Forums | MacLife

If you do not believe waterboarding to be torture, then why don't you have it done to you?

Chickenhawk wrote:

If you do not believe waterboarding to be torture, then why don't you have it done to you?

There are a lot of things I don't wish to experience that are not torture.
Six months in the County Jail for starters.

But I really don't want to get into that discussion again. None of you are going to change your mind, I'm not going to change my mind, so all discussing it will do is build additional animosity and increase stress levels.

I respect your opinion, I just disagree with it.
I understand you don't respect my opinion, and I'm OK with that.

resedit wrote:

I'm still looking for an explanation of Jerwin's statement.

Did any of you speak up when Janeane Garofalo made the very racist remark that any black man supporting the tea party has Stockholm's Syndrome?

I'm guessing not, hopefully because you saw no need to - there was already outcry against it.

Who gives a smurf about Janeane Garofalo?  Are you seriously comparing a lack of criticism about her with that to the former president?

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

Did you receive grants for your education?
I want my tax money back. No scientist should suck that much at the skill of simple observation. Clearly your education failed.

You seem flustered. 



No offense, but put yourself in our shoes.

It's a bit difficult to take you seriously when you're railing about the abuses of the former administration--especially when everyone remembers you angrily defending those actions for pages and pages and pages on this board.

Angrily defending what actions?

It's clear that many of what you considered to abuses I don't.
No denial there.

But what I consider to be abuses or not isn't relevant. You clearly consider them to be abuses and therefore the logical position for you to take is to limit government power.

Nothing flustering about that - it's very simple logic.

Bratboy - very specific question.

You propose that somehow my argument has no value because some (perhaps even most) of what you considered to be abuses I did not.

What's your opinion then on the numerous cases in this forum where people who blatantly have dis-regarded the Bible try to use a Bible quote (IE in the torture thread). Because they blatantly reject the Bible, do you feel those arguments of their are therefore worthless?

If you do, how come you don't challenge them when they happen?

They are not claiming it as THEIR OWN reason, they are pointing out hypocrisy in somebody else's argument.

Which is applicable to the argument I'm making here.
The people here clearly believe that gross abuses of power took place, yet they don't want to limit what power the federal government has and in fact WANT TO EXPAND IT.

That's highly illogical, regardless of what my opinions are/were on the Bush Administration - and yes, even hypocritical - as they want the federal government to have excess power when their guy is control but bitch and moan about it when someone they don't like wields that power.

Here is some concepts you haven't ever demonstrated an understanding of, res. You can have too much power in some areas while having insufficient power in other areas. In some ways having insufficient power can be as detrimental as having too much power. Power shouldn't be given to any entity unless it's accompanied by a system of checks and balances.

Last edited by ScifiterX (2009-07-13 6:16 pm)

resedit wrote:

Which is applicable to the argument I'm making here.
The people here clearly believe that gross abuses of power took place, yet they don't want to limit what power the federal government has and in fact WANT TO EXPAND IT.

I've stated that I "want to expand" the ability to wiretap without a warrant?  I want to expand the ability to torture prisoners?  Nope, never said anything of the sort.

You haven't done a very good job of specifically citing what you're even talking about in regards to the supposed expansion of federal power.  But assuming for a second that I or another person here supports some sort of "expansion" of federal power--that doesn't therefore suggest that they support ANY and EVERY expansion of federal power...which appears to be exactly what you're attempting to argue.

That's highly illogical, regardless of what my opinions are/were on the Bush Administration - and yes, even hypocritical - as they want the federal government to have excess power when their guy is control but bitch and moan about it when someone they don't like wields that power.

Oh, "illogical" is definitely a word that comes to mind.

resedit wrote:

You mean like the hypocrisy of complaining an administration abuses power while at the same time wanting federal government to control more?

What?  You're throwing ever conceivable subject together under some generic concept of "federal power," and then accusing anyone who doesn't support ANY expansion of federal government a hypocrite.  That's a pretty poor argument.

You want federal government to have power to do things YOUR way.
That sounds an awful lot like using the government to force your ideals down other peoples throats, precisely what so many here accuse the right of wanting to do.

I have an opinion of what the extent of government power should be, I suppose (again, you've yet to offer any specifics about precisely what it is you're referring to with all of this).  But have I suggested that any particular aspect should be expanded ONLY to fulfill one viewpoint, and not another?  Do you have an example?

You want true freedom, true liberty, you limit government so it doesn't force anyone's ideals down people's throats.
When government gets too powerful, that's bound to happen - ala the quote that started this thread, demonstration of where it happened in other countries.

Once again, I think you're speaking in pretty meaningless generalities.

resedit wrote:

Not meaningless at all.
Power will be used as the one who wields it sees fit to use it.

In Utopia, that may be fine and dandy.
We don't live in Utopia. Such power will be abused sooner or later. It always is.

Yes, and?

I think everyone here recognizes that power can be abused.  What we're a little hazy on is the suggestion that this country is comparable to Iran or Nazi Germany.

resedit wrote:

You mean like the hypocrisy of complaining an administration abuses power while at the same time wanting federal government to control more?

I want the federal government to have greater power to control abuses.  How's that for hypocrisy?
NOT IN A BOX
NOT WITH A FOX

You want federal government to have power to do things YOUR way.

THAT'S WHAT IT'S THERE FOR.  By the people, for the people.
NOT WITH A GOAT
NOT IN A BOAT

That sounds an awful lot like using the government to force your ideals down other peoples throats, precisely what so many here accuse the right of wanting to do.

You're kids will meditate in school! California, Uber Alles
NOT IN THE RAIN
NOT ON A TRAIN

You want true freedom, true liberty, you limit government so it doesn't force anyone's ideals down people's throats.
When government gets too powerful, that's bound to happen - ala the quote that started this thread, demonstration of where it happened in other countries.

AH G'WAN....TRY THEM You MIGHT Like THEM!

resedit wrote:

We're not - yet.
Keep expanding the power of federal government and it is only a matter of time.

Are you conflating size of government with "power?"

I'm still at a loss as to what specific instances of the expansion of federal power demonstrate a situation nearing that of Iran or Nazi Germany.

Yep. But it's not a caveat emptor capitalism.