HOME | DD

Deep-Hurting In reply to sharprm [2010-12-12 05:24:50 +0000 UTC]

Thank you, I was pretty happy with how this one came out (although recently I've been thinking about downplaying his ears a little more).

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Deep-Hurting In reply to sonrouge [2010-11-21 00:33:29 +0000 UTC]

Another contender steps forward!

No, I don't, because most of the Democrats in Congress during Bush's term of office were spineless wusses who didn't even try to stop an illegal war whose only point was to redistribute tax money to his friends and relations, nor did they try to stop the Bush Administration's illegal warrantless wiretapping program, nor did they make much of an effort to stop LITERAL TORTURE that occurred under Bush's watch and was authorized by him–those who weren't fully on board with that stuff like a bunch of opportunistic, bootlicking toadies, that is!

Do please explain to me what actions Obama has committed which are "immoral" and aren't the kind of thing neoconservatives and tea party morons generally support (or at least supported when Bush was doing it).

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

sonrouge In reply to Deep-Hurting [2010-11-21 01:45:32 +0000 UTC]

First off, a nation's right to be free from the initiation of force is based on the right of its people to be free from the use of force. Saddam didn't respect that right, therefore it stands to reason he couldn't claim that right for himself. Ergo, the Iraq War was not illegal; it wasn't very practical, but it wasn't illegal.

As for the "torture", again, anyone who initiates the use of force to violate the rights of others cannot logically claim that right for themselves, ergo there was no immorallity in "torturing" terrorists to get information to help our soldiers or prevent attacks. We have absolutely no obligation to be kind to those dedicated to our destruction, least of all handing them the knife to slit our throats.

I don't have enough objective information to comment on the wiretapping, though I will state that such things have been done by other presidents and have not raised half the fuss that was raised when Bush did them.

First off, I'm not a conservative or a member of the tea party. Second, the dems are now allowing dear leader to do what they raised hell about when Bush was in office, so don't try that crap with me (for example, they claimed the wiretappings and patriot act violated the Constitution, yet where in that document do you see anything allowing government to bail out companies or have a say in healthcare? We never stopped hearing about Bush'es runaway spending, yet dear leader is being given a free pass, etc etc); either put your money where your mouth is or shut it.

As for dear leader, again, there's nothing in the Constitution allowing him to create these "czar" positions, nothing in the Constitution allowing him to bail out companies or banks, nothing in the Constitution allowing him any say whatsoever in healthcare, among other things.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Deep-Hurting In reply to sonrouge [2010-11-21 06:50:29 +0000 UTC]

First off, a nation's right to be free from the initiation of force is based on the right of its people to be free from the use of force. Saddam didn't respect that right, therefore it stands to reason he couldn't claim that right for himself. Ergo, the Iraq War was not illegal; it wasn't very practical, but it wasn't illegal.

The war was sold to the public based on lies, exaggerations, and a false, implied connection to 9/11. It was akin to shooting a bunch of people at a random ice-skating rink because some guy wearing a hockey mask broke into your house and stole your wallet.

Of course Saddam was a bad guy–you can thank the Reagan Administration for propping him up in the first place–but the war has cost hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of additional Iraqi lives, at a rate at least as fast as he was ever killing them in his prime, and for what? To funnel money to war-profiteering "defense" contractors, a practice that continues to this day, even while civilians in the area are lucky if they get a few hundred dollars in compensation for the loss of their home, their property, their health, and sometimes their entire family.

Many of the people being indefinitely detained and tortured have never been formally charged with a crime.

That being said, torture is never moral under any circumstances–what good is defeating an enemy if you become just as monstrous in the process? Also, it doesn't work, since a person under such duress will say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear to make the pain stop. That's how the Inquisition worked–it wasn't so much about getting a truthful confession as it was about exercising power over the populace through fear and intimidation. People confess to things that aren't true during torture all the time, so that casts into doubt most information gained in that way, if not all of it.

If you support torture in the name of "stopping terrorism," you are as bad as someone supporting the very terrorists you claim to despise.

I guess some people can't see the slippery slope until they've already gone over the cliff!

I don't have enough objective information to comment on the wiretapping, though I will state that such things have been done by other presidents and have not raised half the fuss that was raised when Bush did them.

So I guess in your mind, two wrongs make a right? If Obama does something I harshly criticized Bush for, I usually attack Obama for it, too. Why, I have a cartoon that criticizes Obama on this very subject posted to this website–didn't you even bother looking at anything else of mine before running your mouth off about my work? At least look at the modest sample I have posted here, first.

You complain about me assuming you were a tea-bagger because you seem to have a lot of the same dumb, contemptible ideas that they do, and immediately follow that complaint with a staggeringly broad statement about "Dems allowing dear leader to do what they raised hell about when Bush was in office." Then you attempt to explain that statement with a parallel so comically nonsensical, it's like comparing apples to pumpkins:

"they claimed the wiretappings and patriot act violated the Constitution, yet where in that document do you see anything allowing government to bail out companies or have a say in healthcare?"

