Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Hogwash. Utter poppycock.
You know it's torture. You just want to sleep at night and be ok with yourself. The problem is, you shouldn't be.
Amerikkka now stands for invading countries that haven't attacked us, putting in our own governments, kidnapping people (rendition) and torturing them.
AWESOME!!!!!!!!
Hogwash. Utter poppycock.
You know it's torture. You just want to sleep at night and be ok with yourself. The problem is, you shouldn't be.
Amerikkka now stands for invading countries that haven't attacked us, putting in our own governments, kidnapping people (rendition) and torturing them.
AWESOME!!!!!!!!
No it isn't torture. And YOU can't get past the fact that if its "torture" -then dozens and dozens more Americans have been "tortured" than all terrorists combined! Who is on the receiving end of an act NEVER determines whether it is torture or not. If its torture to do it to one person, it is torture to do it to ANYONE. Not unless you want to make the STUPID, MINDLESS, KNEEJERK, TYPICAL DUMB ASS LIBERAL argument that its only "torture" if its done to anyone BUT a US soldier! While rigorous and harsh methods are used for training by our military - torture is NEVER used! But waterboarding was used in training in numerous divisions in the different branches of the military for years and years -even after it became public knowledge that three terrorists had been waterboarded. Your contention it is torture falls apart with the FACT it was done to our own soldiers and in far greater numbers than it was ever done to all terrorists combined -because there is no such thing as an act that is only torture if done to foreigners but is just "training" if done to US soldiers! You simply want to change the definition of torture to mean "anything that makes our enemy FEEL bad, or FEEL scared or FEEL anything really uncomfortable" (but inducing those same feelings in our own soldiers is fine and dandy) as opposed to its REAL definition! Sorry -I know how liberals operate by insisting words mean whatever they NEED them to mean at the moment and therefore words all have fluid, constantly changing definitions -but its a lie. Effective communication can only take place because of universal agreement on the meaning of words in the first place -and the rest of the world says this one is NOT your call. The rest of the world hasn't jumped on board with the American liberal nutjobs, Democrat politicians and a couple of extremist groups actively seeking the downfall of the US anyway - who think a would-be mass murdering terrorists' FEELINGS are more important the very lives of those he is working to slaughter.
Using the liberals' definition of "torture" would make going to work "torture" for a lot of people, going to the annual family reunion "torture", raising kids "torture", paying bills "torture" and mowing the fucking grass "torture"! And definitely Mommy making you wear a sweater because SHE feels cold would be "torture"! FEELINGS obviously CANNOT be used to define what is torture anymore than feelings are used as the basis of ANY of our laws.
Torture is NOT defined by how someone FEELS as the result of certain acts - but ONLY by what the act DOES to them. Absolutely NO ONE benefits by using a loose and therefore MEANINGLESS definition like that! If someone makes you cry, if someone makes you squeal like a little girl, if someone makes you scared -does NOT make what they did to you "torture" because being the wuss you are, it could mean someone doing anything from calling you a panty waist to shooting you in the leg! When discussing REAL torture -if it is torture to to do it one person, then it means it is ALWAYS torture to do it to ANYONE. It isn't a shifting definition where it is "torture" if done to a terrorist, but "training" if done to a US soldier! So how waterboarding makes someone FEEL is irrelevant in determining whether it is "torture" or not! Waterboarding happens to make people FEEL like they are drowning even though they aren't. That still doesn't make the act itself that induced that FEELING "torture" any more than the fact you cried when I called you a panty waist made that "torture" either!
If you can't comprehend the difference between how someone FEELS as the result of an act and what an act actually DOES to a person -if you can't comprehend why all laws everywhere in the world are based on what an act actually DOES to a person and never, EVER on the FEELINGS it may induce and are irrelevant to the process - then for the sake of everyone, let those who CAN tell the difference write our laws. Heaven knows no one wants to end up in jail because they called you a panty waist and it made you FEEL so bad you went home and cried about it.
