NationStates Jolt Archive

Yet you are willing to let others die for your cause. You are willing to let others kill to grow your fascist state. You would promote a police state to protect your sorry ass. There is a hole in your soul that only God, valium or intelligence can fix.......may you find one of those soon.

;)

tihs bill just shows how mcuh fo a nazi BUSH is! NO BLOOD FOR OIL! WAR IS NOT MY VOICE! TORTURE ISN'T NICE!

According to Kos, and the US senate website, the torture bill passed the Senate 65-34-1 (The one was Snowe, the only remaining sane Republican). Luckily enough, the courts will probably strike it down, but this is just disgusting. Torture, suspension of Habbeus Corpus, and removal of judicial oversite all wrapped up into one. It's like a stir-fry of "Tyrants needed, speak to manager for application" signs.

I'm all for the War on Terror, when it isn't commiting attrocities, but this is a step too far. Not only do we unbalance the checks and balances system, but we also subject US troops to torture as well, by making it a morally acceptable choice.


Sure we did.... did you actually read the bill ? show me the parts that includre torture ....and REMOVAL of judicial oversite....


Me oh my gimme a piece of pie...Its what the lawmakers had to do to satisfy the supreme court , for one thing and for another it was needed to clear up any doubt as to how the unlawfull combatants we manage to capture can be treated.

In case you missed it the US is at war with terrorist and there are no laws or guidlines ...beyond shoot them as unlawfull combatants in the field..they certainly never had prisoner of war status at any time in history...new war new ways of fighting and nrw guidlines .

Go cry a river over something really important .


I would really like to see where all you " sky is falling " types got the idea that this bill makes torture legal ...

Of course you must think loud music and severe talking to is torture but I really think most are just ...as usually,,,talking out of thier ass...

Please show the torture segments that you are crying about....

Sure we did.... did you actually read the bill ? show me the parts that includre torture ....and REMOVAL of judicial oversite....


Me oh my gimme a piece of pie...Its what the lawmakers had to do to satisfy the supreme court , for one thing and for another it was needed to clear up any doubt as to how the unlawfull combatants we manage to capture can be treated.

In case you missed it the US is at war with terrorist and there are no laws or guidlines ...beyond shoot them as unlawfull combatants in the field..they certainly never had prisoner of war status at any time in history...new war new ways of fighting and nrw guidlines .

Go cry a river over something really important .

1- It's illegal.

2- It's immoral.

3- It's FUCKING INNEFECTIVE!

Which makes your whole point go down the proverbial drain: You know fully well that no justice system is perfect, so someone innocent is bound to fall into the psychopatic, sadistic hands of the torturer one day.

Not if you have competant law enforcement. You'd be surprized what forenzics can prove.

You don't seek justice by this methodolgy.......you seek revenge, and that is a never ending process.

Bah, who cares? I want people to suffer for what they've done, it matters not to me what you call it.

Hey someone got deleted recently for threatning me . . . ya know it seems like if people are going to go whining to the mods when they get pissed they can at least let the person "threatened" decide if THEY want to report it to the mods or not instead of taking it upon themselves . . .

well, the mods made their ruling (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11753034&postcount=10)...

So that makes you only very insane and a coward, not completely insane.

Thank you once again for stating a lovely fact :)

1 - SUSPECTED terrorists. If just ONE of them happens to be innocent, yes, you stoop to their level. And MANY people in Gitmo. turned out to be innocent.

2 - Every report by every expert that ever bothered to write about the subject points out that there are quicker and more effective methods than torture.

So, be open with me: It's sadism, sheer, pure and simple, and it's not about seeing terrorists suffer, it's about seeing people suffer because SOMEONE CLAIMED they were terrorists.



Actually, the PATRIOT Act says they don't have to try the people in Gitmo. One of those things mentioned in there in the first Section. Like I said, I had to read all 177 pages of it for school as part of my project. I learned quite a bit.

Thank you once again for stating a lovely fact :)

A fact it is, but lovely it is not - else he'd not have kept us. ;)

Actually, the PATRIOT Act says they don't have to try the people in Gitmo. One of those things mentioned in there in the first Section. Like I said, I had to read all 177 pages of it for school as part of my project. I learned quite a bit.

I'm aware - which makes it all the more horrible.

I am a rational man. I am unwilling to die, period.

As previously stated, and I wish I could have posted it:


It figures that you don't want to fight. You're unwilling to lay down your life for a cause you espouse. At least I would be willing to give my life if a war for my countries defense were necessary.

It is you who is the traitor, not I.

Sure we did.... did you actually read the bill ? show me the parts that includre torture ....and REMOVAL of judicial oversite....


Me oh my gimme a piece of pie...Its what the lawmakers had to do to satisfy the supreme court , for one thing and for another it was needed to clear up any doubt as to how the unlawfull combatants we manage to capture can be treated.

In case you missed it the US is at war with terrorist and there are no laws or guidlines ...beyond shoot them as unlawfull combatants in the field..they certainly never had prisoner of war status at any time in history...new war new ways of fighting and nrw guidlines .

Go cry a river over something really important .


I would really like to see where all you " sky is falling " types got the idea that this bill makes torture legal ...

Of course you must think loud music and severe talking to is torture but I really think most are just ...as usually,,,talking out of thier ass...

Please show the torture segments that you are crying about....

1- It's illegal.

2- It's immoral.

3- It's FUCKING INNEFECTIVE!

so... as I asked earlier... can anyone post a link to the ACTUAL bill? not some "Interpretation" or "Here's what your government did" type article?

Give me the name of the Bill, the full name, and I can find it quite easily.

Is this MeanstoanEnd guy actually for real, if so I would say he's most definetely insane. He seems like some kind of a perfect stereotypical insane imperialist despot of something, it must be an act, it just must be, no one rational would say such.

Actually, the PATRIOT Act says they don't have to try the people in Gitmo. One of those things mentioned in there in the first Section. Like I said, I had to read all 177 pages of it for school as part of my project. I learned quite a bit.

