LawTalkers - Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Meet your new thread, same as the old thread. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=781)

Well, they can use the beat-up car to run over some minks

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Ty, where's your Venn diagram of asses and H2 drivers?

ARGH. I completely agree, but I don't think this was a random enviro-guerilla attack on a symbol of Man's hatred of Mother Nature.

Well, they can use the beat-up car to run over some minks

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I suspect they would do the same thing to his cigarette boat. And if that guy just tries to pop a collar....

One of these drunken radicals will get shot by a truck owner pulling this shit in a Red State.

We'll get one hell of a funny criminal trial out of it.

Idiots on parade

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You're missing my distinction. Criminals in this country are us. People planning to bomb us in madrassas in Afghanistan are not us. The former deserves avery imaginable protection. the latter deserves as many as we can practicably give him when we capture him, and less if he's got information we can use to catch more of his kind.

You're mixing a domestic issue with a foreign policy/international war matter.

Again, this is an Us v. Them situation. Not a "people who believe in the Constitution" vs. "people who do not" issue. But I can see why the Left wants to conflate them. It loses very badly when the issue is framed in its proper context.

I'm not mixing up anything. I was making a point about the moral high ground that we've lost.

Well, they can use the beat-up car to run over some minks

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
ARGH. I completely agree, but I don't think this was a random enviro-guerilla attack on a symbol of Man's hatred of Mother Nature.

Clearly not random.

Do I think these guys were part of a larger organization? No.

Do I think that they thought it was an acceptable means of registering objection to a (supposedly) environmentally harmful object? Yes, as leaders before them have shown dumping paint on furs and releasing caged animals to be.

Next thing you know, they'll insist on sending animals like this out into the wild because nature demands they be able to survive on their own . . . http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...t_IMG_8095.jpg

Well, they can use the beat-up car to run over some minks

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Clearly not random.

Do I think these guys were part of a larger organization? No.

Do I think that they thought it was an acceptable means of registering objection to a (supposedly) environmentally harmful object? Yes, as leaders before them have shown dumping paint on furs and releasing caged animals to be.

Next thing you know, they'll insist on sending animals like this out into the wild because nature demands they be able to survive on their own . . .

I once had the window bashed out of a 1970 Cutlass convertible I used to own. I don't think it was an environmental statement, though. I think it was because it was parked in a crappy neighborhood.

Idiots on parade

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I'm not mixing up anything. I was making a point about the moral high ground that we've lost.

...Which necessarily mixed those two very distinct issues.

You bastard. You're making me act like a lawyer. And so are you...

As penance I'm having a drink at lunch. You must do the same.

You're on the honor system.

Well, they can use the beat-up car to run over some minks

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I once had the window bashed out of a 1970 Cutlass convertible I used to own. I don't think it was an environmental statement, though. I think it was because it was parked in a crappy neighborhood.

How much do you wish you had that car now? Not where you are, of course. But generally, to fire it up and rip down the highway. Just like that Robert Plant video... what was it? "Big Log"?

Great tune. Poorly, poorly titled.

Idiots on parade

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I disagree.

With anything in particular, or as a general reaction?

Quote:

I think you'd be pretty upset at the nation's reaction if all the torture was made public. I'd say 70% of people would applaud it. And those 70% would span a lot of different backgrounds.

I don't doubt that many people think torturing people is wrong. But if the details of what we are doing to people were widespread, there would be revulsion. Which is why all the other evidence of what happened at Abu Ghraib has never been released. If it was going to strengthen the Administration's hand, is there any doubt in your mind that they'd have gotten it out there? That stuff is poison.

Quote:

Bush has to be slippery on the issue not because the country is anti-torture, but because his political enemies are brandishing the issue as a weapon he can't guard against. He can't come right out and say "This is not an issue of morality anymore. This is a conflict between us and them and we have to do immoral things to survive." The global community would willify him even further. His only move in this political game is to keep everything a secret.

Bull. Shit. Bush doesn't give a flying fuck what his "political enemies" are "brandishing." Nor does he give a shit about what "the global community" thinks. For better or worse -- worse, if you ask me, better if you ask Slave -- Bush understands that what people think is not a constraint on him. As long as Republicans on the Hill are unwilling to break with him -- in actions, not words -- he can keep doing whatever the Hell he wants, and he knows it. And particularly with torture, he takes the position that he doesn't need Congress's permission or approval, and for most of the past six years Congress has been all to happy to ignore it. Now Congress is having a hard time just getting information out of the Executive Branch.

Quote:

I can;t help but think people taking your position are cynically exploting the issue because to me, it seems crystal clear that this is not an issue about the Constitution or the Dec of Independence or our freedoms so much as a simple matter of us doing the ugly things we have to do to keep an enemy under control.

(1) Torture is wrong. That's not a matter of politics -- that's just fundamental. I can't believe the so-called Christians who are happy to give the President a blank check. Their beliefs have precious little to do with Jesus of Nazareth.

(2) We don't "have" to torture anyone to fight this war. We choose to. People who defend the use of torture would rather talk about far-fetched ticking-bomb scenarios from 24 than about the uncontroverted fact that most of the people tortured at Abu Ghraib weren't terrorists. It's about their fantasies and fears and posing, not about the real world.

Quote:

We've been torturing people forever. The CIA's done it all over Latin Ameirca for years. We kill and maim children all over the world to protect our interests. It's morally wrong. But speaking in terms of survival and protecting our way of life, "morals" are irrelevant.

