This Article begins a VERY frustrating thing for me. It outlines how political cronies want to protect themselves from their actions while in office.
There is movement at the top to protect Bush, Cheney and everyone in his administration from any legal action resulting from their behaviors while in office. This includes torture, lying to the public and taking us to war, international war crimes, defying the Constitution, forgoing the public good for personal gain – in essence, the high crimes and misdemeanors that would either get them impeached while in office or jail time once out.
This kind of crap makes Ken Lay look like a choir boy.
I hope, from the bottom of my toes, that as Obama comes into power he does not surrender the Rule of Law for post-partisan harmony. If crimes have been committed they MUST BE ADDRESSED. Remember, you right wing apologists, that we impeached a president simply because he lied about getting a blow job. This president has had non-mutually-consensual butt-love with the American people, the economy, the Constitution and the people of the world. He certainly deserves AT THE VERY LEAST the treatment that the right wing gave Clinton during that fiasco. The bum must be made to atone for his actions, or our laws mean nothing.
And I don’t mean this as a simply partisan thing: When Clinton said, “I did NOT have SEX with that WOMAN.” My first response was, “Wow, I hope not. Because you just threw the gauntlet down and if you’re lying, you’re gonna get hurt – and you’ll deserve it.” Our elected officials are THERE AS SERVANTS OF THE PEOPLE and should AT THE VERY LEAST be as responsible to the law, populace and the Constitution in a way that attends their oath of office. Hell – Since I was born here, I didn’t take an oath to be a citizen yet I am absolutely held liable for my actions in every way – to the full extent of the law.
The bastards that would use those same laws to exert ill-pointed power must be held the same way.
They MUST NOT get away with it.
“This includes torture, lying to the public and taking us to war, international war crimes, defying the Constitution, forgoing the public good for personal gain – in essence, the high crimes and misdemeanors that would either get them impeached while in office or jail time once out.”
Where is your facts to back up what your saying. Implying Bush had people tortured? Wheres the proof? NONE!!!
And if you want to impeach a president for going to war you’ll have to include, Roosevelt, Lincoln, and other great presidents besides bush! Nothing but opinion.
o-pin-ion /əˈpɪnyən/ Pronunciation [uh-pin-yuhn]
–noun 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
“we impeached a president simply because he lied about getting a blow job.”
simply never happened!!!
Where do you guys come up with this garbage… don’t tell me! You seen it on CNN! What a credible source of misinformation and biased opinion! When will you liberals come up with yourown views rather than follow the pack. Your so blind you wont even admit Obama is consistantly lying to the public, AND HES NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT YET!!!
and what i mean by “simply never happened” is that he was still allowed to be president. Not what I would consider a real impeachment.
“Where is my proof that Bush had people tortured?” What, have you been living under a rock for the last 4 years? So you don’t read ANYTHING AT ALL, do you? Have you not even heard that as of yesterday, Texas has officially INDICTED Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzalez for charges on this very thing? TEXAS YOU MORON! This is not Massachusetts or California, this is TEXAS we’re talking about!
And what the hell do you mean, the impeachment never happened? You truly are either utterly uneducated, do not read or understand anything, or a plant simply to raise my blood pressure. Just so you know “Trent,” Impeachment is NOT THE PROCESS OF REMOVAL. Impeachment is the official process whereby Congress can breach the official demarcation lines of the separation of powers in our government, and demand that our President be questioned under oath for his behavior. After the impeachment, THEN the decision is made, based on testimony and evidence, whether or not to the president should be removed – and then it goes up for Congressional vote and they need 2/3rds. It is not unlike the IRS piercing the corporate veil and demanding records that you’d normally not have to produce – but the piercing itself is not “You go to jail.” It’s the process where the rules change, which is exactly what impeachment is. This is not an uncommon misunderstanding, because most people either slept through Civics or simply did not care enough to do the homework. In your case, it looks as though you’ve decided that no amount of “Knowing” can replace the excellent information you receive from Professor Hannity or Doctor O’Reilly.