Waterboarding makes someone FEEL like they are drowning even though they aren't -and that is what makes it so scary. But THAT doesn't make it "torture" because torture is NOT defined by how someone FEELS as the result of an act. Roller coaster rides FEEL scary too but that doesn't mean its "torture" either. Torture is always defined by what it actually DOES to a person. Yanking out someone's fingernails or sticking them with a hot poker or breaking all the bones in their hand, hanging them upside down and beating them unconscious, hammering nails into someone's skull -all torture. INDISPUTABLE torture. It doesn't matter how the recipients of these acts actually FELT as it happened and their FEELINGS about it are in fact totally irrelevant in determining whether it is torture. It is the act itself that determined it was torture. And here is the point liberals with their lack of critical thinking skills just can't grasp. If an act is torture -it is always torture no matter who is the recipient. If it is torture to hammer nails into a terrorist's head, then it is still torture to hammer nails into the head of a US soldier too! Torture is still torture no matter who is on the receiving end! It isn't "torture" to do it one person, but "training" to do it to a different person! Torture is still torture no matter who it is done to!
Or are you really saying that the FEELINGS of a terrorist count for more than the FEELINGS of a US soldier or what?
I sleep just fine and I want the people seeking our mass murder to be the ones having trouble falling asleep.
If you think no nation has a right to its national security and to provide for its national defense unless another country actually INVADES IT first -then you are a fucking moron.
That would be calling for national suicide and keeping your fingers crossed that once invaded it can be successfully repelled. No nation is obligated to sit by watching a threat to its security or outright existence build from inside another nation and wait until that enemy believes it has the advantage and strikes. Really? Do our laws regarding self defense work that way in your mind too? That someone is OBLIGATED to wait until someone sticks them with a knife before they can defend themselves, OBLIGATED to wait until they have been shot -and IF they survive that, then and ONLY then are legally allowed to defend themselves? THAT piece of moronic bullshit should leave you unable to sleep at night frankly.
That is insisting we MUST let them kill Americans first, must let them actually invade - and gee, I guess we keep our fingers crossed again that they don't kill too many of us first and we have enough left to successfully repel it even though we all know we lose still more fighting them back. That is NOT providing for the national defense and security of ANY nation on earth, sorry!
The rules of war NEVER EVER require any country to sit and act like a patsy waiting for an enemy to hit them first before they are allowed to defend themselves. Preemptive strikes in order to PREVENT an invasion, in order to PREVENT the enemy from a first strike which would needlessly kill many of one's own citizens that a preemptive strike could save -are ALL allowed and recognized legitimate reasons for making the first strike as is destroying the enemy inside a nation that already carried out a strike. In case you didn't notice that -the entire world gave Hitler the benefit of the doubt even as they watched him build up a military that would only be needed if one intended to try and conquer the world -while Hitler told he had no such plans. Until HE was ready to strike and believed his enemies would be their greatest disadvantage. How did that work out for more than 25 million people, huh? Military historians agree that if countries had responded when Hitler first started militarizing Germany in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, 12-19 MILLION people who died as a result of doing it your way -would not have died. While striking earlier would have still cost 6 millions lives, it would have saved three times the number that died by allowing Hitler to strike on HIS terms. Waiting until your enemy is ready to act means he believes the advantage is his -and you are at a greater disadvantage. And that is EXACTLY what happened with Hitler. It is the reason the Allies were losing that war for YEARS and YEARS and in fact why we would have lost the war entirely if Hitler had not made a lethal error of his own. But hoping your enemy which is kicking your ass all over the globe will make a serious mistake in order to turn things around is pretty stupid. History has repeatedly proven waiting for your enemy to strike means you have just increased the odds of your own defeat. The advantage in war lies with the one that strikes on HIS time schedule and not the side on the defensive. Yet you just admitted your idea of "national security" is demanding the US give all enemies the advantage and forcing us to operate from a defensive position even when seeing a threat to our nation build inside another.
You just put to words the single most important reason to keep liberals out of government -they cannot be trusted to protect this nation and a huge percentage even seem to take pride in that fact and think its a strong selling point!