Actually there were laws in effect before the patriot act that stated they could do that. If someone is considered a war criminal, they get no trial by jury. That's always been the case. The gitmo people were captured in afgahnastan during the afgahn war for fighting on the enemies side, making them prisoners of war and negating their right to a trial.

When I watched the events of 911 unfold, it sent a shiver up my spine. When I learned of this new bill, I was terrified. After reading this thread I want to vomit.

My deepest sympathies go out to the citizens of the United States for you deserve better. For MeansToAnEnd I feel nothing but pity. For someone as intelligent as yourself to have such a complete lack of morality, and wisdom is shameful.

For those of you who expressed an interest in relocating to Canada, you are certainly welcome. We have sheltered oppressed American Citizens in the past and will continue to do so in the future. However I strongly urge you to remain in the USA so as to keep individuals such as MTAE in check. If all the intelligent ones come up here, who will remain to fight the tyranny? Certainly not me, for I refuse to set foot on US soil for as long as this desecration of justice remains in effect.

For the record, the war on terror is idiocy. 'Terrorists' are nothing more than NATIONAL CRIMINALS with an INTERNATIONAL AGENDA. These CRIMINALS should be dealt with by their own NATIONAL LAW-ENFORCEMENT, not the almighty US military. Should said nations be incapable of dealing with these CRIMINALS, then they should be provided assistance from UNITED NATIONS peacekeepers. Should said nations be unwilling to deal with them,or, should they condone such acts, then their corrupted governments should be circumvented or deposed of by the UNITED NATIONS, so that an effectual elected government of the people can properly deal with these CRIMINALS.

Crushing governments, and religions, and ethnicities will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent terror, quite the contrary. The only solution is defence.

ie: lockable doors on passenger liner cockpits, increased security, etc., etc...

MAD is a four letter word. I sincerely hope that any nuclear power that sees nukes coming their way just takes it. There's no need to vaporize the planet just to prove who's tougher.

Give me the name of the Bill, the full name, and I can find it quite easily.

ever noticed that no one has yet provided a link to this Bill?

It appears that one NS's newest nations has indulged in quite a bit of trolling and flamebaiting in his first day of posting. To give some perspective, I present the following:

You sounded regretful that you possessed insufficient funds to execute such an attack (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11753101&postcount=10). It seemed as if the major impediment was lack of funds as much as lack of will. Nonetheless, I can't begin to comprehend why someone would even consider committing so vile and despicable an act as destroying one of the awe-inspiring symbols of America.
You think that it is “vile and despicable” for someone to blow up the Statue of Liberty, but it is okay to slaughter Muslims? See below:

We would only slaughter the Muslim people in the countries that have implicitly declared war against by refusing to combat terrorism in their own countries. We will leave countries that can do us no harm well enough alone (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11751023&postcount=247).
You vill do as ve say or else ve will “slaughter” your people!! And the following as well"

Pfft. They do not have enough technology to attack us. We offer them a very simple proposition: stop attempting to kill innocent civilians, or die, and let your children and family and neighbors and countrymen die along with you. Hopefully, they have a minute trace of sanity in their twisted brains. If they don't want peace, we'll give them ultimate peace (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=11750305).
How thoughtful of you!!

I love the irony of the following two posts:

How's that for liberal elitism? Those who do not conform to your views are morons who should die. How very enlightening (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11750970&postcount=240).

No, this is what we do (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11750345&postcount=161). We tell Saudi Arabia, for example, "are you willing to do whatever it takes to weed out terrorism in your country?" If they do not do so, we obliterate them. Then we proceed to Palestine. Then to Lebanon. Eventually, the country is going to say "yes, please don't hurt me!" That's when terrorism will be defeated.
So people who do not conform to your views deserve to die?

And I guess the following would be conservative “elitism”?

America is blessed with bountiful natural resources. We have sufficient materials to produce whichever military goods we should desire (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11750570&postcount=199). Also, it would be easy to obtain such goods from other countries that we can easily invade.
Just take what you want huh? In other posts MTAE also talked about controlling the oil in the Middle East because America can manage the resources better.

Two days ago, RealAmerica was deleted and the very next day, MeansToAnEnd is created. Their similarity in style and content appears identical, but MTAE denies and connection. I disagree, but that is just my opinion.

Hey someone got deleted recently for threatning me . . . ya know it seems like if people are going to go whining to the mods when they get pissed they can at least let the person "threatened" decide if THEY want to report it to the mods or not instead of taking it upon themselves . . .

Ummm - looks at clock, realizes this was posted what - three hours ago? Ummm, yeah. Let 'em decide for themselves and stuff. Oh wait, that was me!

If this Bill defines what is, and what is not considered "Abuse" or "Torture", when signed by Bush, he could simply add an signining addition to it, indicating wich parts of this new Bill, he does not intend to follow.

Its perfectly legal, and Bush has done it more than any other President.

This means he can decide what is, and what is not "illegal torture", and then implement it.

Here.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:3:./temp/~c109QfVEf5::

*bows head*

I feel for you people.

Take a look under the heading "Australia" in the wikipedia entry for 'habeus corpus.' It's scarey, and our own left party (Labor) explicitly chose not to fight two battles at once, electing to oppose the government only on industrial relations. No votes in civil rights it seems.

Snowe abstained? Well, I'd have felt better if she'd have voted against it, but it's better than our other Senator (Collins), who apparently voted for this obscene bill. I'll have to remember that then next time Collins is up for re-election. :mad:

At least I know both of my senators voted against it. -Well, they had better. -If not, there's going to be a very angry letter heading to Sacramento. Of course, what difference does it make; there are always angry thing headed the way of the capitol building- like, several years ago- a truck.

If this Bill defines what is, and what is not considered "Abuse" or "Torture", when signed by Bush, he could simply add an signining addition to it, indicating wich parts of this new Bill, he does not intend to follow.

Its perfectly legal, and Bush has done it more than any other President.

This means he can decide what is, and what is not "illegal torture", and then implement it.

Actually, I think that's just a state thing. I know California does it, but I don't think it's federal.

Actually, I think that's just a state thing. I know California does it, but I don't think it's federal.