How about the Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights? The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ?

Wiretappings and the PATRIOT Act do violate the Bill of Rights, mainly the Fourth Amendment, and probably the Fifth and Sixth as well, not to mention the First (by creating an undue burden on a person's right to speak privately, much less publicly!).

What in the Constitution disallows the government from doing any of the things you're complaining about?

You realize some of those bailouts were designed and/or passed by the Bush Administration, not Obama, right?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

sonrouge In reply to Deep-Hurting [2010-11-21 11:43:05 +0000 UTC]

"The war was sold to the public based on lies, exaggerations, and a false, implied connection to 9/11. It was akin to shooting a bunch of people at a random ice-skating rink because some guy wearing a hockey mask broke into your house and stole your wallet."

Your comparison is bull and you know it. Unlike these random people at a skating rink, Saddam was a known tyrant, so there was no difference between him and the people who attacked us.

"Of course Saddam was a bad guy–you can thank the Reagan Administration for propping him up in the first place–but the war has cost hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of additional Iraqi lives, at a rate at least as fast as he was ever killing them in his prime, and for what? To funnel money to war-profiteering "defense" contractors, a practice that continues to this day, even while civilians in the area are lucky if they get a few hundred dollars in compensation for the loss of their home, their property, their health, and sometimes their entire family"

I guess you're too busy ranting to see that most of those civilian casualties, which are always an unescapable fact of war, are caused because the people we're fighting over there are constantly hiding behind them ([link] ); are we supposed to sacrifice our own soldiers because the people we're fighting are too cowardly to fight out in the open, in which case the likes of you then complain about how many of our men are dying over there?

And what crime are these defense contractors committing other than providing their services where they are needed; sorry, but I'm a man of reason, so you'll have to show me some proof of a crime other than your belief that what they do is wrong. You do know such contractors have often been used to train local militaries in other countries and were instrumental in defeating the RUF in Africa, yes?

"Many of the people being indefinitely detained and tortured have never been formally charged with a crime."

We're talking about terrorists, not some damn bank robbers. They aren't entitled to the same legal rights. And they wouldn't be tried even if they were POWs.

"That being said, torture is never moral under any circumstances–what good is defeating an enemy if you become just as monstrous in the process"

First off, what proof is there that "torture" is actually being done? All I'm hearing about is waterboarding, which isn't torture, but simply a mind game which the terrorists obviously can't handle. From what I've heard, a lot of our own military has to go through that in basic.

Second, the people we're fighting drag random people out of their homes and then behead them on TV for no other reason than to try and blame their death on the US. We capture known terrorists who hold information and then use hard tactics to get the information out of them. Big difference.

"If you support torture in the name of "stopping terrorism," you are as bad as someone supporting the very terrorists you claim to despise."

First off, why should I give a damn what happens to someone dedicated to my demise? Second, cry me a river.

"So I guess in your mind, two wrongs make a right?"

No, in my mind, people like you are hypocrits for constantly going after Bush for things other presidents have done and the whistleblowers remained silent; it's either wrong when any president does it or it's not wrong at all.

"they claimed the wiretappings and patriot act violated the Constitution, yet where in that document do you see anything allowing government to bail out companies or have a say in healthcare?"

"How about the Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights? The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ?"

Ah, so you can read the Constitution. Well, perhaps you should've gone down one more Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Again, do you see anything in the Constitution granting dear leader the power to bailout companies and have a say in healthcare (while we're on the subject of rights, what about a doctor's right to the use and disposal of his medical skills?)

"You realize some of those bailouts were designed and/or passed by the Bush Administration, not Obama, right?"

Yes, the first was (and I was against it then too), but dear leader continued the act and has made it clear he might do it again.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Deep-Hurting In reply to sonrouge [2010-11-22 11:17:57 +0000 UTC]

Your comparison is bull and you know it.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks.

Unlike these random people at a skating rink, Saddam was a known tyrant, so there was no difference between him and the people who attacked us.

I think "he wasn't there and had nothing to do with it" is a pretty big difference.

I guess you're too busy ranting to see that most of those civilian casualties, which are always an unescapable fact of war,

The tree of liberty must, from time to time, be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Just as long as it's not your blood, eh? Your argument boils down to using civilians as human shields, in a geo-political sense, but then you immediately follow it up, in the very same sentence, by saying:

are caused because the people we're fighting over there are constantly hiding behind them

How about when US helicopters shoot missiles at random wedding parties? How about when US soldiers and US-trained Iraqi police forces gun down innocent civilians in cars because they look suspicious? How about Abu Ghraib–who was hiding behind the inmates there, seeing as they were completely powerless to affect any sizable harm on their overseers? How about when US troops bust into civilian homes, guns blazing, either for no good reason or because they felt like raping and killing the inhabitants just because, y'know, they were bored?

are we supposed to sacrifice our own soldiers because the people we're fighting are too cowardly to fight out in the open, in which case the likes of you then complain about how many of our men are dying over there?

