966 comments posted · 16 followers · following 2
I found one study that said that 7.8% of bankruptcies were caused by "ill health". I'm assuming that since "unemployment" has it's own category and a rate of 37.6% that "ill health" doesn't mean that a person is unable to work. So, if you could explain exactly what you mean, it would be greatly appreciated.
The reason I am objecting to your generic use of the word "torture" is NOT because I'm trying to cover for anyone. It's because it is a non-specific term that may or may not cover this specific activity and the way in which it was administered. Similarly, "waterboarding" is not a universal term. Using two of your favorite examples, the Double Tenth Incident and Chase Nielsen, actions defined as "waterboarding" did indeed occur. However, the difference in the two techniques were significantly different and both of them are significantly different than our technique. In the case of the Double Tenth Incident, the victims were beaten as the water was being poured and they were forced to swallow so much water that their stomachs became distended at which point their captors JUMPED on their stomach. In the case of Nielsen, he was subjected to so much water that he neared unconscious from strangulation.
It's a pathetic comparison and it fails any objective observation as to intent. Since you like analogies so much, here is mine.
You are my legal prisoner. You have been proven through your actions to be untrustworthy with sharp objects. Therefore, it is my responsibility to trim your fingernails. While clipping your nails, I cut a little too deeply which causes one of your nails to bleed. YOU would claim that my intent was to amputate your finger. Now, in either case, the action could be described as "removing a portion of one of the carpal digits" but obviously, the end result is not the same. Similarly, all "waterboardings" are not equal. What you would qualify as an amputation, I would qualify as a fingernail clipping.
P.S. I know I already replied to this post once but I think it was grabbed and stuck in Gitmo. Maybe it will show up after they're done waterboarding it. So, when you make accusation or implications that I have skipped some of your posts...I think that could explain some of it. But hey, think what you want.
SO "us" are in the same boat as the Japanese, North Koreans, and Vietnamese ... Good to know.. and "they are" who again?...
Are you deliberately obtuse? I'm not citing (with footnotes) the examples again, of how all those (Japanese, NK, Vietnam) counties used Torture to gain infomation about MILITARY attacks on their homeland!!! Like MULTIPLE NUCLEAR STIKES on their Home Islands (i'll let you try and figure out which ones)
I have a similar question in my response to this paragraph that I asked in another post.
First, let's include in this mix the 3 enemy combatants (aka terrorists, unlawful combatants or detainees). Ok? Are we clear? On the one hand, we have the United States of America. On the other hand, we have those countries you listed along with the group I just included. Are we good to go?
What, if any, difference to you see between those two groups...the US vs that other group.
Oh, I'm quite sure you believe you have made some great points. You're so fond of definitions...shall I look up "deluded" for you?
And Patrick, *if* I've missed one of your posts, it's for the same reason that you "totally wouldn't notice"...this system is hard to follow. However, I have responded to each and every one of your posts for which I have received notification in my email. Don't you think it's just a little blatantly hypocritical of you to accuse me of doing something when you admit that you wouldn't even notice it if I did?
ok.. i know i've been talking about UNcle Sam alot recently.. but you do know he is NOT A REAL PERSON.. like when you give him a "reach around" you're not actually doing sexual acts to a man with a multi colored hat.
What is the point of even making this comment? Seriously.
When i say "america doesn't ..." that mean the laws governing the people says we "dont ..." if a person operating under the color of US LAW breaks said LAW (or rule) They acted outside their legal authority, therefore NOT ACTING AS AN AGENT OF THE United States. So when our governemnt leaders rewrote torture law in the US, with no authority too do so. they committed a crime, and should be punished. so MAINTAIN the accurate statement " the united states does not torture"
Patrick, that may be the most coherent and understandable single paragraph you've written since we began debating. I'm impressed. I believe I actually understand exactly the point you were trying to make.
Of course, I still disagree, because I don't believe any laws were actually rewritten but rather that legal opinions and interpretations of existing laws were offered and used as justification for certain actions.
do you see the parallel?
