" So tell me, from what other nations does "not torturing" separate us? "

well it WOULD.. (if you don't succeed in redefining torture in the UNITED STATES too "we don't torture unless we need too") separate us from, North Korea, IRAN, Russia, ISREAL, the STANS( not sure which ones.. but most of them are pretty bad) Syria, ( i mean i could go on.. but the majority "bad countries" too keep it simple for you) Not all "Bad countries" torture, and not all "good countries" dont... (again with my arbitrary definition of good and bad)

"At no point did I say anything to insinuate or imply the sentiment that "you hate America and I love it" you mucking foron"

can you please define "insinuate" because you might not know what it means...

when you tell me that i take the military for granted after i make a comment about funding... is "insinuating"
you claiming "Patrick claims america tortures" as a point of something? is "insinuating" that i am "talking smack" about America
you saying a public healthcare system is "un-American" is "insinuating" that i want to turn the country "gay french"

Basically i'd estimate (conservatively estimate) 50% of the reasons (if you can call them that) for anything you are against/for is based on "civil liberties" or "the constitution" therefor, (conservatively) 50% your arguments are "insinuating:" that i dont believe in those "american ideals"

This is not me 'misconstrue, mischaracterize and extrapolate the things you've said' Its an ACCURATE representation of your INSINUATIONs AGAIN LOOK UP THE WORD "insinuate" and please dont use the same dictionary, you use for the words "ultimate" and "fundamental"

: insinuate: "1 a: to introduce (as an idea) gradually or in a subtle, indirect, or covert way"
( i know you'll have trouble looking it up yourself... after you had so much trouble with the US backed JP MORGAN buyout... i can only imagine how daunting a dictionary must be for you)

"But at no point did I make any reference as to what I thought your personal opinion of America was nor did I say anything about my opinion of America relative to your opinion."

No you didn't.. but you DID "insinuate" it. Or in other words... you did not make any direct reference as to what you thought my personal opinion of America was, but you did gradually or in a subtle, indirect, or covert way claim what my personal opinion of America was (me and my elitist liberal use of definitions for words.)

"If you construed it in that way then you are either projecting your impression of all conservatives onto me or you have a reading comprehension disorder."

i could have a reading comprehension disorder?... or the guy who cant google JP morgan buyout, doesn't know what a credit default swap is doesn't understand the concept of "precedent" in the legal world, ( all topics you claim to have at least a basic understanding of) MIGHT ... have the "learning disability"... MAYBE? Or a 3rd option, is just really intellectually lazy and stubborn.. (which is my vote)

"I don't want to give you the opportunity to try to make some cheap point that I am trying to dodge the issue. I"

i've think i've made some fairly "expensive" points to the effect of you "dodging" issues in posts that you respond too, (i totally wouldn't notice if you just skipped one of my posts... lol... i'm sure you do.. )

"Nice try Patrick but either your logic or your wording isn't working. You have actually been saying that America DOES torture or that America HAS tortured"

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.

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"

Its like when you tell your lazy bum kid in the middle of the summer "in this family we work for a living" if you yell at him and force him to get a job, the statement holds true, even during the job searching time. However if you Redefine "work" as sitting on the couch watching QVC and then tell your kid "in this family we work for a living" THE STATEMENT IS NO LONGER ACCURATE

do you see the parallel?

"While I have been saying that I don't believe that America has tortured."
yes, while our actions changed, and you simply redefined the word "torture" ... Seems semantic too me..

""America should not torture because we are better than that but I believe that America has tortured and therefore, we should investigate that alleged torture and thereby regain our status as being 'better than that' ""

um.. no...

i think that "America should go above and beyond the laws of international war crimes because we are better than that but I believe that American government officials have tortured (in clear violation of international law, and most likely US LAW) and therefore, we should investigate that alleged torture and thereby begin too regain our status as a nation of laws and put us back on the track of being 'better than them' "

see the difference?.. my goal is that America should never be in a position where the vast majority of people believe we are a nation that tortures. I liked the position we had in ww2 where germans were running to surrender too us. How many American lives do you think we saved by creating an atmosphere were the germans wanted to surrender to us over the soviets?

"Ummm, yeah, remember those discussions about the non-definitive wording? "
yea. i do, and i remember exlaining how you pulled it out of your non-legal expertise @SS. why dont you actually mention the reasons i say its a bad idea?.. you know about "slipping in under the radar of torture"?... you know the REASON why the laws arnt written the way you claim they should be?..

you say "the law should be like this"
i say "well they arnt because of THIS"
you say "but they should" (without discussing MY REASON!!!!!)