Wikipedia has an article ... they're called "signing statements" though.
In short, their effect has not been properly tested. If Bush is percieved to have acted unconstitutionally on a serious matter, I doubt the Supreme C will find the precedents hold much weight.
EDIT: They'd better not! A President using signing statements to protect his office from Congress is understandable. But they'd be binding on future Presidents? Eek!

Here.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:3:./temp/~c109QfVEf5::
Please resubmit your search
Search results are only retained for a limited amount of time.Your search results have either been deleted, or the file has been updated with new information.

what key word did you use or can you supply the bill ID?

Here's a question for those who believe the "War on Terror" gives "wartime" powers to stamp out human rights in the Free World...

if being at "war" gives legitimacy to increasing centralized power to the federal government, the military, the Executive, does that also count for the War on Drugs and the War on Crime?

If not, why not?

Here's a question for those who believe the "War on Terror" gives "wartime" powers to stamp out human rights in the Free World...

if being at "war" gives legitimacy to increasing centralized power to the federal government, the military, the Executive, does that also count for the War on Drugs and the War on Crime?

If not, why not?

Because it is against our private citizens and not prisoners of war from other countries. The enemie's military or foreign terrorists who seek to have us all dead are not citizens, and so not protected by the same rights that citizens are.

Because it is against our private citizens and not prisoners of war from other countries.

Yet under this new bill, Americans can be classified as 'hostile combatants' or 'aliens' or 'prisoners of war' too. (Whatever the exact term is.)

Because it is against our private citizens and not prisoners of war from other countries. The enemie's military or foreign terrorists who seek to have us all dead are not citizens, and so not protected by the same rights that citizens are.

What a feeble effort!

That the "stamping out" (diminishing) of civil liberties in recent "War on Terror" legislation applies to US citizens is exactly the point. Your rhetoric is in fact, sadly out of date.

A simpler approach might go: "calling something a 'War' doesn't make it a war. " Then you only need to illustrate that the War on Terror is in fact a war, since the other two plainly aren't wars. "Campaign against the supply of drugs" just doesn't sound as awe-inspiring, but would be closer.

Or you could go the other way, and argue that the War on Drugs is a further infringement on civil rights, since laws which protect an individual from the consequences of their own choices are oppressive. Mandatory sentences (or minimums, or whatever) restrict the individual's right to a fair trial, and if the courts weren't clogged with drug cases, the appalling practice of plea bargaining for serious crimes would be unknown. There's your War on Crime sorted, too.

Greater Trostia's challenge was pretty feeble, come to think of it. Congrats to the hordes who ignored it. :)

A simpler approach might go: "calling something a 'War' doesn't make it a war. " Then you only need to illustrate that the War on Terror is in fact a war, since the other two plainly aren't wars.

Depends on how loosely you define war, doesn't it? I mean, 'technically' Vietnam wasn't a war but a "police action." Certainly a War on Drugs can also be described as police action. Then too, I might describe any situation where there are opposing forces and armed conflict involved a 'war.' Since police shootouts do happen, then the War on Drugs is as much a War as the War on Terror.

Greater Trostia's challenge was pretty feeble, come to think of it. Congrats to the hordes who ignored it. :)

It's like 3 AM, I'm sure others will rise to the challenge as soon as they actually... rise, first.

GT, I notice now that I was banging on about civil rights, whereas you mentioned human rights and centralization of power.

So now I'm going to round out the abuse by calling my own post feeble, and quitting too. It's only 8ish here, but it feels way later. :)

Yet under this new bill, Americans can be classified as 'hostile combatants' or 'aliens' or 'prisoners of war' too. (Whatever the exact term is.)

Just bringing to light what the answer would be, I personally believe that a heinous murderer is a heinous murderer, citizen or not, and should be subject to the most severe of penalties for his/her crimes, regardless of citizenship. However it is true that POWs don't get the same rights as citizens, wether we agree with it or not.

Just bringing to light what the answer would be, I personally believe that a heinous murderer is a heinous murderer, citizen or not, and should be subject to the most severe of penalties for his/her crimes, regardless of citizenship. However it is true that POWs don't get the same rights as citizens, wether we agree with it or not.

Which is stupid, illegal immigrants have to be tried by U.S. laws, and still get all the protections. Just because you are not a citizen of the United States does not mean that you get to be treated like you are less then human. Everyone should get the same rights and no matter what kind of excuses our government may give they are wrong to try to deny people rights because they are "undeserving" of them or some shit. Many criminals are the scum of the planet but no matter what they are accused of they get the same rights. Because we are (supposively) an nation of laws and rights where everyone is treated the same and no one is excluded from the Bill of Rights. Everyone who voted for this Torture Bill should be ashamed.

if being at "war" gives legitimacy to increasing centralized power to the federal government, the military, the Executive, does that also count for the War on Drugs and the War on Crime?

There is no connection between the War on Terror and the "war" on drugs or crime. In one of the wars, we are fighting an enemy which seeks to slaughter innocent civilians. As part of this war, we must pass various bills making it easier to protect the lives of our citizens. There is a definite enemy, definitely trying to kill us. Thus, precautions must be taken to avert that eventuality, whether it be torture, spying, etc. The "war" on drugs and crime isn't a real war, however. War is simply used to mean "fight against" in that context. Thus, no additional wartime powers may be granted to the executive branch. Nonetheless, I think that they should be given, whether it be a war or not. Guns and drugs kill more people than terrorists -- we need to torture drug users and gun smugglers, too. We need to spy on their conversations without a warrant. Basically, the power which the government currently possesses should be applied to other venues, not necessarily war. However, it is currently illegal for them to do so.

Yet you are willing to let others die for your cause. You are willing to let others kill to grow your fascist state. You would promote a police state to protect your sorry ass. There is a hole in your soul that only God can fix.......may you find Him soon.

What's the point of dying for a cause? You can't enjoy the cause if you're dead, you know. If other people are irrational enough to give up their lives for a cause, so be it. I'm not going to -- I'm not completely bonkers. Also, thank you for that God comment. However, I must politely decline and pass the favour on to you -- may you have a face-to-face encounter with God first. You're certainly more deserving.