It's a little abstract but yes, I understand what you're saying about "redefining" something as it currently exists. However, using your example, if that "lazy kid" purchased items from QVC and then sold them for a profit on Ebay, then the statement would be accurate. So maybe what we have here is a failure to see the bigger picture in some cases?
yes, while our actions changed,
I think we understand this disagreement. I don't believe that our waterboarding of those 3 detainees qualifies as torture and you do.
i think that "America should go above and beyond the laws of international war crimes
That's a valid opinion.
And my opinion is that America should take whatever steps are reasonable and could be interpreted as legally justifiable to protect America. Although I'm half inclined to agree to some form of "Truth Commission" just because it would result in Pelosi going down if it was ruled that waterboarding violated OUR laws regarding torture.
see the difference?.. How many American lives do you think we saved by creating an atmosphere were the germans wanted to surrender to us over the soviets?
While I understand your point, I don't completely understand how it is you believe that American lives were saved because of that "atmosphere". At that point, it was really just a matter of to whom the Germans would rather surrender. They were still defeated at that point.
However, there is a significant difference between German soldiers and these enemy combatants. I would say that the Japanese soldiers would have been a better analogy. They had the Kamikazes. They had a deeper sense of what they perceived as honor and were much more willing to sacrifice their individual lives if they thought they could take some of us with them. While there might be those people in the world that would look upon us more favorably if we were to punish those involved with enhanced interrogation techniques (particularly that brutal face-holding technique), I do not believe that it would change the opinions of our enemies one bit. In fact, I think they're actually more likely to take it as a sign of weakness. Why would someone who is willing to blow themselves up or decapitate an American with glee, be persuaded to be more benevolent towards us regardless of what we do? Had we waterboarded prior to 9/11? Is that what caused them to hate us so much?
Sigh...I'm going to try to submit this comment now. But this time, I'm going to copy my post first and save it.
Forget all of the good that this country has done throughout our history. Forget the millions, maybe billions of people that have been kept free or liberated. Forget all of the innovations we have created and shared with the world. Forget all of the medicines and medical technologies that have saved lives across the planet.. Forget that we are trying to be like France in all aspects except for a willingness to use nuclear energy. And, of course, forget that China and India do not care one whit for conservation or pollution...they're busy building their economies...mostly on our model (former model?). All you need to remember, what you CANNOT forget is that we make up less that 5% of the world's population and we consume 25% of its' resources. And, don't forget, that by raising taxes and energy costs on ALL Americans is going to magically solve the whole global warming "crisis"...well, doing all of that and turning off the sun.
those generations who benefited from the countless generations of slave labor, exploitation labor, and those who STILL benefit from the social,
It is impossible to distinguish those generations who benefited from any person who came to this country after slavery ended. Therefore, it is morally wrong to continue to hold anyone "responsible" unless you choose to do it based on the virtue of the color of their skin. Hence, we should immediately halt any institutionalized favoritism, Affirmative Action etc, and let everyone succeed or fail based on their own merits.
Um.. so seeking retribution for wrongdoing is wrong?... "You could kill my daughter and it is YOU I would go after." Thats retribution "case closed"
Your pathetic example is just that...pathetic. Yes, I would be engaging in retribution...against an identifiable person who was the one that ACTUALLY COMMITTED the transgression. But I would not seek retribution against either your parents or your children. See the difference?
one cultural group is reaping the benefits of the subjugation
No it's not. Prove the existing cause/effect.
Now the society of "african americans" (and other minority groups) is continually persecuted, not by the fault of ONE citizen individually but by society as a whole.
Oh, so you want to legislate all disagreeable thought and action out of existence? Ain't gonna happen. Especially if you keep giving the racist morons fuel to add to their fire by unfairly advancing someone based solely on their race or perceived disadvantage.
begin to throw rocks at the new guys coming across the border.
So long as they are coming across the border legally, I would throw rocks at any rock throwers. Those coming across illegally...they get boulders rolled at them...nothing more than a common criminal every single day they are here.
well you could TRY and fix the legacy such "wrongs" left
Again, prove your case. What overwhelming facts?
Are you completely ignoring all of the advances in racial equality in just the last 40 or so years? Until we eliminate all local, state and federal support for institutionalized advancement based on race then we will never have a truly color blind society.
By the way, when does a white person get a seat in the Congressional Black Caucus?