No matter what the issue, one thing can be counted on from liberals -they will ALWAYS choose the option that results in the most people dead. And then actually have the balls to insist others pretend it was the most moral choice. Sorry but the choice that results in the most dead is by definition the LEAST moral of all. I hope it isn't too late for you to develop a real conscience because this one is dangerous to human life.
it sure takes you a long time to say nothing intelligent.
thanks for popping by
So that explains this commercial.Had a bike tied to my leg and I was tossed in the deep end...
Seemed to be the thing to do to "Prove" you weren't a pussy when you were 9 or 10 by the Shitheads who were 14+
Was that Torture?
peace...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTT2-TNuegM&feature=related]YouTube - Fish on a bicycle[/ame]
No it isn't torture. And YOU can't get past the fact that if its "torture" -then dozens and dozens more Americans have been "tortured" than all terrorists combined! Who is on the receiving end of an act NEVER determines whether it is torture or not. If its torture to do it to one person, it is torture to do it to ANYONE. Not unless you want to make the STUPID, MINDLESS, KNEEJERK, TYPICAL DUMB ASS LIBERAL argument that its only "torture" if its done to anyone BUT a US soldier! While rigorous and harsh methods are used for training by our military - torture is NEVER used! But waterboarding was used in training in numerous divisions in the different branches of the military for years and years -even after it became public knowledge that three terrorists had been waterboarded. Your contention it is torture falls apart with the FACT it was done to our own soldiers and in far greater numbers than it was ever done to all terrorists combined -because there is no such thing as an act that is only torture if done to foreigners but is just "training" if done to US soldiers! You simply want to change the definition of torture to mean "anything that makes our enemy FEEL bad, or FEEL scared or FEEL anything really uncomfortable" (but inducing those same feelings in our own soldiers is fine and dandy) as opposed to its REAL definition! Sorry -I know how liberals operate by insisting words mean whatever they NEED them to mean at the moment and therefore words all have fluid, constantly changing definitions -but its a lie. Effective communication can only take place because of universal agreement on the meaning of words in the first place -and the rest of the world says this one is NOT your call. The rest of the world hasn't jumped on board with the American liberal nutjobs, Democrat politicians and a couple of extremist groups actively seeking the downfall of the US anyway - who think a would-be mass murdering terrorists' FEELINGS are more important the very lives of those he is working to slaughter.
Using the liberals' definition of "torture" would make going to work "torture" for a lot of people, going to the annual family reunion "torture", raising kids "torture", paying bills "torture" and mowing the fucking grass "torture"! And definitely Mommy making you wear a sweater because SHE feels cold would be "torture"! FEELINGS obviously CANNOT be used to define what is torture anymore than feelings are used as the basis of ANY of our laws.
Torture is NOT defined by how someone FEELS as the result of certain acts - but ONLY by what the act DOES to them. Absolutely NO ONE benefits by using a loose and therefore MEANINGLESS definition like that! If someone makes you cry, if someone makes you squeal like a little girl, if someone makes you scared -does NOT make what they did to you "torture" because being the wuss you are, it could mean someone doing anything from calling you a panty waist to shooting you in the leg! When discussing REAL torture -if it is torture to to do it one person, then it means it is ALWAYS torture to do it to ANYONE. It isn't a shifting definition where it is "torture" if done to a terrorist, but "training" if done to a US soldier! So how waterboarding makes someone FEEL is irrelevant in determining whether it is "torture" or not! Waterboarding happens to make people FEEL like they are drowning even though they aren't. That still doesn't make the act itself that induced that FEELING "torture" any more than the fact you cried when I called you a panty waist made that "torture" either!
If you can't comprehend the difference between how someone FEELS as the result of an act and what an act actually DOES to a person -if you can't comprehend why all laws everywhere in the world are based on what an act actually DOES to a person and never, EVER on the FEELINGS it may induce and are irrelevant to the process - then for the sake of everyone, let those who CAN tell the difference write our laws. Heaven knows no one wants to end up in jail because they called you a panty waist and it made you FEEL so bad you went home and cried about it.