-- we need to torture drug users and gun smugglers, too. We need to spy on their conversations without a warrant. Basically, the power which the government currently possesses should be applied to other venues, not necessarily war. However, it is currently illegal for them to do so.

What exactly is the point of our country having warrants to begin with if there are going to be crimes where getting one is not neccessary? You really have no concept of civil rights do you? Why would we have a Bill of Rights? If you had a say all these things would disappear and we would live under a dictatorship. But that is another example of the strong ruling yes? A democracy isn't exactly the best way for the "strongest" to rule a country.

What exactly is the point of our country having warrants to begin with if there are going to be crimes where getting one is not neccessary?

We should not need to acquire warrants for non-intrusive invasions of privacy. By that, I mean that policemen can't just barge into your home while you're there are rifle through your possessions. However, if you are on vacation, they should be able to do so. Similarly, they can tap your phone without you knowing, because that doesn't bother you in the slightest -- you don't even know your conversation is being listened to.

If you had a say all these things would disappear and we would live under a dictatorship. But that is another example of the strong ruling yes? A democracy isn't exactly the best way for the "strongest" to rule a country.

No, a dictatorship would most likely lower the quality of life in the country. If it, by some miracle, manages to raise it, then I'll support it all the way.

There is no connection between the War on Terror and the "war" on drugs or crime. In one of the wars, we are fighting an enemy which seeks to slaughter innocent civilians. As part of this war, we must pass various bills making it easier to protect the lives of our citizens. There is a definite enemy, definitely trying to kill us. Thus, precautions must be taken to avert that eventuality, whether it be torture, spying, etc. The "war" on drugs and crime isn't a real war, however. War is simply used to mean "fight against" in that context.

I see, so "fighting against" terrorism is a real war, even though it's undeclared, and needs extra special bills to grant extra special powers. But fighting against crime or drugs is not a real war, despite it being every bit as official, and doesn't need any kind of bills to centralize and increase the power of the State.

And it's because terrorists are "definitely" trying to kill innocent civilians, while drug dealers and gang wars just "sorta" try to kill innocent civilians? Interesting.

we need to torture drug users and gun smugglers, too. We need to spy on their conversations without a warrant. Basically, the power which the government currently possesses should be applied to other venues, not necessarily war. However, it is currently illegal for them to do so.

Hey, would you be in favour of torturing child molesters too? You know, like the Republican pedophile you always seem to be defending. Why is his "rights" to "free speech" with children something you froth at the mouth over, but other rights, for huge segments of populations, you don't give a shit about?

Don't answer. It's because you have a moral inconsistency. You're a flip-flopper and your only real morality is masturbating to dreams of fascism.

I see, so "fighting against" terrorism is a real war, even though it's undeclared

We have declared war on terrorism when we declared war on Afghanistan and Iraq. However, we can't just "declare war" on terrorism and more than we can declare war on gays. We hunt and kill terrorists wherever we can, but it is impossible to issue a declaration of war to that effect.

But fighting against crime or drugs is not a real war, despite it being every bit as official, and doesn't need any kind of bills to centralize and increase the power of the State.

Do you know the concept of war? It is not equivalent to catching criminals -- drug dealers and the like are an internal enemy. Terrorists are an external enemy. We can't "declare war" on murderers -- we can try to apprehend them, sure. But if you can't differentiate between that and war, you have more serious problems.

Hey, would you be in favour of torturing child molesters too?

No, because there is nothing to be gained from torturing them. An objective needs to be accomplished via torture which yields a positive result (ie, saving innocent lives). This is impossible to achieve if you torture a child molester.

Why is his "rights" to "free speech" with children something you froth at the mouth over, but other rights, for huge segments of populations, you don't give a shit about?

I believe in the right to free speech because it is the cornerstone of any democracy -- if you slowly take away the right to free speech, bit by bit, you'll find that you eventually have nothing left. Also, taking away the right to free speech severely affects the populace. How do my suggestions affect the populace? They don't. Who the hell cares if the government listens in on your phone call? Are they harming you? Don't be silly. There are two distinct types of "rights violations" -- those which affect your ability to do something, and those which don't. I'm an advocate of partial repealing of the latter, but not the former unless absolutely necessary.

We have declared war on terrorism when we declared war on Afghanistan and Iraq. However, we can't just "declare war" on terrorism and more than we can declare war on gays. We hunt and kill terrorists wherever we can, but it is impossible to issue a declaration of war to that effect.

Oh, there was a war on Afghanistan and Iraq? I thought there was just Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Sure, supported by Congress. But no declaration of war. But maybe it's impossible to issue a declaration of war period. Maybe there is no more war. Just lots and lots of Freedom.

Do you know the concept of war? It is not equivalent to catching criminals -- drug dealers and the like are an internal enemy. Terrorists are an external enemy.

So the whole international drug trade is just a myth. It's all actually home-grown, unlike terrorists which can only come from foreigners.

We can't "declare war" on murderers -- we can try to apprehend them, sure. But if you can't differentiate between that and war, you have more serious problems.

Hmm, I'll take your diagnosis of my serious problems, very seriously.

No, because there is nothing to be gained from torturing them. An objective needs to be accomplished via torture which yields a positive result (ie, saving innocent lives). This is impossible to achieve if you torture a child molester.

O RLY. So I guess child molesters don't take innocent lives. Must be guilty lives! Shame on those children for consenting.

I believe in the right to free speech because it is the cornerstone of any democracy -- if you slowly take away the right to free speech, bit by bit, you'll find that you eventually have nothing left.

Interesting that you don't apply that slippery slope argument to any *other* right.

And since you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater - or for example, get away with making death threats or, for that matter, seducing children online - I guess you'll just have to accept that free speech is NOT a cornerstone of our nation.

Also, taking away the right to free speech severely affects the populace.

How so? They don't. Boo hoo, child molesters can't seduce children online. Cry me a river.

How do my suggestions affect the populace? They don't. Who the hell cares if the government listens in on your phone call?

You've "suggested" genocide and torture.

There are two distinct types of "rights violations" -- those which affect your ability to do something, and those which don't. I'm an advocate of partial repealing of the latter, but not the former unless absolutely necessary.