This may, in fact, be the singularly most ignorant post that I’ve had on my blog, that is saying quite a bit.
The documentation on torture, or at least the capacity to carry it out immune to US or international law WRT The Geneva Convention, is all declassified publicly available information.
I do not watch the news. The news is entertainment. It is not worth watching unless you want to be entertained. I have other things to entertain me. When I want information, I look it up myself. The Library of Congress has information on a lot of subjects. Clancy gets most of the information for his novels from the LoC, and he has been investigated by a couple of federal ABC agencies for “knowing too much”. That’s because the average citizen does not know or care to know the truth. If he did, our government in its current form and state would not be long for this earth.
I with V on this one. The news is garbage these days and they create the news instead of report the news.
Perk, you always flame comments you disagree with but you never address the points in an orderly and convincing fashion. That’s the truth.
Where is the evidence? You call what you read and see on the news evidence? Back it up! Don’t be a lazy debater.
@cheney
It’s a political witch hunt! Don’t be so naive man. Wow, I can’t believe that people REALLY think like you. This “Bush hunting” shit is just WAY over the top and nobody wants to really follow through with that. WAY LEFT. :popcorn:
@ Edgar: As I said in the other post: What is the point of debating absolutely farcical and stupid statements? Shall I next need to drag up evidence for you if he asserts that the moon is made of cheese? You’ve got to be joking, that anyone can make statements that are absolutely wrong and I need to have proof of why.
If you want to debate, come to the table with real facts or even notions based on reality and we’ll talk. Trent has moved into the absurd and there’s no point even addressing it.
There was no impeachment? roflmao: Incredible!
“Trent has moved into the absurd and there’s no point even addressing it.”
Oh Yeah? Trent said, “Where is your facts to back up what your saying. Implying Bush had people tortured? Wheres the proof?”
That’s not absurd is it?? You are absolutely convinced that ‘bush tortured people’ because why? You have seen some incontrovertable proof I suppose. I mean, why else would you be SO convinced? So, therefore, what do you base your CONVICTIONS on? Keith Olberman right? What Keith says goes…
debating core beliefs that define either conservetism or liberlism is not absurd.
Do you not wonder how a conservetive thinks? Or do you just ASSUME you know exactly what they are thinking.
Well I will be honest. I have no idea on how you arrive with your logic. The only way to figure it out is to debate the core fundemaental values and beliefs.
All the current debates are pretty much useless. If we are debating the sky being blue, and you are convinced it’s red, there is no point in debating untill i can understand WHY you think it’s red. Since you dont like debating, it’s going to make it difficult. By reading your entries on this blog,I have come to the conclusion that you just have this blog as a soap box to preach from. You chastise anyone who disagrees with you and stroke your friends for blindly agreeing you with no debate. How do you ever expect to gain perspective, if the only perspective you intend on seeing is your own. you seem very shallow Perk. I hope you open your mind to debate. I’m sure it could be fun and interesting. No one is here, to be hatefull, just becasuse we have a different view.
Perk and the boys here are my favorite liberals of all time! It’s like looking at a bug under a microscope LMAO!!
I’ve been debating perk and donkey here for quite a little while now and I have enjoyed it immensely, in fact I always get my coffee ready for these little debates.
Perk is one of those emotional types so he flies off the deep end once in a while but I’m pretty sure he doesn’t really think you are full of hate (like he is toward GWB)
:popcorn:
I hope not!
I’m looking for some good debate and playfull bantor!
Perk has plenty to say, but unfortunately, we had 3 attempted break-ins on my home this week and I’m completely distracted, between my client load and meetings with iron works, alarm company, security consultants etc. So I’ll be back in a couple days to give you both the slamming you are asking for
Sorry for the quiet,
/p
The burden of proof lies with the believing party. As such:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/torturefoia.html
The ACLU is one of the most important organizations currently in existence for the American citizen. They protect us from our government. I say this only because I am hoping that you don’t respond with the typical ditto-head response. Everyone knows guys like Rush hate the ACLU. I’m hoping you’re wise enough to see things differently (unless you think our holy Federal Government is inerrant and needs no supervision, and if so please entertain me with your assertions as to why).