Waterboarding makes someone FEEL like they are drowning even though they aren't -and that is what makes it so scary. But THAT doesn't make it "torture" because torture is NOT defined by how someone FEELS as the result of an act. Roller coaster rides FEEL scary too but that doesn't mean its "torture" either. Torture is always defined by what it actually DOES to a person. Yanking out someone's fingernails or sticking them with a hot poker or breaking all the bones in their hand, hanging them upside down and beating them unconscious, hammering nails into someone's skull -all torture. INDISPUTABLE torture. It doesn't matter how the recipients of these acts actually FELT as it happened and their FEELINGS about it are in fact totally irrelevant in determining whether it is torture. It is the act itself that determined it was torture. And here is the point liberals with their lack of critical thinking skills just can't grasp. If an act is torture -it is always torture no matter who is the recipient. If it is torture to hammer nails into a terrorist's head, then it is still torture to hammer nails into the head of a US soldier too! Torture is still torture no matter who is on the receiving end! It isn't "torture" to do it one person, but "training" to do it to a different person! Torture is still torture no matter who it is done to!
Or are you really saying that the FEELINGS of a terrorist count for more than the FEELINGS of a US soldier or what?
I sleep just fine and I want the people seeking our mass murder to be the ones having trouble falling asleep.
If you think no nation has a right to its national security and to provide for its national defense unless another country actually INVADES IT first -then you are a fucking moron.
That would be calling for national suicide and keeping your fingers crossed that once invaded it can be successfully repelled. No nation is obligated to sit by watching a threat to its security or outright existence build from inside another nation and wait until that enemy believes it has the advantage and strikes. Really? Do our laws regarding self defense work that way in your mind too? That someone is OBLIGATED to wait until someone sticks them with a knife before they can defend themselves, OBLIGATED to wait until they have been shot -and IF they survive that, then and ONLY then are legally allowed to defend themselves? THAT piece of moronic bullshit should leave you unable to sleep at night frankly.
That is insisting we MUST let them kill Americans first, must let them actually invade - and gee, I guess we keep our fingers crossed again that they don't kill too many of us first and we have enough left to successfully repel it even though we all know we lose still more fighting them back. That is NOT providing for the national defense and security of ANY nation on earth, sorry!
The rules of war NEVER EVER require any country to sit and act like a patsy waiting for an enemy to hit them first before they are allowed to defend themselves. Preemptive strikes in order to PREVENT an invasion, in order to PREVENT the enemy from a first strike which would needlessly kill many of one's own citizens that a preemptive strike could save -are ALL allowed and recognized legitimate reasons for making the first strike as is destroying the enemy inside a nation that already carried out a strike. In case you didn't notice that -the entire world gave Hitler the benefit of the doubt even as they watched him build up a military that would only be needed if one intended to try and conquer the world -while Hitler told he had no such plans. Until HE was ready to strike and believed his enemies would be their greatest disadvantage. How did that work out for more than 25 million people, huh? Military historians agree that if countries had responded when Hitler first started militarizing Germany in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, 12-19 MILLION people who died as a result of doing it your way -would not have died. While striking earlier would have still cost 6 millions lives, it would have saved three times the number that died by allowing Hitler to strike on HIS terms. Waiting until your enemy is ready to act means he believes the advantage is his -and you are at a greater disadvantage. And that is EXACTLY what happened with Hitler. It is the reason the Allies were losing that war for YEARS and YEARS and in fact why we would have lost the war entirely if Hitler had not made a lethal error of his own. But hoping your enemy which is kicking your ass all over the globe will make a serious mistake in order to turn things around is pretty stupid. History has repeatedly proven waiting for your enemy to strike means you have just increased the odds of your own defeat. The advantage in war lies with the one that strikes on HIS time schedule and not the side on the defensive. Yet you just admitted your idea of "national security" is demanding the US give all enemies the advantage and forcing us to operate from a defensive position even when seeing a threat to our nation build inside another.
You just put to words the single most important reason to keep liberals out of government -they cannot be trusted to protect this nation and a huge percentage even seem to take pride in that fact and think its a strong selling point!
No matter what the issue, one thing can be counted on from liberals -they will ALWAYS choose the option that results in the most people dead. And then actually have the balls to insist others pretend it was the most moral choice. Sorry but the choice that results in the most dead is by definition the LEAST moral of all. I hope it isn't too late for you to develop a real conscience because this one is dangerous to human life.
it sure takes you a long time to say nothing intelligent.
thanks for popping by
That bullshit actually works for you, huh? Think that amounts to a devastating response that just ripped my argument to shreds? What a typical liberal response to resort to acting like a child when the FACTS aren't on your side.