And you get to decide when it is "absolutely necessary." Or I guess the Executive does. It's pretty convinient when you define the conditions in which you compromise your own so-called values.

What's the point of dying for a cause? You can't enjoy the cause if you're dead, you know. If other people are irrational enough to give up their lives for a cause, so be it. I'm not going to -- I'm not completely bonkers.
So your plan for world domination will be paid for by someone elses blood. In other words you do not have the courage of your convictions. What makes you so sure that the warriors in your totalitarian state would be willing to share the fruits of their labour with you, especially since you are not willing to make the necessary sacrifices? They would have all the power and you would have to accept their decrees? Your role would be that of a 2nd rate cheerleader. Your bravado is false and your words are hollow.

Also, thank you for that God comment. However, I must politely decline and pass the favour on to you -- may you have a face-to-face encounter with God first.
Why would you wish death upon a peaceful person who has done you no harm? I guess there would be no room for compassion in the Godless totalitarian community that you would create?

You're certainly more deserving.
It is not a matter of who is more deserving, it is a matter of who is deserving. Your agenda seems to leave God out of the equation.

Hey, would you be in favour of torturing child molesters too? You know, like the Republican pedophile you always seem to be defending. Why is his "rights" to "free speech" with children something you froth at the mouth over, but other rights, for huge segments of populations, you don't give a shit about?

Don't answer. It's because you have a moral inconsistency. You're a flip-flopper and your only real morality is masturbating to dreams of fascism.
Don't you understand??? Republican = good and "liberals" = bad!! :rolleyes:

I notice that he failed to respond directly to this part of your post. You probably caught him with his pants down!! :p

1- It's illegal.

2- It's immoral.

3- It's FUCKING INNEFECTIVE!


What is ? Example please ...whats illegal...?

DID YOU READ THE LEGISLATION ?

What is immoral ..asking questions and raising your voice , while telling them they cant have pudding after dinner ?


GIVE one example of something in the bill thats ILLEGAL OR IMMORAL..

Forget innefective because all the techs being used have been proven to be effective and to have stopped countless plots and attacks and have yeilded valuable information.


But you just concentrate on actually reading the bill and finding something you object to .

What's the point of dying for a cause? You can't enjoy the cause if you're dead, you know. If other people are irrational enough to give up their lives for a cause, so be it. I'm not going to -- I'm not completely bonkers. Also, thank you for that God comment. However, I must politely decline and pass the favour on to you -- may you have a face-to-face encounter with God first. You're certainly more deserving.



Ah, I see how much you really believe in the cause you espouse.

What's the point of dying for a cause? You can't enjoy the cause if you're dead, you know. If other people are irrational enough to give up their lives for a cause, so be it. I'm not going to -- I'm not completely bonkers. Also, thank you for that God comment. However, I must politely decline and pass the favour on to you -- may you have a face-to-face encounter with God first. You're certainly more deserving.

Look, if you're going to advocate killing others, you have to be willing to do it yourself. This includes risking being killed in the process.

Either you are willing to kill, and willing to risk death, or you're full of shit.

We have declared war on terrorism when we declared war on Afghanistan and Iraq. However, we can't just "declare war" on terrorism and more than we can declare war on gays. We hunt and kill terrorists wherever we can, but it is impossible to issue a declaration of war to that effect.



Do you know the concept of war? It is not equivalent to catching criminals -- drug dealers and the like are an internal enemy. Terrorists are an external enemy. We can't "declare war" on murderers -- we can try to apprehend them, sure. But if you can't differentiate between that and war, you have more serious problems.



No, because there is nothing to be gained from torturing them. An objective needs to be accomplished via torture which yields a positive result (ie, saving innocent lives). This is impossible to achieve if you torture a child molester.



I believe in the right to free speech because it is the cornerstone of any democracy -- if you slowly take away the right to free speech, bit by bit, you'll find that you eventually have nothing left. Also, taking away the right to free speech severely affects the populace. How do my suggestions affect the populace? They don't. Who the hell cares if the government listens in on your phone call? Are they harming you? Don't be silly. There are two distinct types of "rights violations" -- those which affect your ability to do something, and those which don't. I'm an advocate of partial repealing of the latter, but not the former unless absolutely necessary.

1. I don't think you understand the concept of war. First: American doesn't, hasn't, and never will have the economic base to conquer the world. The supply lines would be too vast. Not to mention we have difficulty pacifying a country the size of California, try pacifying the world!

2. Torture is ineffective. All you do is make someone agree with you. Basically, you say I am a terrorist. I say no I'm not. You spend several weeks, even months torturing me, and finally I'll admit it because I want it to stop. A tortured person, regardless of guilt, will admit to being George Washington, or that 4+4=5 if you torture them and tell them to admit it.

3. Why wouldn't it bother you if someone was listening to your phone calls? Hell, it bothers the shit out of me! I don't want someone listening to what I'm saying! Even if its harmless chatter with my girlfriend, or plots to dominate the world, I don't care! I don't want to be listened to unless they have a warrant for it.

Which is stupid, illegal immigrants have to be tried by U.S. laws, and still get all the protections. Just because you are not a citizen of the United States does not mean that you get to be treated like you are less then human.

I didn't say I disagree with that, just that the law doesn't protect non-citizens. And illegal immigrants do not have to get those protections, wether or not it is common practice it is not madatory.

fanatical right wing fascist love fest.

fanatical right wing fascist love fest.

'greed.

Look, if you're going to advocate killing others, you have to be willing to do it yourself. This includes risking being killed in the process.

Either you are willing to kill, and willing to risk death, or you're full of shit.
This is one of those very rare days that I actually can agree with you.

I just can't abide social conservatism. Fiscal conservatives I can hold my nose and live with for a few years at a time, but there's just no room in my 21st-century notion of Canada for social conservatives who want to turn the clocks back on everything we've become over this last generation....
Ultra-capitalists are surely much worse than social conservatives. The former have much more potential to permanently change our lives for the worse.

I hope this means more people are waking up. Hopefully in time to stop the country's transformation into The Kingdom of Gilead.
What is this Kingdom of Gilead you speak of?

