What does the liberals think about enhanced interrogation now?

[Mr. Shaman]

LOL Your a funny guy

Thanks.

Too bad you are all too willing to toss aside the sacrifices of so many, just because you don't value American ideals enough to sacrifice anything.

~yawn~ You can sleep peacefully at night because rough men are ready to do their duty.

....At least, that's what they're telling the terminally-gullible Teabaggers....to keep gettin' those government-checks.​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Just watched 0 dark 30
Very accurate according to seal who wrote book

Gee.....you're full o' all KINDS o' bullshit, aren't you, Skippy??!!! ​

"Zero Dark Thirty is a 2012 American historical drama film directed by Kathryn Bigelow and written by Mark Boal."​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Just watched 0 dark 30
Very accurate according to seal who wrote book
Without GWB interrogation okay
no UBL
Movie mad point to state that libs came close to blowing the whole deal

Will give BHO kudos in the end, he did the right thing

BTW Cheney's assassination squad?
really?

Go team 6
god bless all of them

MSNBC panned Zero Dark 30 but thought Django was great.

The best made movie I have seen
to the point
very very little fiction as the seal stated in his book
I was truly moved by it as well as his book

Yeah....sure....the seal.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I don't know, what does the liberals think; my informed guess is liberals don't all think alike.

Exactly no foundation of absolutes with Liberals.

Exactly.

We prefer to think for ourselves. We're not as lazy as the average "conservative"/Teabagger.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

This thread is silly. We've basing our opinions on Hollywood movies now? I thought Hollywood was the big bad domain of DA LIBERALZZZZZ?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Just watched 0 dark 30
Very accurate according to seal who wrote book
Without GWB interrogation okay
no UBL
Movie mad point to state that libs came close to blowing the whole deal

Will give BHO kudos in the end, he did the right thing

BTW Cheney's assassination squad?
really?

Go team 6
god bless all of them

Being a Liberal means never having to say you're sorry.

And winning is all that matters no matter who gets hurt
there base has been lied so much they have no idea what to think until there told
seal team 6 are heros in a world of heros
the libs called them Cheneys assassination squad for years

You're gonna have a pretty difficult time, in Jr. High, if that's the best you can spell & punctuate.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

This thread is silly. We've basing our opinions on Hollywood movies now? I thought Hollywood was the big bad domain of DA LIBERALZZZZZ?

You've forgotten??

These are the same folks who took the WMD "hook".

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlzYrdAdmas]Singing Sucker Fish - YouTube[/ame]

 

[emilynghiem]

No problem in the liberal "mind" to oppose if done by a Republican but ignore if done by a Democrat.

notice no comment yet by lib and
Seal team 6 was Cheney's assassination squad until then
as was in the book by seal, they took him out
he was treated as he should have been

I will give BHO kudos on that. He took all the fame as usual and had nothing to do with the end except giving the go
6
CIA
all the work
I will not give any more detail on movie or book, but the lawyer-ed up terrorist at Gitmo and ending the interrogation methods almost blew the entire op

MUST SEE

Hi JRK: (1) I am a progressive Democrat, and Constitutionalist who defends prochoice and prolife views equally under law and against partisan bias, so I may be too conservative sounding to answer your questions from a left liberal perspective that forgives and justifies Obama's actions while vilifying Bush's (2) i also did not understand all your short hand typing, but am guessing you are talking "in general" about Democrats selectively accepting Obama's use of the Patriot Act and military drones and other questionable uses of military and executive authority, while rejecting Bush and calling for impeachment of him while denouncing those who call to impeach Obama, etc. etc. I would like to understand your specific issues, also, but will answer in general:

(a) the genuine liberal left that is anti-war, pro-single payer, and anti-corporate has always protested Obama as a sellout fraud. The last candidate they went with was either Kucinich or Nader. The Occupy protestors immediately jumped on Obama for the extensions of the defense measures that were even more draconian. So those leftists types also rally against Obama as a corporate abuser to get into Office. They recognize the point is to hijack the peace and green vote and only use these for corporate gain, as with the ACA. The problem is you won't hear about them because their protests are coming from the opposite direction as the rightwing Tea Party protesting for the same reasons of constitutionality. As long as they are divided against each other, they remain at the mercy of the media who paints them in the most stereotypical way possible. Cornell West may be more visible in his protests of Obama from the left side, but the other leftists like Amy Goodman, you'd have to dig into NPR and Pacifica before you hear from any of that side. All you will see in the mainstream are the corporate Democrats, and that is why the left thinks the media is conservative!!