There's no good reason for them to be there right now–certainly not under conditions as they are.

Hey, maybe Ronald Reagan shouldn't have propped Saddam up in the first place?

And yeah, actually, that's the kind of thing those soldiers signed up for–laying down their life, if necessary, to protect civilians! In theory, anyway.

And what crime are these defense contractors committing other than providing their services where they are needed;

Off the top of my head: Embezzlement. Gross, purposeful inefficiency. Bonuses for company executives even while the projects they were contracted to do languish un-finished or even un-begun. Building opulent headquarters' for the invasion force and themselves while only paying minimal attention to the basic needs and infrastructure of the general, native population.

In the cases of ones that provide weapons and contract mercenaries, such as Blackwater/Xe: All of the above, plus rape, torture, and murder.

sorry, but I'm a man of reason,

More like, man of TREASON!

*high-fives David Caruso and the Fonz, puts on sunglasses, rides motorcycle off into sunset while doing continuous wheelie*

We're talking about terrorists, not some damn bank robbers. They aren't entitled to the same legal rights. And they wouldn't be tried even if they were POW

Ever heard this one:

So a criminal, a terrorist, and a POW walk into a bar. Bartender says, "Hey, you two fellas want a drink?"

Much like Dick Cheney declaring he's exempt from laws restraining the executive branch because he's part of the legislative branch, and he's exempt from laws restraining the legislative branch because he's part of the executive branch, you're trying to have your cake and imprison it forever in the Phantom Zone, too. Either the terrorist is a criminal subject to laws dealing with criminals, or he's a POW subject to the rules of war. Pick one.

Are you saying that if the President were to declare you an enemy combatant, you'd be okay with being indefinitely detained, tortured, and possibly killed, all without any legal counsel, trial, or even having your family informed of your whereabouts? You know, in the name of freedom?

First off, what proof is there that "torture" is actually being done? All I'm hearing about is waterboarding, which isn't torture, but simply a mind game which the terrorists obviously can't handle. From what I've heard, a lot of our own military has to go through that in basic.

From what you've heard, huh?

So I take it you've never experienced the procedure before?

Tell you what, you set up a live feed where I can watch you being waterboarded for, uh... let's say at least two minutes.

C'mon! Your image depends on it, man!!

Second, the people we're fighting drag random people out of their homes and then behead them on TV for no other reason than to try and blame their death on the US.

The people they're fighting bust into innocent civilians' homes so they can kill and rape 'em for no other reason than, hey, they were bored, and raping is fun! They humiliate, torture, and kill defenseless prison inmates for no other reason than they want a wacky photo to show among friends! They blow up wedding parties and children because, uh, one time they saw a terrorist hiding in a wedding party, and even though that one got away, they thought they saw another one this time, too! (turns out it was just a camel)

They gave weapons and money to Saddam Hussein because, um... to fight Iran! We had to, we were at war with East Asia at the time!

You see what happens, Larry? You see what happens when you start judging entire groups of people based on the actions of their worst members?

We capture known terrorists who hold information and then use hard tactics to get the information out of them.

What about the random innocents we round up who have no information to give us, but we still use "hard tactics" to get that information from? You know, the information they don't have.

Does the phrase "Can't get blood from a stone" mean anything to you?

Also, what information? Be specific. Is it information like "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States," or is it more important than clearing brush on a ranch in Texas?

How do you know about this information, anyway? That's awfully suspicious... what else might you know about terrorist plots that you aren't telling us? WHAT ARE YOU HIDING!? WHERE'S THE BOMB!!?

No, in my mind, people like you are hypocrits for constantly going after Bush for things other presidents have done and the whistleblowers remained silent; it's either wrong when any president does it or it's not wrong at all.

[link]

[link]

[link]

Izzat egg I see on your face? Here, lemme just... waterboard that off there...

Again, do you see anything in the Constitution granting dear leader the power to bailout companies and have a say in healthcare

Ah, the ol' 'states rights!!' routine. Conveniently ignored when some state or another decides to grant rights you don't approve of, like gay marriage or legalized pot; beaten like a dead horse when the federal government decides to grant rights to broad groups of people you don't like and/or wish you could own.

Hey, do you see anything in the Constitution that says people don't have a right to "life" when some insurance company says they don't, either because they're too poor or they have a "preexisting condition"?