You didn't touch the FACT that dozens more US soldiers were waterboarded than all the terrorist combined who were waterboarded.
Didn't touch the FACT that our military does not EVER use torture as a training tool -yet used waterboarding for YEARS as a training tool.
Didn't touch on the FACT that torture is not defined by who is on the receiving end -if its torture to waterboard a terrorist, it is still torture to do it to a US soldier -again, are you REALLY going to argue its only torture if done to a mass murdering terrorist but only "training" when done to a US soldier?
Didn't touch the FACT that the US is not the only western nation to use waterboarding.
Didn't touch the FACT that not even one signatory nation to the Geneva Conventions called on the US to stop waterboarding -only American liberals, some Democrat politicians and a couple of leftwing extremist groups working against our nation anyway did.
Didn't touch on the FACT that no signatory nation to the Geneva Conventions considers waterboarding to be torture.
And clearly did not touch the FACT that YOU are using a totally different definition of "torture" that is NOT accepted internationally or by ANY signatory nation to the Geneva Conventions -which means you are full of shit and no one is obligated to pay the least bit attention to a damn thing you say.
Hogwash. Utter poppycock.
You know it's torture. You just want to sleep at night and be ok with yourself. The problem is, you shouldn't be.
Amerikkka now stands for invading countries that haven't attacked us, putting in our own governments, kidnapping people (rendition) and torturing them.
AWESOME!!!!!!!!
Hogwash.
I know it isn't torture.
So do you.
Hogwash. Utter poppycock.
You know it's torture. You just want to sleep at night and be ok with yourself. The problem is, you shouldn't be.
Amerikkka now stands for invading countries that haven't attacked us, putting in our own governments, kidnapping people (rendition) and torturing them.
AWESOME!!!!!!!!
Hogwash.
I know it isn't torture.
So do you.
Let's strap you down and give it a whirl then see what you have to say about. My money says you would beg for Obama's cock if it meant an end to the non-torture.
Hogwash.
I know it isn't torture.
So do you.
Let's strap you down and give it a whirl then see what you have to say about. My money says you would beg for Obama's cock if it meant an end to the non-torture.
To nobody's great surprise you turn out to BE one of the dopes I previously identified who subscribe to THIS syllogism as though it were valid logic:
I don't want to be tortured.
I don't want to be water boarded.
______________________________
Therefore water-boarding is torture.
You really are kind of pathetic, Loosera.
Let's strap you down and give it a whirl then see what you have to say about. My money says you would beg for Obama's cock if it meant an end to the non-torture.
To nobody's great surprise you turn out to BE one of the dopes I previously identified who subscribe to THIS syllogism as though it were valid logic:
I don't want to be tortured.
I don't want to be water boarded.
______________________________
Therefore water-boarding is torture.
You really are kind of pathetic, Loosera.
Translation:
I'm wayyyyyyyyyyy too much of a pussy to agree to that and have to admit how wrong I am.
Thanks for playing.
unpleasant things?
unpleasant things?
unpleasant things?
Nothing dishonest about it at all.
I am asserting that if you were to let me rack you up and waterboard you I could get you to say anything I wanted to make it stop, including, "Holy shit how could I be such a fucking idiot to think this isn't torture? Luissa you are right. This is torture. Pretty please, make it stop."
And you would.
And you know it.
There's a reason Sean Hannity renegged on his agreement to get waterboarded when he was going on about how it isn't torture. He's seen the videos. He knew.
subjected ...horrible sensation ...drowned.
irrational to WANT to get water boarded.
You're full of shit, period.Nothing dishonest about it at all.
I am asserting that if you were to let me rack you up and waterboard you I could get you to say anything I wanted to make it stop, including, "Holy shit how could I be such a fucking idiot to think this isn't torture? Luissa you are right. This is torture. Pretty please, make it stop."
And you would.
And you know it.