Again you won't hear from these folks because they divide themselves from the mainstream and rightwing so much, they end up censoring their own message by social segregation.

(b) for the ones you will hear from, the onesided Democrats still fear Republicans/Conservatives/Tea Party more as the influence to be battled against. So yes, they will forgive things Obama does just in reaction to counter the right wing they believe to be the source of oppression and division. (As you can see, they even overrode the whole concept of "prochoice" just to get the health bill passed, and they forgive that because it is a start and something is better than nothing. But they would NEVER let rightwing prolife take "one step" too far on the abortion issue and having to amend it later.)

So of course you are right that the Democrats in it for the political influence are going to forgive Obama and bash Bush, push measures to ban guns but never measures to ban partial birth abortion, permit medical information on guns but not on abortion, etc etc etc.

(c) for the war issue in particular, I believe it served good purpose to have Obama as a Muslim-sympathetic African American leader finish the job of taking out OBL rather than a white Republican Conservative Christian. People are not ready to see beyond race and politics, so there would not be as visible protest if Obama did this, but if Bush or McCain did it and the political backlash came out then enemy forces would take advantage of that political rift to try to stir up more garbage and divide people against the US. It was better that the protests were kept off to the side and stymied (as were the Republican/Conservative protests against Bush kept low on volume). There are protests against Obama for all this, but you won't hear about them in the media but have to dig.

In this case, Obama's image helped shut up the protesting and allow it to go through.

(d) As for my own opinion, I believe the political retribution back and forth between Obama and Bush supporters and haters cancel each other out, but create double damage in the meantime. It is clearly hypocritical for Obama to hijack the anti-war vote where (1) the pro-peace movement want negotiations and diplomacy with terrorist ravaged countries, without calling names, but can't even seem to negotiate civilly with Republicans and call them names as the enemy (2) they protest war and the death penalty as being revenge and anti-peace, but then Obama calls people to vote as their revenge against the opposition, so clearly it is about politics [ also (3) as stated before, they push for pro-choice then endorse a health care bill that forces mandates on people from a federal level. Frankly, I would be happier to see Republicans who support war spending to pay all those costs, while letting Democrats who push for federal health care to pay for that; and just let taxpayers fund the programs under the parties of their choice.]

RE (1) and (2), I believe in restorative justice, and believe in separating funding for people who don't want to pay the cost of things done out of revenge. I especially do not believe govt leaders should abuse positions policies or resources to push an "agenda of revenge" because retributive justice just reaps more of the same. It is especially hypocritical for the Democrat liberal leaders and members to be against retribution and then call for this to oppress and override dissenting views targeted as the enemy; if you did not agree to be treated that way, it makes no sense to do likewise. I believe that is pushing a religious bias in two ways (a) the concept of retribution instead of restoring good faith relations (b) favoring one political party or agenda over another instead of following and upholding the Constitution. You may call me out for a bias on my part, but I view Bush's agenda as a response to national security threats, where American govt leaders had to push a public image of strong defense to deter attacks; while Obama's agenda is justified based on making the health care issue and Republicans as a threat to the nation which is not justification for overextending executive powers, it is being abused politically; while liberals will argue Bush was doing this and Obama is responding.
I am more open to "forgiving' any overextension of power by Bush as justified under military measures by the executive branch; and not so forgiving of Obama for abusing his position for political agenda, such as defending the ACA but attacking the immigration bill, and gun control measures that overstep (the issues and orders about mental health resources were acceptable, but the other contested measures were asking for trouble). As a Constitutionalists who believes that people's rights defined in the Amendments to the Constitution come first, and then state and federal govt must reflect those not impose, I am more sympathetic with states passing laws enforcing the federal immigration rules as within Constitutional reach, and against imposing ACA which should be voluntary to opt in since insurance does not pay for medical services and facilities directly so cannot be sold as public health care.

