Sean Hannity has yet to prove Waterboarding is not Torture

[JakeStarkey]

Three and four year olds, of course, simply love to keep asking (in whining, plaintive tones) "WHYYYYY?" over and over, no matter how many answers the adults around them provide. For them, it's all about getting more attention.

Lieability and other wannabee teabaggers here have developed an online strategy to try to force one’s supposed "opponents" into hyper-defining every comment they make. The apologist starts responding to the every concise comment or question by demanding a book-length dissertation. In case the wannabees haven't realized this, it's a very obvious strategy---one by which they get to pretend that they're the only "thinking" persons in the discussion. Then, when others do expound, the apologist simply plays the same strategy again, ad nauseum, until everyone gets tired of dealing with him or her, at which point the apologist can bow for the adoration of his or her fellows, probably commenting on another obscure "apologetics" website about how they "confounded the enemy."

And when all that fails, then Lieability begins the ad homs, thinking they are adequate in place of reasoned and calm discourse, the foundation of an informed democracy.

Which precisely explains the Tea Bagger's objective. If you can't win with reason, use shouts, libeous signs, and don't forget to wear your hand gun. To the Tea Baggers, INTIMIDATION is the name of the game. I am not impressed...

No thinking true-blue American is impressed with the teabag approach.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

As the title of the thread says, Sean Hannity has yet to prove Waterboarding isn't torture. This being 250 days later.

Sean Hannity Volunteers to Get Waterboarded -- Politics Daily

GRODIN: Would you consent to be waterboarded? We can waterboard you?



HANNITY: Sure.



GRODIN: Are you busy on Sunday?



HANNITY: I'll do it for charity. I'll let you do it. I'll do it for the troops' families.

We're waiting Sean.

Though in the meantime, you can use this guy as a basis:

BlueOregon: Trying to prove waterboarding isn't torture, right-wing radio jock tries it, and...

Hannity should put his money where his mouth is....for not doing so I'm going to call him out as a big old sissy.

Anyway.....dogbert, strolling, article i'm inviting you to help me undertsand why waterboarding is considered torture http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...on-dogbert-article_15-and-strollingbones.html

 

[mal]

Saved this before the Site Farted...

It happens. That's why a it takes a pro to do it to avoid killing the person. It's dangerous business.



IMO, yes.



IMO, no.

Have we Killed someone Waterboarding them since 9/11?...

As for your Final Yes/No... I don't Undestand the Justification of One over the Other.

It's Obviously a Matter of Degree, but I would like to Know why.



peace...

As far as we know nobody has been killed. But so what? If someone has been raped repeatedly you cannot use "well at least I didn't kill them" as a defense.

In one case you are being interrogated ... i.e. questions asked etc and you can just sit there silently and no harm or discomfort will come to you.

In the other you are being pretty much physically and mentally effed with.

Actual Physical Harm HAS to come into Play...

"Mental" Harm is Vague, and as you have Shown with your Yes/No, it's Subjective Depending on who is Commenting.

I Know Liberals who Beleive that Police Interrogation for 10 Hours IS Torture... MeThinks they are Attorneys for the ACLU!



peace...

 

[Liability]

I bet Liability would agree with Mancow about three seconds into it if he ever had the balls to do more than post trite bullshit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUkj9pjx3H0

That happens to be one of popgun's better posts. No. Not the bullshit he said in it. That of course was just typically ineffectual nonsense.

But the video itself.

It underscores the point, however, of a fundamental confusion.

Waterboarding sucks BIG time. Nobody in their right mind would WANT to be subjected to it. And I understand even trained CIA agents usually "cave in" after at most 15 to 30 seconds. It is, in the final analysis, a nasty INTERROGATION technique and its effectiveness kinda DEPENDS on the fact that it is a scary unpleasant crappy thing to be forcefully subjected to.

And?

Does the FACT (never denied by me) that it SUCKS and is very scary somehow end the question of whether or not it qualifies as "torture?"

Idiots like popgun seem to maintain that since it would make me or him turn into a "pussy" in mere moments, that it MUST be "torture." Sadly for popgun's would-be "logic," torture is not defined on that basis.

I give due credit to that radio commentator, Mancow. It took some balls to permit himself to be subjected to it. And I respect that fact that -- in doing that -- he earned the right to state HIS belief. His conclusion that it "is" torture, however, is not the be-all and end-all, either.