"the defining terms in that "torture" law that would unquestionably include waterboarding. "
again,, we're not french and our laws are not written that way...

there is this THING called "precedent" in our legal system. There is NO precedent to show 'watterboarding is not torture" there is much "precedent" proving it IS. now you can "beat" "precedent" by explaining it and using logic, and if you convince a dudge/jury of this, then MAGICALLY you've then set NEW "precedent" Reasoning builds on reasoning, and THAT HOW THE SYSEM WORKS!...

now i could say "our system is unique, and unquestionable, and perfect... :: gives U. Sam Reach around:: , but i wont, i'll just say that it works, makes sense. and has its benefits compared to other legal systems and its draw backs...

"As for "no law is written that way", that's just nonsense"
your absolutely correct, many laws are ( many of those laws are stupid :).. look up mandatory minimums)

However no WAR CRIME LAWs are written that way... better?..

""NO", is an absolute term."

see i admitted my mistake and corrected... points for you... :: cheers::

:: coughs:: ultimate :: coughs:: :: coughs:: unique :: coughs::

"I do not believe our use of waterboarding or anything else I've heard of, falls into the category of torture. "
and i've repeatedly said your "legal expertise" is BULL$HIT at best.. I like to listen to Legal "experts" with "no dog in the hunt" (so to speak) opinions on these issues. :)

"I have consistently maintained that I do not believe that torture has a definitive universally accepted, or legally useful, definition"
again.. your legal expertise is what?...

"You disagree. Fine."
well me.. and the majority of legal experts (with "no dog in the hunt")... so really they disagree with you, and i defer to their judgment. (too be technically accurate)

"Why don't we just wait and see how it turns out because this is getting very old."
ISENT THAT WHAT I WAS SAYING?... investigate and see what turns up?... or are you saying we should "ignore it" and see how it turns out?.. cuz i'm fairly sure if you "ignore" something.. it "turns out" that you "ignored it"... kind of self fulfilling don't you thinK?

BTW, there is no rule that says you cant disagree with a legal judgement...

"I am not going to convince you and I assure you that you are not going to convince me. "

well no one can convince YOU of anything... so.. we already know that.

"Our nation is unique on this planet in the way in which it was created, founded, organized and structured."

yes, very unique, almost as if no other country WAS US, with the same "creation, founding, organization and structure" and such a blanket statement could in NO WAY be descriptive of ANY OTHER NATION.

No one could say "Great Britian is unique on this planet in the way in which it was created, founded, organized and structured."
or "Norway is unique on this planet in the way in which it was created, founded, organized and structured."
or "india is unique on this planet in the way in which it was created, founded, organized and structured."
or "Canada is unique on this planet in the way in which it was created, founded, organized and structured."

all of those statements ARE CLEAR LIES... (sarcasm)

Its almost like each country is unique " unique on this planet in the way in which it was created, founded, organized and structured." you know them all BEING DIFFERENT COUNTRIES!!!...

but now, if your done giving Uncle Sam a "reach around" can we get back to the actual issues we are discussing?

"It is that only country in which the power and authority of government is derived strictly and solely from the consent of the governed."
yea.. there are NO OTHER democracies on the planet. and the "Magna Carta" was written by thomas Jefferson and Ben franklin while they were fighting darth vadar in Middle earth against the soviets.

". It is the only country in which the foundational rule of law was conceived and derived first before the actual government was formed on that foundation."

really?.. the ONLY government in which a constitution was written before the government was formed? you seriously think we are the only ones?... lol... in ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY?... lol... just off the top of my head I can think of 2 occupied nations in which similar "formations" occurred... lol

"Therefore, unless you are advocating that we change all of that, we cannot be compared to other countries on an "apples to apples" basis.:"
or if i want to live in the real world?.. not in your diluted state... either one...

"As for your "Capitalist paradise"...no country is a paradise but we are the country that has come the closest to following the tenets of capitalism...at least until we started allowing the government to insert its' heavy hand in places it didn't belong. "

yea cuz our "heavy hand" has gotten "heavier" in the past 30 years.. not lighter... gotcha... Wooo the era of "Reregulation" (why does my spell check want to change it to "deregulation"?) i keep hearing about.. .lol

.. so we are not done with the "reach around" yet... lol.. this whole post was just BS on BS... with a nice "happy ending for uncle same" .. i'll meet you over at the next post where hopefully we can discuss specific issues... Not just how much spit too put on our hands while pleasuring our countries ego.