In general, from my experience, i've had more success reaching agreement with Republicans conservatives etc using the Constitution (even to agree on how to handle prochoice and prolife differences). the liberals I know depend on Government or party leaders to enforce or protect their liberties, instead of invoking the Constitution directly.

Sorry for the long answer, to show you where I am coming from as a progressive Democrat.
I voted for Bush and for McCain as stronger Constitutionalists than Obama or Kerry.
I try to defend each person's equal interests under the party and candidate of their chioce, to be fair as with equal religious freedom, but do not support any party imposing their own agenda onto dissenters much less trying to force them to pay for them against their beliefs.

I believe the current karma back and forth with Bush and Obama is part of the process of people learning to recognize their equal and opposite biases, so at some point people will figure out to separate funding and platforms by party and quit imposing at all on each other!

I am still working on my own biases, and recognize I tend to forgive Bush and hold fellow Democrats more harshly to their own words such as the whole ACA bill that is anti-choice.
I will hold Republicans to enforcing Constitutional values when it comes to corporate abuses that violate the same principles, or respecting equal religious freedom for prochoice or for Muslims within constitutional bounds, but they seem to take rebuke better as Christians than my liberal Democrat friends who still seem in denial about the whole ACA prochoice issue. Either I am the one who doesn't get it because of my bias, or they are the problem or both!

Thank you and I hope more people will see they have equal biases on both sides.
we will all forgive biases that we don't think cause harm next to biases or hypocrisy we are afraid of. Both sides do that. it is about even. The difference is who is willing to admit it!

 

[JRK]

This thread is silly. We've basing our opinions on Hollywood movies now? I thought Hollywood was the big bad domain of DA LIBERALZZZZZ?

Have you read any of the threads?
The book no easy day is by the seal who sot UBL the 2nd, 3rd and 4th shot
the movie mirrors the book 95%
Now exactly why is it this very serious matter means so little to you?

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't know, what does the liberals think; my informed guess is liberals don't all think alike.

Exactly no foundation of absolutes with Liberals.

Exactly.

We prefer to think for ourselves. We're not as lazy as the average "conservative"/Teabagger.

Hi Mr. Shaman: It just SEEMS that all liberals sound alike when statements like yours promote the "mass perception" of "average" conservatives thinking like lemmings.

Do you agree that liberals come across much the same way as a bunch of political Borgs?

Are you mentally free enough to say the same of both groups, or can you only see one side?

 

[JRK]

No problem in the liberal "mind" to oppose if done by a Republican but ignore if done by a Democrat.

notice no comment yet by lib and
Seal team 6 was Cheney's assassination squad until then
as was in the book by seal, they took him out
he was treated as he should have been

I will give BHO kudos on that. He took all the fame as usual and had nothing to do with the end except giving the go
6
CIA
all the work
I will not give any more detail on movie or book, but the lawyer-ed up terrorist at Gitmo and ending the interrogation methods almost blew the entire op

MUST SEE

Hi JRK: (1) I am a progressive Democrat, and Constitutionalist who defends prochoice and prolife views equally under law and against partisan bias, so I may be too conservative sounding to answer your questions from a left liberal perspective that forgives and justifies Obama's actions while vilifying Bush's (2) i also did not understand all your short hand typing, but am guessing you are talking "in general" about Democrats selectively accepting Obama's use of the Patriot Act and military drones and other questionable uses of military and executive authority, while rejecting Bush and calling for impeachment of him while denouncing those who call to impeach Obama, etc. etc. I would like to understand your specific issues, also, but will answer in general:

(a) the genuine liberal left that is anti-war, pro-single payer, and anti-corporate has always protested Obama as a sellout fraud. The last candidate they went with was either Kucinich or Nader. The Occupy protestors immediately jumped on Obama for the extensions of the defense measures that were even more draconian. So those leftists types also rally against Obama as a corporate abuser to get into Office. They recognize the point is to hijack the peace and green vote and only use these for corporate gain, as with the ACA. The problem is you won't hear about them because their protests are coming from the opposite direction as the rightwing Tea Party protesting for the same reasons of constitutionality. As long as they are divided against each other, they remain at the mercy of the media who paints them in the most stereotypical way possible. Cornell West may be more visible in his protests of Obama from the left side, but the other leftists like Amy Goodman, you'd have to dig into NPR and Pacifica before you hear from any of that side. All you will see in the mainstream are the corporate Democrats, and that is why the left thinks the media is conservative!!

Again you won't hear from these folks because they divide themselves from the mainstream and rightwing so much, they end up censoring their own message by social segregation.

(b) for the ones you will hear from, the onesided Democrats still fear Republicans/Conservatives/Tea Party more as the influence to be battled against. So yes, they will forgive things Obama does just in reaction to counter the right wing they believe to be the source of oppression and division. (As you can see, they even overrode the whole concept of "prochoice" just to get the health bill passed, and they forgive that because it is a start and something is better than nothing. But they would NEVER let rightwing prolife take "one step" too far on the abortion issue and having to amend it later.)

So of course you are right that the Democrats in it for the political influence are going to forgive Obama and bash Bush, push measures to ban guns but never measures to ban partial birth abortion, permit medical information on guns but not on abortion, etc etc etc.

(c) for the war issue in particular, I believe it served good purpose to have Obama as a Muslim-sympathetic African American leader finish the job of taking out OBL rather than a white Republican Conservative Christian. People are not ready to see beyond race and politics, so there would not be as visible protest if Obama did this, but if Bush or McCain did it and the political backlash came out then enemy forces would take advantage of that political rift to try to stir up more garbage and divide people against the US. It was better that the protests were kept off to the side and stymied (as were the Republican/Conservative protests against Bush kept low on volume). There are protests against Obama for all this, but you won't hear about them in the media but have to dig.

In this case, Obama's image helped shut up the protesting and allow it to go through.

(d) As for my own opinion, I believe the political retribution back and forth between Obama and Bush supporters and haters cancel each other out, but create double damage in the meantime. It is clearly hypocritical for Obama to hijack the anti-war vote where (a) the pro-peace movement want negotiations and diplomacy with terrorist ravaged countries, without calling names, but can't even seem to negotiate civilly with Republicans and call them names as the enemy (b) they protest war and the death penalty as being revenge and anti-peace, but then Obama calls people to vote as their revenge against the opposition.

I believe in restorative justice, and do not believe any govt leader should be abusing positions policies or resources for "revenge" because retributive justice just reaps more of the same. It is especially hypocritical for the Democrat liberal leaders and members to be against retribution and then call for this to oppress and override dissenting views targeted as the enemy; if you did not agree to be treated that way, it makes no sense to do likewise.
I believe that is pushing a religious bias in two ways (a) the concept of retribution instead of restoring good faith relations (b) favoring one political party or agenda over another instead of following and upholding the Constitution

In general, from my experience, i've had more success reaching agreement with Republicans conservatives etc using the Constitution (even to agree on how to handle prochoice and prolife differences). the liberals I know depend on Government or party leaders to enforce or protect their liberties, instead of invoking the Constitution directly.

Sorry for the long answer, to show you where I am coming from as a progressive Democrat.
I voted for Bush and for McCain as stronger Constitutionalists than Obama or Kerry.
I try to defend each person's equal interests under the party and candidate of their chioce, to be fair as with equal religious freedom, but do not support any party imposing their own agenda onto dissenters much less trying to force them to pay for them against their beliefs.

I believe the current karma back and forth with Bush and Obama is part of the process of people learning to recognize their equal and opposite biases, so at some point people will figure out to separate funding and platforms by party and quit imposing at all on each other!