What sort of cockamamie reality do you live in that the Tenth Amendment means the states can override the Ninth Amendment by denying people rights not enumerated by the Bill of Rights but granted by the Feds? You've got it backwards–the whole idea behind the Tenth is to prevent the federal government from denying rights granted by a state to its citizens by way of the Ninth, not to prevent it from granting rights not already granted by a state, you idiot.

(while we're on the subject of rights, what about a doctor's right to the use and disposal of his medical skills?)

Indeed. If only there were some sort of program, free from being motivated more by private profit than public health, guaranteeing that doctors always got paid for upholding their hippocratic oath, regardless of a patient's condition, work history, health history, genetics, or economic class.

And if only there were some sort of device we could use to move large, heavy objects from one place to another without relying on barbarians who got big and strong by beating up weaker people to drag them through the dirt all the time. Some sort of... round, disc-like object–perhaps two of them attached to a a a large bucket or othersuch receptacle by means of an axel...

Alas, that would make the weak more equal to the strong, and next thing you know, we'll all be drug-addicted, prostitute-banging socialists like those hippies in Amsterdam.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

sonrouge In reply to Deep-Hurting [2010-11-22 15:17:06 +0000 UTC]

Little tip, boyo; a debate is a place for rational discussion, not to demonstrate how much of an insane asshole you can be to people who dare to think differently than you do. My mistake for thinking you were capable of the former, so good day.

And give my regards to reality when it teaches you the error of your thinking the hard way.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Deep-Hurting In reply to sonrouge [2010-11-22 20:51:09 +0000 UTC]

how much of an insane asshole you can be to people who dare to think differently than you do.

As someone who defends torture and extraordinary rendition, you have no room to call anybody such names, buster.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

sonrouge In reply to Deep-Hurting [2010-11-23 00:43:00 +0000 UTC]

Logic only works with those who use it, and you don't fall under that category. Perhaps when you're ready to be objective and use your mind, we can continue this.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Deep-Hurting In reply to sonrouge [2010-11-23 10:23:05 +0000 UTC]

You assume waterboarding is not torture based solely on anecdotal evidence, with no personal experience whatsoever. What's "objective" or "logical" about that??

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

sonrouge In reply to Deep-Hurting [2010-11-23 15:19:39 +0000 UTC]

Scram

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Deep-Hurting In reply to kdennisnaz [2010-11-15 14:26:44 +0000 UTC]

Your view of reality is more warped than a Cubist painting. "Egotistical dictator??" Were you hibernating from January 2001 to January 2009, or what??

Have you just ignored all the times in the last two years where Obama's given Republicans in Congress exactly what they wanted?

Obama claimed to want to reform healthcare in America, or at least update our worse-than-third-world health insurance system so tens of millions of people wouldn't face injury, sickness, and death just for lack of money. Republicans in Congress wanted to leave things the way they were, because, screw the poor, right? If you don't have money, you don't deserve health! So what did Obama end up doing? He went beyond even that and molded the healthcare bill into a giveaway for insurance companies, in the name of "compromise."

Obama claimed to be for things like due process and against things like torture and extrajudicial rendition, yet he has fought against restoring habeas corpus to pre-"War on Terror" levels, ending warrantless surveillance of "terror suspects," releasing "enemy combatants" who haven't even been formally accused of a crime, closing C.I.A. black sites and other such illegal prisons where torture of inmates is a regular and frequent occurrence, and making an example of those who authorized these and other heinous activities in the first place, because Republicans in Congress like those things and people, and "we need to move forward."

Just last week, following the election, instead of recognizing that all the Democratic losses were due to not cleaning up all the messes made by Republican leadership since at least 1994, Obama again claimed it was because he and the Democrats weren't being "moderate" enough and needed to follow the loudest-mouthed neo-conservative morons even further to the right.

It's almost as if he never wanted to do any of that progressive stuff he was supposed to do in the first place, and is just using Republican obstructionism as a convenient excuse for not doing it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kdennisnaz In reply to Deep-Hurting [2010-11-17 03:41:24 +0000 UTC]

You seriously need to read. papers, history, anything more than left winger blogs. Your total ignorance of the facts is appalling. Obama didn't even consult with the republicans about healthcare. So he ramrods through a healthcare bill that nobody wants. Open the floodgates to those who would sign up.... right??? ooops. no. less than 8,000 people have signed up...... He CLAIMED that 14 million were just waiting for such an opportunity. and a whopping 8,000 have signed up.

While proper reforms efforts were offered by republicans ( interstate availability, larger group availability, portability from job to job, maintenance of premiums with existing medical concerns.... all of which would have reduced costs).... but Obama ignored the republican efforts. Instead, he forced a nationalized program that has been overwhelmingly rejected by the voters.

You can fool yourself into believing that this month's elections were because the dems have "not done enough". go ahead. We'll just finish the job we started come 2012.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

radical-rain In reply to VonVirgo [2010-11-11 22:33:02 +0000 UTC]

I wish I could fave your comment.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0