I can see how the two are similar. I hope he keeps to the rules this time. Having a conservative like him keeps things interesting on NS. Debate can sputter when most have similar views. It is the few like him that keeps things moving. :)
He's not useful or interesting. Conservatices of equal intellect and independent thought to the liberals on here are desired.

Do you really think that the US can dictate to the world? What happens when Pakistan (one example) doesn't want to play your game? Are you willing to risk MAD?
Pakistan has nuclear weapons but not the means to get them to the US. We'd be depending on Britain or France to launch.

So your plan for world domination will be paid for by someone elses blood. In other words you do not have the courage of your convictions.

You can do the coward routine all you want. It doesn't change the facts. The potential cost far outweighs the potential benefit of going to war. Is there a chance that you'll die in war? Of course. Is there a chance that you personally will make the difference between victory and defeat? Certainly not! So why would any sane man agree to sacrifice his life without affecting the outcome of the war? It's completely irrational.

Why would you wish death upon a peaceful person who has done you no harm? I guess there would be no room for compassion in the Godless totalitarian community that you would create?

I don't understand your statement. I said that I hoped you find religion in your life to guide you to make the correct moral decisions -- when did I say I wished you to be dead? Of course there should be compassion -- you are misguided in your extreme pacifism and perhaps God will be able to show you the way.

We should not need to acquire warrants for non-intrusive invasions of privacy. By that, I mean that policemen can't just barge into your home while you're there are rifle through your possessions. However, if you are on vacation, they should be able to do so. Similarly, they can tap your phone without you knowing, because that doesn't bother you in the slightest -- you don't even know your conversation is being listened to.

Splitting hairs. A warrant is needed for any kind of search whatsoever or any kind tap on phones. It is the entire point of having warrants so police do not step beyond their powers. They must prove their suspicions and get a warrant. Saying they can search at will if you don't know about it is just giving the government powers that it should not have. I mean, is that the best you can do, if you aren't home they can come into your house for no reason whatsoever?

No, a dictatorship would most likely lower the quality of life in the country. If it, by some miracle, manages to raise it, then I'll support it all the way.

Given your previous posts and the one right above about the government not needing warrants, what else do you expect to occur except an authoritarian regime taking power?

Splitting hairs. A warrant is needed for any kind of search whatsoever or any kind tap on phones.

Again, this is debatable as a point of law. However, I am not arguing what is; I am arguing what should be. Thus, those split hairs make a world of difference -- I believe the government should not interfere with the way you conduct your private life unless it is absolutely necessary. However, if you are unaware of a governmental intrustion of privacy, it's tantamount to "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it." You're not getting at all hurt by the government searching through your possessions, and it may ultimately be used to apprehend a criminal. Where's the harm?

Given your previous posts and the one right above about the government not needing warrants, what else do you expect to occur except an authoritarian regime taking power?

The 2nd Amendment and the American people.

Again, this is debatable as a point of law. However, I am not arguing what is; I am arguing what should be. Thus, those split hairs make a world of difference -- I believe the government should not interfere with the way you conduct your private life unless it is absolutely necessary. However, if you are unaware of a governmental intrustion of privacy, it's tantamount to "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it." You're not getting at all hurt by the government searching through your possessions, and it may ultimately be used to apprehend a criminal. Where's the harm?

The Founding Fathers gave us the Bill of Rights including the need for government to get a warrant for a reason. If they are able to search your home anytime they please, it would be an excellent tactic to use against political opponents. Anyone who says anything critical about government policies. As soon as this happens then the government has turned into the very oppressive regime that we try so hard to avoid. It doesn't matter if we knew if they were there or not. The chance for abuse of such a power is too great.

The 2nd Amendment and the American people.

I find it curious that you would advocate for the destruction of all of our rights except for the one to have guns. You know that if your ideas are ever instituted then the government will never allow the populace to have weapons that might be turned against them.

You can do the coward routine all you want. It doesn't change the facts. The potential cost far outweighs the potential benefit of going to war. Is there a chance that you'll die in war? Of course. Is there a chance that you personally will make the difference between victory and defeat? Certainly not! So why would any sane man agree to sacrifice his life without affecting the outcome of the war? It's completely irrational.

So how do you expect your plans for 'killing all the Muslims' to work if absolutely nobody wants to go to war? :confused:

This is one of those very rare days that I actually can agree with you.

Well, it makes sense, doesn't it?

After all, if a pacifist says, "I won't kill, and I won't torture" - it's not like they run out and kill and torture. They don't.

So, if you're for killing, and for torture, then go out and do it. And consider that it's a violent occupation - people won't just sit there while you shoot at them and chop them up. So there's risk - you have to accept it.

If you can't live up to your idealized view of the world, it's time to either get up and live up to it, or change your worldview.

Don't answer. It's because you have a moral inconsistency. You're a flip-flopper and your only real morality is masturbating to dreams of fascism and of children.

Fixed.

You can do the coward routine all you want. It doesn't change the facts. The potential cost far outweighs the potential benefit of going to war. Is there a chance that you'll die in war? Of course. Is there a chance that you personally will make the difference between victory and defeat? Certainly not! So why would any sane man agree to sacrifice his life without affecting the outcome of the war? It's completely irrational.
Well then you shouldn't be advocating global domination, especially if you think that it is insane for soldiers to risk their lives. Your logic is baffling.

I don't understand your statement. I said that I hoped you find religion in your life to guide you to make the correct moral decisions -- when did I say I wished you to be dead?
I already have God in my life and I do believe that I am making sound moral decisions in my life, based on His will for me. You stated "may you have a face-to-face encounter with God first". The only way for one to have a "face-to-face encounter with God" is to die.

Of course there should be compassion -- you are misguided in your extreme pacifism and perhaps God will be able to show you the way.
God expects man to be peaceful. I do my best to follow His will. If anyone is misguided, it would you and your desire to subujate the world through death and destruction. I don't see you as a compassionate person at all.

Well, it makes sense, doesn't it?

After all, if a pacifist says, "I won't kill, and I won't torture" - it's not like they run out and kill and torture. They don't.