I am still working on my own biases, and recognize I tend to forgive Bush and hold fellow Democrats more harshly to their own words such as the whole ACA bill that is anti-choice.
I will hold Republicans to enforcing Constitutional values when it comes to corporate abuses that violate the same principles, or respecting equal religious freedom for prochoice or for Muslims within constitutional bounds, but they seem to take rebuke better as Christians than my liberal Democrat friends who still seem in denial about the whole ACA prochoice issue. Either I am the one who doesn't get it because of my bias, or they are the problem or both!

Thank you and I hope more people will see they have equal biases on both sides.
we will all forgive biases that we don't think cause harm next to biases or hypocrisy we are afraid of. Both sides do that. it is about even. The difference is who is willing to admit it!

Dude I got bored with that by the third line
It was a simple question
What is all that babble about?
Bias?
Beliefs my friend
values

Without Al Qaeda there would never be a debate about enhanced interrogation Techniques
Without enhanced interrogation Techniques, There is no murder of UBL
No murder of UBL then BHO never claims he saved the auto industry and killed UBL (he had very little to do with either)

If you believe your mother should have made a choice with you in stead of being pro life? that is a value that you hold dear and allways confuses me that you were given a chance yet you feel the next generation should not
If you think that either W or BHO have followed the constitution sense GM? good for you, not sure what to take out of the rest of those comments
exactly what is corporate abuse?
People pay taxes, people steal, People lie (I save GM as an example or that Obama-care is deficit neutral)
People do good things, People tell the truth, People help other people
Corporations are a piece of paper

See it is not a bias
Being part of the grammar police does nothing to help you understand basic items such as a corporation is just a piece of paper that you cannot hold into account
It cannot be unethical
Holding a conservative in account to hold a piece of paper in check is not in the same league as my horrible grammar
See it is simple, grammar police to the person really need to spend more time on common sense police
No dis respect intended

Have a good day my friend

 

[Bigfoot]

When I think of "enhanced interrogation" I think of holding a sharp knife and listening to that Johnny Cash song "One piece at a time".

 

[JRK]

One of the problems we face in this country is people have forgotten how to talk, especially libs

You ask a simple question and 99% of the time not only will not get a simple answer, you will get an answer that has nothing to do with the question
Was enhanced interrogation legal? during Ws term it was
Did it save lives? YES
Did it find UBL?
according to the book no easy day and the movie 0 dark thirty, yes
Again I ask how was the courier Identified? Never mind found

How does BHO take solo claim on this event without Enhanced interrogation?
The left is proud of that murder, no problem with it
But that lying bastard GWB who had the courage to to do what it took to protect us from another 9-11 and did what had to be done to find UBL, evil as is the act that found him

I have no idea how the left got to where they are, It really is sad
There comes a time when you realize there is nothing that can be done any-more
If you thin k that is sarcasm? not even close

 

[CMike]

I can't get that interested in arguing about whether waterboarding is "really" torture, or just pseudo-torture, or whatever. The debate is pretty much over at that point. Kinda like arguing with some guy who thinks beating his wife is ok as long as there are no tell-tale cuts and bruises.

My general view on torture policy is more or less the same as my view on the death penalty. Yeah - there will be extreme circumstances where it might be justified.

No.....there are NONE!!!!!

For instance....the bullshit argument....If you know they know a terrorist-action is in-play...

O.K.....unless you already know what that action is.....how do you know they know????

....And, if you already know.....what's the point of torture??!!!!

If you catch a notorious Al Qaida leader and you ask them about impending terror attacks and they respond "soon, you will know".

That is a good time to break out the towels.