In other words, I consider it a civic responsibility that all citizens contribute to the security and general welfare of our nation, even though it is, by necessity, a bit of a limited trade-off of liberties in exchange for that security.

I might not agree with your assertions of liberty and taxes, but this sentence in all practical purposes gives us common ground. I'd be willing to "play under these rules". However you can no longer claim "its and infringement of liberty" for a reason NOT TO HAVE a government program. Because you are willing to "break that rule" yourself if its a program YOU BELIEVE IN. Do you see how you are bias, and your logic is circular at best?

"However, that military you reference is there and in place to ensure your liberty"
- you don't need to destroy the planet 100 times over to ensure our liberty, Surely enough fire power to kill everyone on the planet 3 or 4 times would do the job just fine. I'm not really seeing the point of wasting our tax dollars to have the ability too do it another 95 times.

"If one entity is an assurance of your liberties and the other, no matter how trivial or legitimate is an infringement on your liberties then the latter one is, by definition, more "dangerous" to liberty. "

hmm.. your right military power, has NEVER hindered anyone's personal liberties in the history of military power and such concern for unseen future military overreach is a alarmist position of someone who clearly knows nothing about history.

"Fair enough. What then is your educated, factually based determination of how much of your money the government should be allowed to confiscate? "
i think that has to do with more what we "demand the government" too do for us. Like i "demand" the government have military, courts, schools, road, so on and so forth. i also believe the government should run healthcare, so once healthcare is enacted i'd expect to be taxed more... I believe we should be taxed based upon the services the government provides not a "personality" driven arbitrary amount that takes NO FACTS into account.

""Fighting global warming" is a scam and a waste of time, money and energy."
that is your "professional" climatological expertise opinion? got cha.. just like your financial and legal expertise... i totally believe you on this one.

"1. Where is the Constitutional authority? " um... so if something is not written in the constitution, there is not right to it?... (like a donut, i have no right to a donut, because the word DONUT is not in the constitution.) Yea, that makes sense... WOW>. your legal training..>!!!!
"2. From where does the money come? " um... same place every other government program gets it money? (agin.. not a "rights issue")
"3. Why should a bureaucrat determine the health needs of me or my family? " um... how is this a "civil rights" issue?.. ( do you know what civil rights mean).. btw, i've explained how Insurance companies now do that, so yea... i'd rather a "government bureaucrat" then a PROFIT motivated corporation (but you've never responded to that... and you never will)
"4. Why would we allow a bureaucrat to ration our healthcare? " umm.. how is this a civil rights issue?.. Do you remember what the question was?...

"FYI, having the most powerful fighting force on the face of the planet is what gives you the liberties to say the things here that you have been saying but take for granted. That's my "perspective" and that's all I have to say on that matter.
Period. End of story. You will NOT take my previous quotes and then attempt to extrapolate them in a BS attempt to spin"

And once again, you dont discuss the issue that was "YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR THE MILITARY" you dont want to pay taxes.. and whine like a baby when they pass the "arbitrary am mount, you rush limbaugh and jesus all decided. even though military spending is like 70 something percent of ALL discretionary spending. SO to CUT TAXES... you would HAVE TO CUT THE MILITARY!!!!

but for the 5th time now, you ignore THE ISSUE AND HIGH BEIND your flag wrapped incoherent argument. YOu say I take "them" for granted, when i dont take my family who fights for granted, and I WANT TO FUND THEM... :)...

"into some kind of righteous moral indignation"

YOU HAVE THE "righteous moral indignation" (you know with me taking them for granted and all?)I RESPONDED in kind, pointing out your despicable behavior.

incarcerating someone for a kidnapping, is not just another kidnapping

me calling out your despicable use of "supporting the troops" as a obfuscation of the POLICY POINT I HAD, is not me arbitrarily showing "righteous moral indignation"

"I have repeatedly said that I do not believe that you have to raise taxes in order to collect more tax revenue. "
right... you just pray for more revenue?.. or do you want to actually and try and argue the specifics of the laffer curve with me? Seriously..?

"So, is it your assertion that JP Morgan Chase, for example, used taxpayer money to buy Bear Sterns? I couldn't find any evidence of that. Do you have a link? "

I wouldn't call it "my assertion" i'd call it "realities assertion"

Yea.. this took me all of 4 seconds too find.. (oooof i need a break) REALLY YOU COULDN'T FIND ANY EVIDENCE? next time try the topic at hand's WIKIPEDIA PAGE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_Stearns#Fed_bai...