Anyway, the ACLU was kind enough to compile a mountain of documentation on torture in this administration.
Fuck the aclu! They haven’t been a legit organization since the 1970′s. They are infamously selective in the cases they choose to defend and are nothing more than another platform for the ultra urban liberal agenda.
The aclu was a great organization once upon a time. Dude, believe it or not I used to be a hard core liberal ok? I know about the aclu.
Thank GOD I’m recovering!!
So what you’re implying is that the first amendment isn’t as important as everyone seems to think it is?
And regardless you didn’t speak to the argument at all. You responded with an ad hominem statement about the ACLU. You asked for torture facts, there you go.
I’m sorry, i’ve read a few of them… I didnt read anywhere where it says Bush was responsible. Could you point out wich document contains such damning evidence?
Responsible, complicit, vaguely aware – all synonymous when you’re the President.
Or should we let it drop because he’s a dunce?
“Thank GOD I’m recovering”
If you really were a hardcore Liberal, built upon facts and values then you will be back. IME it is almost impossible for a fundamentally liberal person (in the classical, Locke-like sense) to become a true conservative (a true, Hobbsian conservative) because the essential outlook on life is just too different. It can happen, but the impact to one’s psyche must be so profound that virtually everything about how they view life is turned upside down.
That would be, of course, if you were truly a liberal. Given your arguments, particularly about gay people, I think you’re either lying to us or to yourself.
Vsloathe “So what you’re implying is that the first amendment isn’t as important as everyone seems to think it is?”
I didn’t imply anything. I flat out stated that the aclu has not been a balanced, unbiased organization since the 1970 and that they are infamous for being selective in a biased unbalanced way favoring the liberal agenda.
Perk
No lies perk. I’m not wasting my time to come to your blog and tell lies to strangers. WTF?
I was anti the first bush, pro clinton, anti first gulf war, pro gore, thought that bush stole the election, hung out at the local coffee house down town singing and playing guitar (no joke) and listening to poetry, hung around with some fags who were cool anyway, studied locke (still have ‘an essay on human understanding’ next to me on my bookshelf),immanual kant, schopenhauer, Leibniz, spinoza and nietzsche.
I was pro abortion, pro gay rights (do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law – Aliester Crowley) I was a long haired hippie type who used to hang with other liberals and discuss everything from philosophy to politics.
I could argue your liberal points better than you guys here.
The turning point for me came by way of deep reflection on points such as relative morality and absolute truth. Morals and consciousness next and the fact that liberalism is not based on fact but like religion is based on faith.
Liberalism is not married to fact/science as I thought is was just as science without religion or religion without science is a table with only two legs.
At some point my feelings about tolerance as a guiding principle just couldn’t coexist with my new found sense of intellectual honesty which I discovered in an unpleasant search for real truth.
Thems is the facts.
:popcorn:
“Fuck the aclu! They haven’t been a legit organization since the 1970’s. They are infamously selective in the cases they choose to defend and are nothing more than another platform for the ultra urban liberal agenda…”
Edgar, you lay into the liberals in this chat for not backing up their arguments with fact, and then when they do, (as Vsloathe did), you cite the facts as inherently suspect due to their biased source (and you offer no facts to back up why you think the source is suspect, just your own opinion, which is, as you say, a lazy argument).
I would respect you more if rather than blowing off the data presented by Vsloathe, you actually presented some data that contradicts what the ACLU has said. But that would require you doing as much work as Vsloathe has done, and not being a “lazy debater” yourself.
*SFNathan
“Edgar, you lay into the liberals in this chat for not backing up their arguments with fact, and then when they do, (as Vsloathe did), you cite the facts as inherently suspect due to their biased source (and you offer no facts to back up why you think the source is suspect, just your own opinion, which is, as you say, a lazy argument).”
True observation SF. The reason I didn’t back up with my statement that the ACLU is a far left leaning platform for the liberal agenda is because it’s so obvious and the case has been made so many times, that I didn’t think I needed to.