 

[rightwinger]

One of the problems we face in this country is people have forgotten how to talk, especially libs

You ask a simple question and 99% of the time not only will not get a simple answer, you will get an answer that has nothing to do with the question
Was enhanced interrogation legal? during Ws term it was
Did it save lives? YES
Did it find UBL?
according to the book no easy day and the movie 0 dark thirty, yes
Again I ask how was the courier Identified? Never mind found

How does BHO take solo claim on this event without Enhanced interrogation?
The left is proud of that murder, no problem with it
But that lying bastard GWB who had the courage to to do what it took to protect us from another 9-11 and did what had to be done to find UBL, evil as is the act that found him

I have no idea how the left got to where they are, It really is sad
There comes a time when you realize there is nothing that can be done any-more
If you thin k that is sarcasm? not even close

Bush's enhanced interrogation was legal because it was not prosecuted

If an impartial court had tried the available evidence, Bush would be in jail

 

[nodoginnafight]

~yawn~ You can sleep peacefully at night because rough men are ready to do their duty.

Too bad you can't.
Soiling your lil' diapers and ready to toss out every American ideal just because an idiot with a bandana over his face makes you weak in the knees.

Thank God we are protected by men and women of sterner stuff.

Nothing but personal attacks because your feelings are hurt or something. ~shrug~

and yet you are the one giving me negative rep.
Did I hit a nerve?

 

[nodoginnafight]

One of the problems we face in this country is people have forgotten how to talk, especially libs

You ask a simple question and 99% of the time not only will not get a simple answer, you will get an answer that has nothing to do with the question
Was enhanced interrogation legal? during Ws term it was
Did it save lives? YES
Did it find UBL?
according to the book no easy day and the movie 0 dark thirty, yes
Again I ask how was the courier Identified? Never mind found

How does BHO take solo claim on this event without Enhanced interrogation?
The left is proud of that murder, no problem with it
But that lying bastard GWB who had the courage to to do what it took to protect us from another 9-11 and did what had to be done to find UBL, evil as is the act that found him

I have no idea how the left got to where they are, It really is sad
There comes a time when you realize there is nothing that can be done any-more
If you thin k that is sarcasm? not even close

The problem with most on the right is their need to cram everything into a purely black or purely white mold, when nothing ever really fits.

Did it cost lives: Yes
Does it uphold the ideals of America that so many have died defending: No
Does it violate the Constitution: Yes

It's truly sad to see people so scared that are willing to crap on the sacrifices of those who died to preserve our ideals and our Constitution. Who scared you so much? Are you really that scared of terrorists or did a particular political party whip you up into such a panty-soiling state in order to scare up a few votes? I pity these folks. What a terrified, unfulfilling life they must lead.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Exactly no foundation of absolutes with Liberals.

Exactly.

We prefer to think for ourselves. We're not as lazy as the average "conservative"/Teabagger.

Hi Mr. Shaman: It just SEEMS that all liberals sound alike when statements like yours promote the "mass perception" of "average" conservatives thinking like lemmings.

Seeing as how "conservatives" are typically "absolutes"-driven....as-opposed-to thinking for themselves, they've earned the lemming-designation. ​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I can't get that interested in arguing about whether waterboarding is "really" torture, or just pseudo-torture, or whatever. The debate is pretty much over at that point. Kinda like arguing with some guy who thinks beating his wife is ok as long as there are no tell-tale cuts and bruises.

My general view on torture policy is more or less the same as my view on the death penalty. Yeah - there will be extreme circumstances where it might be justified.

No.....there are NONE!!!!!

For instance....the bullshit argument....If you know they know a terrorist-action is in-play...

O.K.....unless you already know what that action is.....how do you know they know????

....And, if you already know.....what's the point of torture??!!!!

If you catch a notorious Al Qaida leader and you ask them about impending terror attacks and they respond "soon, you will know".

That is a good time to break out the towels.

Yeah....I'm sure they do that, all-the-time.....

 

[CMike]

No.....there are NONE!!!!!

For instance....the bullshit argument....If you know they know a terrorist-action is in-play...

O.K.....unless you already know what that action is.....how do you know they know????

....And, if you already know.....what's the point of torture??!!!!

If you catch a notorious Al Qaida leader and you ask them about impending terror attacks and they respond "soon, you will know".

That is a good time to break out the towels.

Yeah....I'm sure they do that, all-the-time.....

They did in the actual case.