"the Federal Reserve agreed to issue a non-recourse loan of $29 billion to JP Morgan Chase,[18] thereby assuming the risk of Bear Stearns's less liquid assets "

I.e. (if you actually read this and still dont understand) the government loaned JP MORGAN the money to buy BEAR STEARNs, if JP morgan cant payback the (extremely low interest) money then the government takes the loss, (by not getting paid back). IF the deal becomes profitable for JP morgan, then they get to keep all the profits, and NOTHING goes to the government. SO THE US taxpayer assumed all the RISK, and stands to gain, NO REWARD. BEST CASE SENERIO ... the US taxpayer breaks even.

so is my "assertion" accurate?

". Hell, many of those in Congress can't even balance their checkbook yet they're directly and indirectly affecting the economy of the entire world. "
oh i totally agree, morons who know nothing about economics should NOT be on the banking committee... you know like I should be making decisions before YOU....

"Why must you always attempt to be the part of the anatomy from which you claim that conservatives pull their numbers Patrick? "
because i AM an @SS... i just use my brain for information...

"Why 1/4? Because that money is our private property.Period. "
so it wouldn't be your "private property" if the government took ONE Third?... or a Fifth? (weird its almost like you didnt answer the question)
I'm asking you why you think 1 forth is this un movable "line in the sand" JUST YOUR REASONING.... WHY?..

"Actually, I feel like that is even too high."
ok.. after everyone agrees too your "1/4th" rule, now you'd claim it needs to be 1/5th.. again, its almost like you pulled it straight out of my personality, with no use of your brain at all...

"government to allow each of us to keep as much of our property as possible"
while, funding the necessary programs of government...

"Minimum Wage is arbitrary. "
oh really... Minimum wage is arbitrary? i thought it had to do with a "living wage", and the exploitation of workers, and so on and so forth, but i guess if "Ultimate" can mean "not the top" "arbitrary" can mean "specific, and reasoned"

"But it's the highest number that I, personally, believe is even remotely justifiable. "
why?... a 4th?... just admit you are pulling out of your 'personality'... you have no reason, YOUR JUST SAYING IT. and lets move on.

"You mean in the same way that guns are "legalized" so therefore, when someone uses a gun in the commission of a crime then either the gun manufacturer or the people who made them legal should be to blame? "

maybe not "criminally" to blame.. but when a whole lobby arm is saying "X GUN" are only used too commit crimes because its design is perfect for "X CRIME" and here is statical evidence proving it, (i.e. evidence supporting their claim) there for we should keep "X GUN" banned. THen the congress un ban the "X GUN" and a year later the use of "X GUN" increase in violent crimes. Yea, the lawmakers who didnt listen to reason, and went with their "gut", are to blame for the excess deaths, that would not have happened if they had not been so short sited. (kinda like how you blame the people at the fed for every economic problem ever created, except of that pesky evidence and logic thing i have going for me)

"Once they were securitized, weren't they more of a financial instrument than insurance? "

what the CDS?... they were not securitized... do you know what "securitized means"?.. i'd assume you dont if you think the CDS could be.
the CDS were INSURING (BUT NOT INSURING ::winks:: ) mortgage backed securities. Not the other way around, and that is a fairly MAJOR part of this whole thing. But go head keep not knowing what credit default swaps are, or what the word "securities" means and keep thinking you will enlighten ME about what went wrong with the financial crisis... can i just start calling you "Citizen Joe the Plumber"?...

"And if proper oversight were followed, would they not be relatively safe instruments?"
IF "proper oversight" were followed, and if other "proper oversight" was not REPEALED 10 years ago, other forms of securities (the kind that exist) that got us in this mess, might not have been allowed to exist, or overseen in such a way that the could be used as other "securities" ARE. )to spread the risk.) But just FYI it gets WAY MORE COMPLICATED then just this, ( the things you dont understand already). so why dont you just sit back and let those of us who KNOW what we are talking about handle it.

". But I don't see why they would be inherently bad "
really, the fact that they dont exist, and you want to sell them.. might be bad?.. just maybe?... I mean i find it funny, that you think "they wouldn't be inherently bad" what do you think "credit default swap" securities would look like?..

I mean CDS insure against the loss of securities, so you'd want too securities insurance that unsure other highly risky securities? Well then cant we just CDS those securities too?.. in this never ending cycle of "insuring, and securitizing"...