I felt everyone would agree. The history of the ACLU is well known and I know you guys (at least perk) know all about the aclu.
It would take an entire post to make the case so I didn’t. Should I?
“I would respect you more if rather than blowing off the data presented by Vsloathe, you actually presented some data that contradicts what the ACLU has said.”
Don’t need to because the burden of proof lies with the accusers. But if you want ‘data’ then how about when Bush said we don’t torture people?
Didn’t he already say that? There you go. You have one set of guys (white house) who say we didn’t torture, and you have another group of guys (the aclu) that said we did. Who’s data is more relevant?
I’ll go with the President until shown otherwise.
“Don’t need to because the burden of proof lies with the accusers. But if you want ‘data’ then how about when Bush said we don’t torture people?”
He said this at the same time as his Justice Department was writing arguments declaring that water boarding was not torture, when the Genveva Convention had already established that water boarding was torture.
Bush also declared “Mission Accomplished” and many other foolish things that had no basis in reality. Just because Bush says “we don’t torture” or “Mission Accomplished”, doesn’t mean that he is speaking about factual reality.
Bush said we don’t torture because between he, Gonzale and his administration, the definition of torture has been modified. Cheney said that torture where someone endured unbearable pain, or loss of limb or potential loss of life. To them, the measures to which we will go are just not torturous enough to be torture.
And when these measures are not enough, then we simply implement “Extraordinary Rendition” in which we simply deport someone to a country that does support torture.
The ACLU and the vast majority of people in the US think that waterboarding is torture. The vast majority of people in the US think that we are torturing people. This is perhaps why Bush has his legal team looking at a blanket pardon for everyone in his administration, or was in any way connected with Gitmo, so that they can avoid all future potential litigation. Fucking pussies won’t even stand up for the principals of which they espoused.
So if we are aiding and abetting torture, does that make us complicit? If torture by international law is not enough to make our president think that it is torture, is that simply “good enough” for you Edgar? Is it OK to simply move the line on what torture is simply to satisfy the current political climate?
I’d wager that, for a tough guy like you, waterboarding is no big deal and you’d be just fine with it, huh?
No, you still need data on why the ACLU has a “liberal agenda”.
Who watches the watchers? Have you watched the ACLU’s video “Flex Your Rights”? It’s excellent. I highly recommend it. Unless you’re not a fan of Free Speech or our legal system, you are inextricably indebted to the ACLU.
@SFNathan
Funny man, you said, “Edgar, you lay into the liberals in this chat for not backing up their arguments with fact, and then when they do, (as Vsloathe did), you cite the facts as inherently suspect due to their biased source”
Then you go and cite my facts (data presented by the president) as *Inherently suspect due to the biased source* with this quote,
“He said this at the same time as his Justice Department was writing arguments declaring that water boarding was not torture, when the Genveva Convention had already established that water boarding was torture.”
You just can’t have it both ways and that goes for you too Perk.
@Perk
1. “Bush said we don’t torture because between he, Gonzale and his administration, the definition of torture has been modified.”
That’s called Relative Morality! LMAO!!! Since torture as a word is that can be interpreted laterally its no surprize that people will have different views on what torture is or where to draw the line exactly.
2. “The ACLU and the vast majority of people in the US think that waterboarding is torture.”
Boo fucking hoo! Those POOR terrorists.
3. “If torture by international law is not enough to make our president think that it is torture, is that simply “good enough” for you Edgar?”
Looking for absolutism Perk? Different people from different cultures all have a different definition of torture *relative* to THEIR moral standards. You act as though there is only one enduring moral standard!
4. “Is it OK to simply move the line on what torture is simply to satisfy the current political climate?”
Perk, morality is RELATIVE! The very nature of relativity necessitates that lines be re-drawn and moved.
Again you appartently are searching for absolutism in this aspect of morality.
Hey Perk, do you know what they do to woman who leave the house with out a male family member to escort them in muslim countries like Saudi Arabia?
The law is different everywhere and torture is a subjective word.
Regarding ‘international law’ there really is no such thing. It’s merely a gesture in reality.