So, if you're for killing, and for torture, then go out and do it. And consider that it's a violent occupation - people won't just sit there while you shoot at them and chop them up. So there's risk - you have to accept it.

If you can't live up to your idealized view of the world, it's time to either get up and live up to it, or change your worldview.
Again, I cannot disagree with what you say. MeansToAnEnd wants people such as yourself to put your life on the line so that he may realize his dreams. He will cheer you on, but he is not going to get his hands dirty. You called him on it and rightly so.

You know, its actually become almost fun arguing with MTAE. I mean, its not too often you get to chide future war criminals and all.....

You know, its actually become almost fun arguing with MTAE. I mean, its not too often you get to chide future war criminals and all.....

This thread should get archived and dug up every time a new war criminal pops up so we can decide it it's MTAE or not.

Well then you shouldn't be advocating global domination, especially if you think that it is insane for soldiers to risk their lives. Your logic is baffling.

Although it is quite irrational for soldiers to risk their lives without getting anything in return, they do it anyway. Perhaps many are sane, yet are too poor to find other employment. Either way, they would be willing to fight in a such war. Also, it's not a war of "global domination" at all. I would prefer to call it a war of global improvement.

The only way for one to have a "face-to-face encounter with God" is to die.

Tell that to Jesus.

God expects man to be peaceful. I do my best to follow His will. If anyone is misguided, it would you and your desire to subujate the world through death and destruction. I don't see you as a compassionate person at all.

No, the expectation is that men will create a society where His will is obeyed and all members of the society enjoy an easy and rewarding life; that they have freedom and a high quality of life. If death and destruction is the necessary prelude to this "utopia," then we must reluctantly engage in that war for peace in the future.

Although it is quite irrational for soldiers to risk their lives without getting anything in return, they do it anyway. Perhaps many are sane, yet are too poor to find other employment. Either way, they would be willing to fight in a such war. Also, it's not a war of "global domination" at all. I would prefer to call it a war of global improvement.
It's perfectly rational. Those soldiers are risking their lives to protect their country and those who live their. They are willing to give their lives so that their countrymen will remain safe and enjoy all the rights they are entitled to.


Tell that to Jesus.
I don't know the bible all that well, when did Jesus have a face to face experience with God?


No, the expectation is that men will create a society where His will is obeyed and all members of the society enjoy an easy and rewarding life; that they have freedom and a high quality of life. If death and destruction is the necessary prelude to this "utopia," then we must reluctantly engage in that war for peace in the future.

I don't think you or whoever you are quoting are really capable of telling us what God wants us to do, since he hardly seems able to do it himself. Though this is a debate for another time.

It's perfectly rational. Those soldiers are risking their lives to protect their country and those who live their. They are willing to give their lives so that their countrymen will remain safe and enjoy all the rights they are entitled to.

Then why are they still fighting in Iraq? It no longer poses a danger to our country. By your logic, it would be completely irrational to continue fighting. If they willingly fight in Iraq, they'll willingly fight in other countries that gruesomely oppress their people or that have a low quality of life. They are fighting to improve life for others in other countries -- they are like Gandhis that get up off their asses and do something good, albeit something completely irrational.

Although it is quite irrational for soldiers to risk their lives without getting anything in return, they do it anyway. Perhaps many are sane, yet are too poor to find other employment. Either way, they would be willing to fight in a such war. Also, it's not a war of "global domination" at all. I would prefer to call it a war of global improvement.
You can spin the title all you want. The fact remains that you are talking about global domination, as in dictating to other countries what they must do to meet your requirements for their survival. It also appears that you are willing to take advantage of the "poor" or the "insane" ones to fight your battles for you. You are not willing to put your life on the line to achieve your goals, therefore you have no credibility. Let the "poor, stupid" bastards die huh?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11753917&postcount=518

Tell that to Jesus.
I would say that having a "face to face" meeting with Jesus would be just as difficult as having a "face to face" meeting with God?

No, the expectation is that men will create a society where His will is obeyed and all members of the society enjoy an easy and rewarding life; that they have freedom and a high quality of life. If death and destruction is the necessary prelude to this "utopia," then we must reluctantly engage in that war for peace in the future.
The only true way to achieve "utopia" here on earth is through love and understanding. Man has waged war since the beginning of time and still cannot figure out that war is not the answer. And apparently man will continue to repeat history until he changes the equation, or completely destroys our planet.

Then why are they still fighting in Iraq?
Excellent question. What is your answer?

It no longer poses a danger to our country.
They never did pose a threat to your country.

By your logic, it would be completely irrational to continue fighting.
By your "logic" (as stated in previous posts) you would agree?

If they willingly fight in Iraq, they'll willingly fight in other countries that gruesomely oppress their people or that have a low quality of life.
And the quality of life has improved in Iraq and Afghanistan? Some have argued on these boards that there are many people in the US that have a "low quality of life". Perhaps if the US had spent the $300 Billion used in the war against Iraq on Americans instead, the lives of your fellow citizens could have been improved greatly? Or if the $300 Billion had been used to help the sick and dying in Africa then their "quality of life" could have been improved?

They are fighting to improve life for others in other countries -- they are like Gandhis that get up off their asses and do something good, albeit something completely irrational.
There you go again, bashing the sanity of your troops. When will you get up off your ass and "do something good"????

Apparently NEVER?

The potential cost far outweighs the potential benefit of going to war. Is there a chance that you'll die in war? Of course. Is there a chance that you personally will make the difference between victory and defeat? Certainly not! So why would any sane man agree to sacrifice his life without affecting the outcome of the war? It's completely irrational.

MTAE is now spinning his argument entirely. I personally think he's trying to disagree with us no matter if it means agreeing with something we've said in the past.

And to Ifreann, yeah, we should. I'm adding this to favorites for good measure :)

So how do you expect your plans for 'killing all the Muslims' to work if absolutely nobody wants to go to war? :confused:

I'm waiting, dear Trollie...

Ok, hands up, those who actually read the bill or just relied on the "UNBIASED" news media or bloggers to "interpret" the bill for you...