Explain to me how CIA torture in Latin America protects our way of life. This is because Nicaraguan hordes were going to be marching across the Rio Grande? If you believe that, then you can believe the Slave/Hank line that if we don't torture people we'll all be living under Sharia.

Quote:

I hate the pre-emptive strike stuff. The idiocy of Iraq sickens me. But do I, or should I, care as much about collateral damage abroad as I do about protecting our way of life? No. Not at all.

If torture becomes part of "our way of life," what's left?

"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Mark 8:36.

Well, they can use the beat-up car to run over some minks

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
How much do you wish you had that car now? Not where you are, of course. But generally, to fire it up and rip down the highway. Just like that Robert Plant video... what was it? "Big Log"?

Great tune. Poorly, poorly titled.

It was the best roadtrip car ever. I was hoping I could keep it taped together until I graduated law school so I could give it the attention it deserved. Instead, the water pump went out on I-45 and it cracked the block. I left it in Buffalo, Texas. I hope some gearhead ended up with it and it's not rusting away somewhere.

Well, they can use the beat-up car to run over some minks

Quote:

I once lost the window to a late 60s olds coupe. But they also slashed the upholstery with a razor blade and pulled off the rear view mirror. And parked it about 20 miles away from where I'd left it.

It had a McGovern sticker and a psychedelic butterfly decal. I don't think they liked hippies.

Well, they can use the beat-up car to run over some minks

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Ty, where's your Venn diagram of asses and H2 drivers?

http://bp2.blogger.com/_FBXGhy-QmVw/...20/card832.JPG

Close enough?

Well, they can use the beat-up car to run over some minks

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
It was the best roadtrip car ever. . . . the water pump went out on I-45 and it cracked the block.

Yeah, that would make for a good roadtrip.

Well, they can use the beat-up car to run over some minks

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yeah, that would make for a good roadtrip.

That was not the best roadtrip. It was late, and it was about a 2 mile walk from the freeway into Buffalo over unlit country roads. I was not sure where I was going, and it's not like I could look for the bright lights of downtown to guide me. When I got into town, the only thing that was open was a cattle aution house, and I waited there a couple of hours for the tow truck driver. And it was a dry county.

A bright, shining city on a hill.

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
I was talking about the United States.

And you raise a false choice -- we don't have to choose between a "strong leader" (a man on a horse, eh?) and sharia.

It is a false choice.

And I find it ironic that Slave, et al. (if they're wise) are left praying for Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic nomination.

Not for reasons of (un)electability, but because the GOP Administration and leadership have brought things to the point that whoever wins the Dem. nomination will have a big advantage in 2008 -- and Hillary is absolutely the best they'll get from the Dems on foreign policy.

S_A_M

Idiots on parade

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

A. I don't doubt that many people think torturing people is wrong. But if the details of what we are doing to people were widespread, there would be revulsion. Which is why all the other evidence of what happened at Abu Ghraib has never been released. If it was going to strengthen the Administration's hand, is there any doubt in your mind that they'd have gotten it out there? That stuff is poison.

B. Bull. Shit. Bush doesn't give a flying fuck what his "political enemies" are "brandishing." Nor does he give a shit about what "the global community" thinks. For better or worse -- worse, if you ask me, better if you ask Slave -- Bush understands that what people think is not a constraint on him. As long as Republicans on the Hill are unwilling to break with him -- in actions, not words -- he can keep doing whatever the Hell he wants, and he knows it. And particularly with torture, he takes the position that he doesn't need Congress's permission or approval, and for most of the past six years Congress has been all to happy to ignore it. Now Congress is having a hard time just getting information out of the Executive Branch.

C. (1) Torture is wrong. That's not a matter of politics -- that's just fundamental. I can't believe the so-called Christians who are happy to give the President a blank check. Their beliefs have precious little to do with Jesus of Nazareth.

(2) We don't "have" to torture anyone to fight this war. We choose to. People who defend the use of torture would rather talk about far-fetched ticking-bomb scenarios from 24 than about the uncontroverted fact that most of the people tortured at Abu Ghraib weren't terrorists. It's about their fantasies and fears and posing, not about the real world.

D. Explain to me how CIA torture in Latin America protects our way of life. This is because Nicaraguan hordes were going to be marching across the Rio Grande? If you believe that, then you can believe the Slave/Hank line that if we don't torture people we'll all be living under Sharia.

E. If torture becomes part of "our way of life," what's left?

F. "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Mark 8:36.

I relabeled your paragraphs above for this response:

A. Most people would not be repulsed. Remember that big red area in the middle? They'd applaud it. Bush can't release it because the international reaction would be awful, and even he knows that the most agressive elements of our culture are better kept under wraps.

B. Yes he does. He's boxed in, as I explained before. I'm not doing a "yes he is" v. "no he isn't" thing with you.

C. If Shiekh Muhammed who planned 9/11 is being tortured to get info on other plots, please tell me how that is "wrong." If we save lives by making his temporarily horrific, how is that wrong? You don't know that we don't need to toture anyone. You're saying that, but there's no way you could ever prove that. I can't debate that. It's not an argument. You're crowning yourself omniscient there.

D. Maybe it doesn't. I offered it as an example of how commonly we use the practice. Can you offer me an example of how it hasn't protected our way of life? Again, how do you know? Do you have access to those secret files in Langley?

E. The same thing we had left yesterday. We've ben doing it forever and we'll do it forever. So there's some transparanecy about the prevalence of its use. That's a good thing, no?

F. Why would you quote me religious text? I assume that's a joke.