5. “I’d wager that, for a tough guy like you, waterboarding is no big deal and you’d be just fine with it, huh?”
Whatever Bush did to keep us safe after 911 is fine with me. He was very successful.
@edgar
“Boo fucking hoo! Those POOR terrorists.”
unless of course they turn out to not be a terrorist? or are they really, after being tortured and told, “well stop torturing you if you just tell us your a terrorist”. Torture by its very nature does not work, skipping the cruel aspects, or morality. But I am sure you are for the death penalty, and probably don’t think it is used enough, and don’t mind if one or two innocents get killed for every few dozen truly guilty.
“Whatever Bush did to keep us safe after 911 is fine with me. He was very successful.”
Whatever Clinton did to keep us safe before 911 was fine with me.
Whatever Bush Senior did to keep us safe before 911 was fine with me.
Whatever Reagan did to keep us safe before 911 was fine with me.
Whatever Carter did to keep us safe before 911 was fine with me.
Whatever * did to keep us safe before 911 was fine with me.
Thats an silly supposition. this country has not had a single major attack against it from a foreign source, EVER before 911 since the revolution. We do a good enough job with our own internal death and destruction.
He’s a troll. He’s not interested in genuine conversation.
“poor terrorists”?
You know what makes someone a “terrorist” Edgar? The government labels him one. That should scare the bajesus out of any rational person.
How about that Canadian guy we held secretly for 10 months, who turned out to be just some software engineer? How would you like if that happened to you? I’m sure you would endure whatever *not*-torture methods they used to get you to confess, knowing that it’s for the Common Good.
@Donkey
“Thats an silly supposition. this country has not had a single major attack against it from a foreign source, EVER before 911 since the revolution.”
You capitalize EVER to make your point but you are a fucking idiot. Ever? Ever?
What about when the british set fire to the capital during the war of 1812?
What about Pearl Harbor?????????
Feb. 26, New York City a bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.
Where were you during the FIRST world trade center attack dumbass?
“before 911 and since the revolution”
You’ve got to be kidding me! Are you really that ignorant?
I think I”m going to take your quote and make a nice long blog post about how utterly ignorant yet convinced some liberals are. You must feel fucking stupid for saying that we have never been attacked since the revolution on our homeland.
You even make a point about it too.
Well, at least I know the true level of intelligence among the liberal group here at Perks blog.
@Vsloathe
“He’s a troll. He’s not interested in genuine conversation.”
After I addressed every point Perk made one by one you are going to announce that I’m not interested in genuine conversation?
Vsloathe, you haven’t been interested in genuine conversation. I asked you why you reject liberalism and you haven’t answered that simple question yet.
Probably because it puts you on the spot in front of all the other libs. You are the one that mentioned that you are not a liberal in the first place so…answer me then.
Why do you reject liberalism? Be conversant.
“Boo fuckin hoo! Those poor terrorists.”
You’re so stuck it’s not even funny. I wish it were, this would be more entertaining. But it’s not. You really believe that shit.
To BD & VS’s point, (and frankly, to yours Edgar) how do you know who’s a terrorist? How do you know their not? How do you know exactly what torture is? How do we know when we’ve “crossed the line?” You probably could give a shit. “So what if a lot of people are tortured that didn’t do anything … we have to find out for our safety.”
We in the US posture ourselves as being so much more righteous, right, correct, morally high-grounded people, yet we want to have a discussion on whether or not torture is acceptable? Ask McCain about waterboarding. He was DAMN FUCKING CLEAR. And he has a whole bunch more experience with that sort of thing that Bush, Cheney and certainly you.
You’re a coward Edgar. A damn coward.
It’s oh-so easy to say “KILL EM” from your little den of racist venom… easier still to say “TORTURE EM” from your position of *probably* never having the eire of the Bush administration on your back… but real liberty is tough and takes people of courage to be willing to say “No. We will not stoop to your level. Your brand of hate cannot convert our brand of faith in people, in our government and in our union. We will uphold the principals for which we stand and courageously continue on our American path.”