I am currently reading it now. so I have no comments on it... YET.

however, for others who are asking for the Bill itself and want to think and come to their own CONCLUSIONS...

the info is
Bill#:S.3930
Title: Military Commissions Act of 2006

And no, I cannot link to it, since the LoC search page does not hold search results for long.

here is the link to the Library of Congress, THOMAS homepage (http://thomas.loc.gov/)

Ok, hands up, those who actually read the bill or just relied on the "UNBIASED" news media or bloggers to "interpret" the bill for you...

I am currently reading it now. so I have no comments on it... YET.

however, for others who are asking for the Bill itself and want to think and come to their own CONCLUSIONS...

the info is
Bill#:S.3930
Title: Military Commissions Act of 2006

And no, I cannot link to it, since the LoC search page does not hold search results for long.

here is the link to the Library of Congress, THOMAS homepage (http://thomas.loc.gov/)
Hate to shock you there Juni, but try this quote from Fahrenheit 911 (http://blogs.indiewire.com/steve.rosenbaum/archives/2004_06.html):

MICHAEL MOORE: How could Congress pass this Patriot Act without even reading it?

MAN: Sit down, my son. We don't read most of the bills.

MICHAEL MOORE: No one read it!

MICHAEL MOORE: [ANNOUNCING] Members of Congress -- this is Michael Moore. I would like to read to you the USA Patriot Act.

Excellent question. What is your answer?

Because they are dedicated (albeit irrationally so) to improving the quality of life for the formerly oppressed Iraqis, and they're doing a mighty good job of it, too.

By your "logic" (as stated in previous posts) you would agree?

No. I agree that individual soldiers have no reason to fight, but that the war is a good thing and needs to be continued lest Iraq plunges into a terrible civil war.

And the quality of life has improved in Iraq and Afghanistan?

It will, as long as liberals don't take over the House, Senate, and presidency come 2008.

Apparently NEVER?

You hit it right on the nose.

the war is a good thing and needs to be continued lest Iraq plunges into a terrible civil war.


Right, we couldn't have a war - that would be bad. Hence, let's have a war.


It will, as long as liberals don't take over the House, Senate, and presidency come 2008.


Still whining about "liberals" I see.

You hit it right on the nose.

As long as you're sitting around with your thumb up your ass, maybe you could do everyone a favour and also shut the fuck up?

As long as you're sitting around with your thumb up your ass, maybe you could do everyone a favour and also shut the fuck up?

Easy, bud. I should think such harsh language is not tolerated here. Please refrain from spouting profanity that is tangential to the debate at hand. I would hate to see you get banned. ;)

Easy, bud. I should think such harsh language is not tolerated here. Please refrain from spouting profanity that is tangential to the debate at hand. I would hate to see you get banned. ;)

I can fucking say what I fucking well want to, you fucking pussy. Want to complain to the mods about it? You can fucking-a do that too.

Hate to shock you there Juni, but try this quote from Fahrenheit 911 (http://blogs.indiewire.com/steve.rosenbaum/archives/2004_06.html):

Sorry, CanuckHeaven, but Micheal Moore has been proven to use creative editing to portray what he wants people to see.

and seeing that for most other things, people demand proof and links to the original... yet here...


blogs also seem to have been raised in ranks on the Evidence list..

I can fucking say what I fucking well want to, you fucking pussy. Want to complain to the mods about it? You can fucking-a do that too.

Hush, child. You are using expletives solely for the purpose of trolling. I assure you that such action is not looked kindly upon by the moderaters. I will ask you a second time: please desist in using vulgar language for no reason at all. I would not like children to peruse this forum and think it is acceptable to use such language in real life. Thanks. :)

Hush, child. You are using expletives solely for the purpose of trolling. I assure you that such action is not looked kindly upon by the moderaters. I will ask you a second time: please desist in using vulgar language for no reason at all. I would not like children to peruse this forum and think it is acceptable to use such language in real life. Thanks. :)

Interesting! Freedom of speech for senators when seducing children online, but not for people who offend your delicate sensibilities. Fuck you very much, but you can't use the moderators as a threat to back up your stupid hypocrisy. Like I said - complain to them if you want. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

Easy, bud. I should think such harsh language is not tolerated here. Please refrain from spouting profanity that is tangential to the debate at hand. I would hate to see you get banned. ;)

Are you motherfucking kidding me? "Harsh" language is nearly encouraged on these boards. I mean (damn), I guess you would have to be mature enough to take it. Well, who gives a flying shit.

(ok, that was a bit excessive, I admit, I pared it down to the essentials.)

Interesting! Freedom of speech for senators when seducing children online, but not for people who offend your delicate sensibilities. Fuck you very much, but you can't use the moderators as a threat to back up your stupid hypocrisy. Like I said - complain to them if you want. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

Are you motherfucking kidding me? "Harsh" language is nearly fucking encouraged on these boards. I mean shit, I guess you would have to be goddamn mature enough to fucking take it. Well, who gives a flying shitfuck

thanks guys, you are forcing me to back MeansToAnEnd... read the One Stop Rule Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

Obscene and Explicit Content: Sexually graphic images and posts, and violent images such as bloody corpses. Very strictly forbidden. Obscene imagery and content in the forums should be reported to the Moderation Forum. Please provide a link to the topic, but do not quote it while explaining its illegality. Then we have to find and delete your posts too.

The standard for both forums and game is the US movie rating "PG-13". Mild swearing may be tolerated, mild sexuality may be hinted, but explicit or excessive versions of either or both may result in proportional mod response.
so in effect, he's right about this...

oh, and Jolt is a privately owned site, so the owner sets the rules on what "Freedoms" one has on the boards.

I see. I guess liberals such as yourselves do not care for the welfare of children and wish them to grow up spouting profanity as you do? I must say that I find this completely disgusting and I am appalled no one has put a stop to it.

I guess you're just conviniently forgetting how you support 50 year old men having cyber-sex with children. Makes it easier to troll if you avoid being consistent, no?

Greater Trostia and MeansToAnEnd, you obviously can't get along, so I highly recommend you grow up and act like mature adults, or put each other on your respective ignore lists. If I see y'all pulling this sort of nonsense again, the results will not be any more pretty than your poor behavior here.

Likewise for Heikoku.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia