesites and such, which ould be easily solved by local ordinances restricting protests and demonstrations by area. If you don't want the WBC marching around near your graveyard, then pass a local law so that nobody can harass people there.
Yes, I forget Common Sense is not very Common.
Why should we have local ordinances for every stinking little loophole?Worst decision the SCOTUS has handed down since they said that corporations are really individuals. If anybody has a right to grieve in peace, it is the families of fallen servicemembers. This case is about a group of fundies acting in an abusive manner...period. They can believe however they want...I really don't give a f~&% what they believe, it's not my place or desire to dictate how others believe. What they shouldn't be able to do (but now can apparently) is inflict their beliefs upon others at the most inapropriate of times with the sole intent being mental abuse.You are completely missing the point. There is no need for the Supreme Court to solve this unpleasantness by issuing a blanket ruling that would restrict free speech for all.
The true issue at hand here is that the WBC harasses people in a distasteful manner near gravesites and such, which ould be easily solved by local ordinances restricting protests and demonstrations by area. If you don't want the WBC marching around near your graveyard, then pass a local law so that nobody can harass people there.
Because blanketing restrictions of freedom in giant swaths is bad, mmmkay?
|
|
Because blanketing restrictions of freedom in giant swaths is bad, mmmkay?Why should we have local ordinances for every stinking little loophole?Worst decision the SCOTUS has handed down since they said that corporations are really individuals. If anybody has a right to grieve in peace, it is the families of fallen service-members. This case is about a group of fundamentalists acting in an abusive manner...period. They can believe however they want...I really don't give a f~&% what they believe, it's not my place or desire to dictate how others believe. What they shouldn't be able to do (but now can apparently) is inflict their beliefs upon others at the most inappropriate of times with the sole intent being mental abuse.You are completely missing the point. There is no need for the Supreme Court to solve this unpleasantness by issuing a blanket ruling that would restrict free speech for all.
The true issue at hand here is that the WBC harasses people in a distasteful manner near grave sites and such, which should be easily solved by local ordinances restricting protests and demonstrations by area. If you don't want the WBC marching around near your graveyard, then pass a local law so that nobody can harass people there.
It is not about restrictions to said freedoms, we already have those. It is about noticing that some are crossing the line and abusing those freedoms for fun and profit, and as such should be reasonably restricted from doing so, in a civil society. mmmmmmmmmmmKAY!
if they do try and move away they are treated as if they are "dead to" the family, and never spoken of or to again
The Amish do the same. I have mixed feelings about that since it seems manipulative to me. How much choice does a young adult really have to loose everything they know and all support? But that is probably a topic of itself.
|
|
The Amish do the same. I have mixed feelings about that since it seems manipulative to me. How much choice does a young adult really have to loose everything they know and all support? But that is probably a topic of itself.if they do try and move away they are treated as if they are "dead to" the family, and never spoken of or to again
Indeed, and its own long winded thread. (not seriously, just saying)
Indeed, and its own long winded thread. (not seriously, just saying)
It would probably depress you, so I won't. :)
|
|
Because blanketing restrictions of freedom in giant swaths is bad, mmmkay?
Except restricting nutjobs from protesting funerals of fallen servicemen and women does not in any way restrict my free speech, or yours, or anyone's other than the subset of citizens defined as "nutjobs who protest funerals of servicemen".
It's only a slippery slope if you make it one. Nobody is advocating that. The concern is for a very specific behavior.
Burning flags doesn't bother me, because nobody really gets hurt. A lot of these servicemen have wives and kids whose memory of burying their loved ones will forever be stained by these jackwads and their behavior. It's really pretty incredible.
It is not about restrictions to said freedoms, we already have those. It is about noticing that some are crossing the line and abusing those freedoms for fun and profit, and as such should be reasonably restricted from doing so, in a civil society. mmmmmmmmmmmKAY!Because blanketing restrictions of freedom in giant swaths is bad, mmmkay?Why should we have local ordinances for every stinking little loophole?Worst decision the SCOTUS has handed down since they said that corporations are really individuals. If anybody has a right to grieve in peace, it is the families of fallen service-members. This case is about a group of fundamentalists acting in an abusive manner...period. They can believe however they want...I really don't give a f~&% what they believe, it's not my place or desire to dictate how others believe. What they shouldn't be able to do (but now can apparently) is inflict their beliefs upon others at the most inappropriate of times with the sole intent being mental abuse.You are completely missing the point. There is no need for the Supreme Court to solve this unpleasantness by issuing a blanket ruling that would restrict free speech for all.
The true issue at hand here is that the WBC harasses people in a distasteful manner near grave sites and such, which should be easily solved by local ordinances restricting protests and demonstrations by area. If you don't want the WBC marching around near your graveyard, then pass a local law so that nobody can harass people there.
It is exactly about restriction of freedoms, and nothing else. If everyone would just exercise their right to ignore these fools, they would be having no fun and profiting nothing. Should we restrict the media from covering these people in order to cut off their publicity?
Because blanketing restrictions of freedom in giant swaths is bad, mmmkay?Except restricting nutjobs from protesting funerals of fallen servicemen and women does not in any way restrict my free speech, or yours, or anyone's other than the subset of citizens defined as "nutjobs who protest funerals of servicemen".
It's only a slippery slope if you make it one. Nobody is advocating that. The concern is for a very specific behavior.
Burning flags doesn't bother me, because nobody really gets hurt. A lot of these servicemen have wives and kids whose memory of burying their loved ones will forever be stained by these jackwads and their behavior. It's really pretty incredible.
Yes, but then we go back to the age old dilemma of trying to decide who exactly gets to define which group of people are nutjobs, and which are not? It would be far better for municipalities to restrict demonstrations and protests to a fair distance away from whatever gravesites fall within their jurisdiction. No need for a federal law against every little thing that might offend people.
|
|
But the plaintiffs where suing over the right of the WBC to protest at funerals not about monetary compensation for emotional stress caused by the WBC protesting.I believe that is where this case came from.Hooray for the Supreme Court, they got this one right. Restriction of free speech isn't good for anybody.
If someone is emotionally damaged from the WBC protesting then they should sue the WBC's assets off in civil court where stuff like this belongs instead of trying to take away all Americans right to free speech.
You are mistaken,
The father sued in district court for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury returned a $11 million dollars verdict. The judge reduced it by 5-6 million.
The 4th circuit reversed on 1st amendment grounds.
The father appealed to the SCOT'S.
|
|
But the plaintiffs where suing over the right of the WBC to protest at funerals not about monetary compensation for emotional stress caused by the WBC protesting.I believe that is where this case came from.Hooray for the Supreme Court, they got this one right. Restriction of free speech isn't good for anybody.
If someone is emotionally damaged from the WBC protesting then they should sue the WBC's assets off in civil court where stuff like this belongs instead of trying to take away all Americans right to free speech.
You are mistaken,
The father sued in district court for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury returned a $11 million dollars verdict. The judge reduced it by 5-6 million.
The 4th circuit reversed on 1st amendment grounds.
The father appealed to the SCOTUS.
|
|
Yes, but then we go back to the age old dilemma of trying to decide who exactly gets to define which group of people are nutjobs, and which are not? It would be far better for municipalities to restrict demonstrations and protests to a fair distance away from whatever gravesites fall within their jurisdiction. No need for a federal law against every little thing that might offend people.
How about we just either A) eliminate all instances of "nutjobs" from my previous post, or B) just assume that if you want to protest a funeral, you're a nutjob? That way, it saves every municipality in the United States (except, perhaps, Westboro) from passing a law preventing such behavior. I seriously can't think of one community where this type of thing would be welcomed, let alone encouraged. Can you? As such, I don't see why a Federal law would be such a bad thing, here.
|
Why should we have local ordinances for every stinking little loophole?
Because you are going to have loopholes regardless.
If you say "No one shall have their freedom of speech abridged!" then you have to apply "Except X because they are hateful" to all the ugly things you don't want done.
If you say "No one shall speak hateful words!" then you have to apply "Except X because they are speaking out against hate" to all the righteous things you want done.
I hope my meaning is clear even if my words are not.
for anti-gay church over military funeral protests
In this specific case I think "hate group" is more descriptive than "church."
As much as I hate to admit it I understand why the supreme court ruled the way they did. It's about free speech. If we deny any group free speech then that same tenant could be applied to other groups or individuals ability to express their opinions.
I'm gay and ex-military so I really would like this "church" and it's members to die in a fire, but at the same time I get it. I don't want to have the government come after me for expressing my opinions so they shouldn't do that for anyone else.
I would advocate hitting them with a firehose, but they're mostly lawyers (as well as imbred, allegedly) which means they sue at every opportunity.
Creating pictures of presidents which make them look like monkeys could be considered 'hateful'.
Yes, but then we go back to the age old dilemma of trying to decide who exactly gets to define which group of people are nutjobs, and which are not? It would be far better for municipalities to restrict demonstrations and protests to a fair distance away from whatever gravesites fall within their jurisdiction. No need for a federal law against every little thing that might offend people.How about we just either A) eliminate all instances of "nutjobs" from my previous post, or B) just assume that if you want to protest a funeral, you're a nutjob? That way, it saves every municipality in the United States (except, perhaps, Westboro) from passing a law preventing such behavior. I seriously can't think of one community where this type of thing would be welcomed, let alone encouraged. Can you? As such, I don't see why a Federal law would be such a bad thing, here.
I think I could get behind a law like this...as I don't care what you are protesting....or who is being buried at the funeral...protesting should not be allowed there. I would be just as disgusted that when their leader dies if a bunch of homosexuals protest the funeral. There is just something you don't do. I would not find that law even unconstutional...as we have freedoms as long as it does bring real harm to others...and protesting at a funreal...in my opinon is real harm...and infringes on their freedom...though again it is a dangerous slipper slope.
But I still I agree with the courts ruling...as the job of the court is not to create laws. That job belongs the congress.