 

[JimH52]

Then I ask you, with all reason, if it is not torture, why was the soldier in the picture during the Vietnam war court marshalled. It was viewed as a crime then, by several different agreements. The court marshall should lead us to believe it was viewed as torture then. What changed? How can we not considered waterboarding torture now? All legal precedent says it was and that it still is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course it was a war crime and torture.

 

[Liability]

Of course it was a war crime and torture.

There is no "of course" about it, Jokey.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course it was a war crime and torture.

There is no "of course" about it, Jokey.

Of course there is. Here is Lieability trying to field an argument. YTMND - grenade kitty.

 

[Liability]

Of course it was a war crime and torture.

There is no "of course" about it, Jokey.

Of course there is. Here is Lieability trying to field an argument. YTMND - grenade kitty.

Zzzzz.

Somebody wake me if and when Jokey ever says anything marignally intelligent or even original.

And no. There is no "of course" about it, Jokey.

Your claim is just that. A cmere laim. And you are not at all persuasive in articulating that position or defending that claim. Your "side" would be better served if you'd meander over to some other thread and let people who have some capacity for debate handle "your" side.

You're so bad at this they oughta rename you CHOKEy.

 

[The T]

Nobody cares. After all, trolling is all you're about.

Tick tock, tick tock, tick tock.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/100295-liability-the-gloves-are-off.html

Zzzzzzzz.

Good one, dogdirt.

(I hadda reuse that one for you since boredtoseeya is feeling the need to crow in triumph. Which of course makes it a crowing pig. )

"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Liability again"

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you, Liability, for acting sanely and with decent language in rousting me.

You still can't win an argument, but I appreciate you not acting like a loon.

 

[mudwhistle]

Three and four year olds, of course, simply love to keep asking (in whining, plaintive tones) "WHYYYYY?" over and over, no matter how many answers the adults around them provide. For them, it's all about getting more attention.

Lieability and other wannabee teabaggers here have developed an online strategy to try to force one’s supposed "opponents" into hyper-defining every comment they make. The apologist starts responding to the every concise comment or question by demanding a book-length dissertation. In case the wannabees haven't realized this, it's a very obvious strategy---one by which they get to pretend that they're the only "thinking" persons in the discussion. Then, when others do expound, the apologist simply plays the same strategy again, ad nauseum, until everyone gets tired of dealing with him or her, at which point the apologist can bow for the adoration of his or her fellows, probably commenting on another obscure "apologetics" website about how they "confounded the enemy."

And when all that fails, then Lieability begins the ad homs, thinking they are adequate in place of reasoned and calm discourse, the foundation of an informed democracy.

Which precisely explains the Tea Bagger's objective. If you can't win with reason, use shouts, libeous signs, and don't forget to wear your hand gun. To the Tea Baggers, INTIMIDATION is the name of the game. I am not impressed...

Tea-baggers like to suck balls.

Tea Party members are tired of being taxed to the gills.

Learn the difference.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Teabaggers don't like not having power, but they are numbers clearly indicatate they will never have power again. Good.

 

[JimH52]

Mud, you need to change your signature.

Obama Stands By Geithner, Says "The Buck Stops With Me" - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

 

[JimH52]

and again

President Obama: 'The buck stops with me' - Josh Gerstein and Laura Rozen - POLITICO.com

 

[mudwhistle]

Teabaggers don't like not having power, but they are numbers clearly indicatate they will never have power again. Good.

Power is what the Dems desire.

They abuse it every single day.

It's a shame they can't be trusted with it.

The numbers show their power is soon going to be gone.

Don't cry when they lose it. It'll be alright.

 

[mudwhistle]

Mud, you need to change your signature.

Obama Stands By Geithner, Says "The Buck Stops With Me" - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Words are supposed to mean something...but to Obama they don't mean shit. He can't just say it...he has to prove he means it.....if he blames Bush one more time or claims somebody else fucked up then he never meant it.


That's why I won't be changing my sig any time soon.

 

[JimH52]

You Baggers are so predicatable! I could have written that response myself. If Obama said the sky is blue, I am sure he would be wrong and you would all agree on it.

 

[mudwhistle]

You Baggers are so predicatable! I could have written that response myself. If Obama said the sky is blue, I am sure he would be wrong and you would all agree on it.

You LEFT-NUTS believe everything the lying fuck says.

When he proves after 4 solid years of broken promises that he is the liar we say he is I'm sure you'll say it's all because the GOP kept him from keeping his broken promises.

 

[JimH52]

Fake Teabaggers Are Anti-Spend, Anti-Government: Real Populists Want to Stop Banks from Plundering America | Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace | AlterNet