OH WAIT THATS WHAT FRACKING HAPPENED lol (only with existing securities not the ones made up in your head)

"who created the atmosphere and the mechanisms by which they could be securitized? I believe that was HUD, Freddie and Fannie...government entities all. "

who created the atmosphere where you could now do things LEGALLY that were once ILLEGAL?.. who created the atmosphere where "oversight" was completely neglected, and seen as a nuisance rather then a watch dog? Yea.. HUD did it... lol... NOT CONGRESS, or the SEC ... but HUD, and FANNIE... lol... once again.. your ability to grasp these concepts inspires me. FANNIE IS AT FAULT because they now did LEGAL TRICKS that were once illegal! NOT THE PEOPLE WHO MADE IT LEGAL... THEY ARE IN NO WAY AT FAULT...

"then it would have been less significant and shorter lived."

doesn't sound like the "whole story" to me.... it almost seems like a "relative" and "subjective" reading of a specific part of the entire crash, and depression... :).... SO NOT the "whole story" .. right?

"The Fed artificially affected the underlying foundations of the economy and in doing so caused disastrous rippling and ballooning effects."

but the banks and hedge-funds, the Commodity bubble, the Sub-prime lending, the Deregulation (allowing all this to happen) the Over-leveraging, the housing bubble ( i could go on) had NOTHING too do with it?... They had nothing to do with the "underlying foundation" of the economy?... right... you clearly know what you are talking about.

"So long discrimination is not being practiced then let everyone succeed or advance on their own merits. "
i agree.. MR. WHITE GUY AND THE DIRTY MEXICANS ( i can write a children's book.... lol)

"However, unions also attempt to coerce their membership to vote in the way the union desires. "
define "coerce" in this case, and wouldn't the democratic and republican parties be as "equal" in coercion of their own members to "vote" the way the party desires? Im just saying you are clearly BIAS to the concept of UNIONS, and obviously havnt given this much thought.

"I didn't ask what they "could" do. I asked what you thought they were doing today. "
FINE THEY ARE exploiting their workers... ARE ... they CAN and the ARE... better?...

"There are plenty of right-to-work states that don't seem to be having issues. "
issues?... like state wide economic issues?.. cuz the vast majority of "right to work states" are having "issues".. (but again, thats something you'd have to check REALITY about, so we know you have a problem with that)

"Look at the foreign car companies in those states. I don't believe they have unions do they? Toyota going bankrupt due to unions? "
YOu don't know anything about why the car companies are going bankrupt, The unions are like 1.1 percent of the problem with the car companies, Kind of like "tort reform" in problem with healthcare. its so NOT THE ISSUE. I refuse to engage with you in another debate based on my understanding of the facts, and your scapegoats you like to pull out of your @rse.

"We have the right to fire you at any time.
You have the right to quit at any time.
Contract done. "

yes, and you being the rare white guy working with all the mexicans, it is really easy for you too go from one racist boss to the next, an unfair advantage you clearly have over the rest of the workforce. (see.. you really shouldn't use personal examples..)

"So, in other words, the government is not the benevolent entity in which you would have us believe? "
um.. when did i ever claim the government was "benevolent"?.. and what is "evil" about taking on the role of employer?.. OK, Little timmy, in a negotiation there is not a "good guy" and a "bad guy" there are 2 competing interests (the devil has nothing to do with it) cutting a deal that is mutually beneficial is the goal. Thats why both sides needs to be well informed, and have access to the same information.

"As for the laws to which you refer...why aren't existing labor laws sufficient for pretty much all issues? "
well i could ask you "why cant you just read my post and get answers to questions before asking them AGAIN" I mean you might have to go as far AS THE NEXT sentence too get your answer?... and it might be something like ...

"My point is that UNions Are a NON governmental way, for employers and employes to solve specific problems. An issue with an Automaker MIGHT (just might) be different from that of a textile plant, so a "law" might help the auto company, but hinder a Textile plant. So a Broad all encompassing LAW would be counter productive. However if the UNions of these different companies negotiate terms of employment many "issues" may not even arise... " - LAST FRACKING POST

"My whole issue with unions is the "terms of employment". I covered those above. "

and your "whole issue" of "terms of employment" are the same for ALL UNIONS right?.. oh no wait.. its almost LIKE that might be a SPECIFIC negotiated term of a few specific unions. If you and LIKE-MINDED PEOPLE joined the unions you could support people who didn't support those "terms of employment" and change the ONE THING you dont fracking like!!!

"And those are pretty much all of the laws we need. Virtually anything else is going to impose on and impede the proper aspects of a free-market. "
right, thats why i said they SHOULDN'T make new LAWS (while you in your last point claimed that labor laws were how to fix ANY PROBLEM) but allow the workers and the employers to negotiate around issues on a case by case bases... you know too not "impede the proper aspects of a free-market."

But you would only know that if you READ my post. so who could expect that right?