Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
And lock them in a cell with some minx?

Hey, take it to the FB.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yes. I'm sure they are actually two Cheney thugs who were told to make it look like radical environmentalists by scratching "for the environ[ment]" into the side of the car.

Don't be disingenuous. Just because they said something about the environment does not make them part of the "environmental movement," or even the "radical environmental movement." See, e.g., murdering doctors who perform abortions and the overall pro-life movement. Or, those wackadoos from KS or whatever who protest at funerals for soldiers (because they deserved to die because America doesn't condemn homosexuality or whatever), and whatever movement they claim to be a part of.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Don't be disingenuous. Just because they said something about the environment does not make them part of the "environmental movement," or even the "radical environmental movement." See, e.g., murdering doctors who perform abortions and the overall pro-life movement. Or, those wackadoos from KS or whatever who protest at funerals for soldiers (because they deserved to die because America doesn't condemn homosexuality or whatever), and whatever movement they claim to be a part of.

My theory is that they were neighborhood activists upset about parking in AU Park, and were carving "FOR THE ENVIRONS" into the side of the car when they were scared off by headlights.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Don't be disingenuous. Just because they said something about the environment does not make them part of the "environmental movement," or even the "radical environmental movement."

Are you saying that you think they abused the Hummer because he had a popped collar? Because to me it seems clearly they targetted it because they don't like hummers, and they don't like them not because they're ostentatious showings of wealth but because they perceive them to be particularly harmful to the environment.

I'm not saying that some larger movement condoned the action, but that's generally true of many radical environmental approaches (PETA aside). I'm talking about the methods used not whether those methods are part of a choreographed plan.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Fine. Then couch your posts on it in those terms.

It's when you suggest that it eclipses or is on par with all the other issues regarding our foreign policy that you lose me.

Exploiting it for moral high ground and trying to make it more than it is in the bigger picture won't make your desire to see it on the front page every day a self fulfilling prophecy. You'll just come off like a person with limited big picture arguments trying to win the debate by hammering one little hot button issue.

You realize that's exactly what Bill O'Reilly does, don't you? He never speaks generally. He grabs one little thing where he can take the moral pedestal and rams it down his opponent's throat over and over.

Engage Slave on the totality of our foreign policy. You might even get me as an ally in that debate.

You've lost me. When I post about torture, it's because I think torture is wrong. When I post about the outlandish theories of executive power, it's because I think that they're wrong, too. In both cases, the Bush Administration backs them, but I don't bring the issue up simply to to bash it. You may be that cynical -- I'm not. Actually, my fear is that the next Administration, Democrat or Republican, will fail to change things. For example, I suspect that Hillary is a big fan of executive branch power.

Now, in addition to thinking that torture is wrong, I think that this Administration has been particularly slippery about trying to normalize torture while denying that's what they're doing. There's a pattern of the Executive Branch just doing things that people don't know about, and using that secrecy to avoid discussion and review. This seems to me a particularly Bushian brand of gutlessness, and it's what those high-school students were calling him on. Slave at least is pro-torture. Bush lacks the courage of those convictions. This stuff is underground because -- on some level -- he knows that not even the outlandish theories of presidential power could save it from popular condemnation if it was all public.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
My theory is that they were neighborhood activists upset about parking in AU Park, and were carving "FOR THE ENVIRONS" into the side of the car when they were scared off by headlights.

Interesting theory. Because now that parking space will be taken until he can get the thing fixed.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Slave at least is pro-torture.

Now, that's not fair. He's against torture, he just defines torture in a narrow fashion.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Interesting theory. Because now that parking space will be taken until he can get the thing fixed.

I didn't say they were bright.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'll back you up on this when you develop an even-handed view and stop beating this torture story to death. Yeh, we know, Ty - the US is torturing people.

Here's a tip - It isn't a central issue in the debate over anything we're doing in the world. It's small issue liberals have glommed onto so they can give themselves a moral pedestal.

I don't view the issue as trivial. We've ceded the moral high ground that we were able to effectively use as a negotiating point with other countries. I remember reading an editorial a few years ago by a conservative who loved the Miranda law because all the cop movies and tv shows, shown around the world, recited a list of rights to criminals. People living in repressive regimes could see that in our country even criminals had rights that the average citizen in their shithole did not have. We've blown that.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Who are "we"?

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.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Are you saying that you think they abused the Hummer because he had a popped collar? Because to me it seems clearly they targetted it because they don't like hummers, and they don't like them not because they're ostentatious showings of wealth but because they perceive them to be particularly harmful to the environment.

I'm not saying that some larger movement condoned the action, but that's generally true of many radical environmental approaches (PETA aside). I'm talking about the methods used not whether those methods are part of a choreographed plan.

I think that the guy was an ass, on top of/in addition to having an H2. If it were purely the H2, there would be a spate of vandalism against H2s, with similar methods. So I think this was more of a "what a goddamn motherfucking jerk who hates the environment" and less of a "radical environmental movement" thing.

Now, if this is just the first of what becomes a wave of vandalizing ONLY H2s, and scratching environmental slogans on the sides, I will come around to your way of thinking.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You've lost me. When I post about torture, it's because I think torture is wrong. When I post about the outlandish theories of executive power, it's because I think that they're wrong, too. In both cases, the Bush Administration backs them, but I don't bring the issue up simply to to bash it. You may be that cynical -- I'm not. Actually, my fear is that the next Administration, Democrat or Republican, will fail to change things. For example, I suspect that Hillary is a big fan of executive branch power.

Now, in addition to thinking that torture is wrong, I think that this Administration has been particularly slippery about trying to normalize torture while denying that's what they're doing. There's a pattern of the Executive Branch just doing things that people don't know about, and using that secrecy to avoid discussion and review. This seems to me a particularly Bushian brand of gutlessness, and it's what those high-school students were calling him on. Slave at least is pro-torture. Bush lacks the courage of those convictions. This stuff is underground because -- on some level -- he knows that not even the outlandish theories of presidential power could save it from popular condemnation if it was all public.

I disagree. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 its Us v. Them, their rights are simply irrelevant. You think we're not doing worse to these people in the open field of battle? Torture's one of the smallest issues.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think that the guy was an ass, on top of/in addition to having an H2. If it were purely the H2, there would be a spate of vandalism against H2s, with similar methods. So I think this was more of a "what a goddamn motherfucking jerk who hates the environment" and less of a "radical environmental movement" thing.

Now, if this is just the first of what becomes a wave of vandalizing ONLY H2s, and scratching environmental slogans on the sides, I will come around to your way of thinking.

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

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I don't view the issue as trivial. We've ceded the moral high ground that we were able to effectively use as a negotiating point with other countries. I remember reading an editorial a few years ago by a conservative who loved the Miranda law because all the cop movies and tv shows, shown around the world, recited a list of rights to criminals. People living in repressive regimes could see that in our country even criminals had rights that the average citizen in their shithole did not have. We've blown that.

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.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think that the guy was an ass, on top of/in addition to having an H2.

Ty, where's your Venn diagram of asses and H2 drivers?