This is the stuff of real men Edgar, not pussies that sit and spout crap about hurting other people with a kind of cavalier aplomb that you effortless spew. Assholes that sit and point fingers at “Those deviant perverted people (gays)” and have neither empathy or understanding for their lot in life. Idiots that do not even realize how they damage our country, our reputation and put the lives of our soldiers in EVER MORE PERIL by being willing to torture captives (non-combatants even). Since you cannot understand WHY this puts them in more danger, it is no mystery to me why you’d be OK with it.
You and Trent spout all kinds of crap about the bible and Right vs. Wrong. I submit that you may have run your eyes over the words in the bible, BUT YOU DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT IT SAYS. You may well be able to spout chapter and verse without having the tiniest notion about what the chapter and verse MEANS.
Your positions are laughably shallow because they use fraudulent Christian positions to assert patently un-Christian-like behavior.
Your positions are fundamentally a lie.
Edgar, asked and answered. I told you that the closest thing to a category I fit into is “anarcho-syndicalist”.
You’re being extremely hypocritical, I answered that question for you already. Don’t be selective in your reading.
@Vsloathe
“Edgar, asked and answered. I told you that the closest thing to a category I fit into is “anarcho-syndicalist”.
This answers the question, “Vsloathe, label yourself for me please”
This does not answer the question, “why do you reject liberalism”
So I ask you again, why do you reject liberalism?
@Vsloathe
I think you thought I wanted to know what category you fit into if forced to chose. I was curious it’s true and now I know but, I wasn’t really looking for that. I wanted to know what you main reasons were for rejecting liberalism.
The reasons I’m not a liberal are much akin to the reasons I am not a conservative. For one thing, I do not think they mean what they should in the contemporary discourse. More importantly though, to call myself either of those things would be to paint myself with a brush with which I should not be painted. I do not toe party lines, nor can I find a mainstream ideology with which I can agree without reservation. It has nothing to do with any sort of misguided desire to be “different”, it’s simply an attempt at intellectual honesty and I do it in good conscience. I vowed many moons ago that though I am my harshest critic and most serious opponent, I will never be dishonest with myself.
@Perk
1. “To BD & VS’s point, (and frankly, to yours Edgar) how do you know who’s a terrorist?”
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter right? The British alerted the people of the colonies of domestic terrorists when they referred to sam adams and the boys too.
So I get that ‘terrorist’ is a subjective word. I get your point. For instance, if a new definition of terrorist included ‘intolerant right wing types’ then I might find myself in guantanamo.
I understand that if manipulated in the wrong way, any demographic could suddenly fall into this dangerous category. Like when Hitler basically named the Jews as enemies of the state…
It’s ok with Edgar if Bush is ‘torturing’ muslim terrorists but if the loop holes are left open it could be dangerous. A new leader in the future might do whatever he wants to anybody as long as he labels you a terrorist.
Like the patriot act. Is it a useful tool for combating terror or is it a dangerous gateway for further erosion of our civil liberties?
I do get it.
@Torturing innocents along with terrorists.
I think it’s an absolutely disgusting notion to imagine an innocent man being tortured anywhere at all. It is a tragedy for sure and I’m not OK with it.
Just because I have NO SYMPATHY for terrorists (like the ones that killed my friends sister on the plane that went down in PA) doesn’t mean that I don’t give a shit about innocent people getting tortured.
See it’s easy for you libs to act all holier than thou because the attack on 911 was just something on the news. In fact you can probably rationalize it in your own liberal way to it being our fault. Our aggressive policies etc…
I’m not trying to cheapen the argument by adding a personal and emotional element to it by mentioning the death of my friends sister.
The people that did that are terrorists. It’s fucking plain as day and if you don’t find that to be self evident then just wait until one of your friends is fucking killed a scumbag terrorist.
Then it wont just be more news at night on tv.
@Torture
These terrorists capture Journalists and behead them on film. Then they send the that shit back to us to watch as they laugh. I don’t think that sparing the terrorists we capture is going to soften the enemy into not torturing westerners.