I think their intent is to cause trouble. They're really hoping that someone starts some crap.
Why doesn't this fall under attempts at inciting a riot?
Yes, but then we go back to the age old dilemma of trying to decide who exactly gets to define which group of people are nutjobs, and which are not? It would be far better for municipalities to restrict demonstrations and protests to a fair distance away from whatever gravesites fall within their jurisdiction. No need for a federal law against every little thing that might offend people.How about we just either A) eliminate all instances of "nutjobs" from my previous post, or B) just assume that if you want to protest a funeral, you're a nutjob? That way, it saves every municipality in the United States (except, perhaps, Westboro) from passing a law preventing such behavior. I seriously can't think of one community where this type of thing would be welcomed, let alone encouraged. Can you? As such, I don't see why a Federal law would be such a bad thing, here.
In this instance I think "nutjob" barely scratches the surface.
So can videos of people being unable to use grappling rules.
Oh! That stings!
>.>
<.<
Actually...it kind of tickles.
And how is waterboarding a person who to get infomation that might save even a single life evil?Waterboarding doesn't work. And you have a good chance to kill the person in the process. Torture as a whole, doesn't work. Reports from the battlefield have shown that by the time a person breas down from torture, their info is out of date. Whereas people who were treated humanely were far more willing to cooperate after just a few hours.
Torture is, however, ideal for eliciting false confessions. This is the main reason it's adored by its practitioners. If you keep it up long enough it will always reward you with something you can say was reason to do it and continue to do it. It's a sadist's dream come true.
Torture is, however, ideal for eliciting false confessions. This is the main reason it's adored by its practitioners. If you keep it up long enough it will always reward you with something you can say was reason to do it and continue to do it. It's a sadist's dream come true.
Goya's Ghosts anyone?
Yes, but then we go back to the age old dilemma of trying to decide who exactly gets to define which group of people are nutjobs, and which are not? It would be far better for municipalities to restrict demonstrations and protests to a fair distance away from whatever gravesites fall within their jurisdiction. No need for a federal law against every little thing that might offend people.How about we just either A) eliminate all instances of "nutjobs" from my previous post, or B) just assume that if you want to protest a funeral, you're a nutjob? That way, it saves every municipality in the United States (except, perhaps, Westboro) from passing a law preventing such behavior. I seriously can't think of one community where this type of thing would be welcomed, let alone encouraged. Can you? As such, I don't see why a Federal law would be such a bad thing, here.
The best argument I can think of is this: starting with local ordinances is the way our government is supposed to work. We should need federal legislation very infrequently. If you are worried about the WBC coming to your town and performing their little circus act, get on your local lawmakers about it right now. Stop waiting for the Supreme Court or Congress to act on every tiny issue.
So can videos of people being unable to use grappling rules.
Oh yay -- cross-thread posting!
...because that always works out so well.
And how is waterboarding a person who to get infomation that might save even a single life evil?Waterboarding doesn't work. And you have a good chance to kill the person in the process. Torture as a whole, doesn't work. Reports from the battlefield have shown that by the time a person breas down from torture, their info is out of date. Whereas people who were treated humanely were far more willing to cooperate after just a few hours.
Once again, Hollywood fails.
What reports from what battle field? But yes on a battle field it will fail...but we are not talking about a battle field here. It is a myth that torture does not work. It is a illusion we build to argue against torture in every case...but the world is not that black and white. And reality is sometimes you have to do things that are more grey than not.
Personaly torture should be used in only the most extreme cases....what they did to those enemy combatants was wrong as either they really knew nothing...or what they knew would be out of date very rapidly. But I can see it in very extreme certain cases. In which you have the time...and there is no other way.
As for treating prisoners humanly...getting them to cooperate...where did you get that? Sure it often works when the prisoners are just as sickened or feel abandon by their country(like alot of Germans soldiers at the end of WW2 and the soldiers who surrender to us at the end of the 1st Gulf War.) But sorry we just captured somebody who is a beliver...no matter how nice you treat them...they won't cooperate.
Also...how did Hollywood fail...as more often than not they continue the myth that torture does not work. If you are refering to 24...than yes I don't like how they depicted torture in the seris either has they made it too easy....but than again TV and movies always does that with viloence...sex...etc...I don't take anything in that media literaly.
Really just playing Devil advocate here...I am against torture because it is morally wrong. I really don't care if it works the ends never justfied the means(except in a siturations where we know the party is guilty...and unwilling to cooperate...and a life is at stake). But everytime I hear torture never works...I never get a actual neutral study of it. It is very often bias.
|
|
Why should we have local ordinances for every stinking little loophole?Because you are going to have loopholes regardless.
If you say "No one shall have their freedom of speech abridged!" then you have to apply "Except X because they are hateful" to all the ugly things you don't want done.
If you say "No one shall speak hateful words!" then you have to apply "Except X because they are speaking out against hate" to all the righteous things you want done.
I hope my meaning is clear even if my words are not.
You did well enough for me.