I think it gets into their heads. No Terrorist wants to visit guantanamo! They are scared of Guantanamo and they should be. They should know that we have a nice little place for them if we capture them.
However, I still don’t like the idea of hurting people in a grotesque way. Waterboarding is being to friggen nice to these horrificly ruthless murderers. I mean, they capture journalists and behead them on film. That’s not war, that’s murder. Sick fucking murder!!
You think we should go easy on them?
@”You’re a coward Edgar. A damn coward.”
If you disagree with me call me an idiot not a coward. The word doesn’t fit.
@”It’s oh-so easy to say “KILL EM” from your little den of racist venom…”
It’s oh-so easy to say “be nice” when YOU weren’t personally affected by 911!
@”This is the stuff of real men Edgar, not pussies that sit and spout crap about hurting other people with a kind of cavalier aplomb that you effortless spew.”
Now I’m not a real man because I’m not soft on terrorists. Fine with me.
@”Assholes that sit and point fingers at “Those deviant perverted people (gays)” and have neither empathy or understanding for their lot in life.”
Don’t blame me for being “HOMOPHOBIC” …it’s genetic. I was borne this way. I don’t want to be like this but I am what I am. Society has made me a pariah and I’m miserable about it. Being label intolerant an all makes me suicidal but alas, there’s nothing I can do! It’s genetic. It’s not a matter of choice.
@”You and Trent spout all kinds of crap about the bible and Right vs. Wrong.”
Perk you are getting emotional again and you are starting to exaggerate. I mentioned only the things from the bible on one singe day to the best of my recollection. Now it’s “All this stuff”
Relax Perk and try to understand that most people in this country are conservative and they think differently than you. As you mentioned elsewhere only about %35 admit they are liberals.
We are not all idiots, cowards, assholes or sorry excuses for real men. We are the majority. Gay right? It’s been voted down every time with out it even being close.
Of course in my fucking state the liberal activist judges kept it from getting on the ballot. That’s called judicial tyranny! Nothing less.
None the less most Americans, the vast majority are not liberal and we think differently than you.
@”Your positions are laughably shallow because they use fraudulent Christian positions to assert patently un-Christian-like behavior.”
Really? Quote me somewhere and show me!
One last thing. I see that you guys are heated but I’m not. It’s just a debate. Good tough debate.
I’ve got a legitimate position which is shared by the majority of Americans. You guys are liberals and omit important caveats that would lend themselves to a more balanced conclusion. After all, there are always two sides to every story.
@Vsloathe
I hate to be a prick but you didn’t answer the question yet. Seriously. First you said that you don’t think the terms are used correctly in modern discourse. But that is not a reason that causes you to reject liberalism.
Then you said that to paint yourself with either brush would not be correct. True, you said that when you said you weren’t liberal but…this doesn’t explain why you reject liberalism.
Then you said, nor can i find a mainstream ideology that I agree with. Again, I’m not looking for classification. I wanted to know the reasons you reject liberalism.
Finally you clarified that you are not looking to be different and that you are in honest pursuit of knowledge. I applaud you and I feel the same. But, this does not explain why you reject liberalism.
You must think I’m a dick but I seriously want to get to the meat of this question. Because to me, you are a liberal and I’m genuinely curious as to why you (surprizingly) reject liberalism. :popcorn:
“Liberalism” in its current form in the US is far too right wing for me. It’s progressive at best, and moderate most of the time.
How can you be a liberal when you don’t believe in the concept of government? I would be a libertarian, but they are strongly against labor unions. I also realize that my vision is utopian and unworkable, but that doesn’t stop me from believing in and hoping for a workable version.
@edgar regarding terrorism
I understand that you “get it” about the line that can be crossed.
I understand you were personally impacted by the attacks that day unlike most who it “just something on the news”.
But you are seemingly allowing your personal hate/anger to blur your opinion. It’s understandable, but still. You are saying that you are concerned about innocents being tortured. This is not about 1 mans terrorist is another mans revolutionary. This is not my point and probably not anyone elses. It’s the guy being detained because he has the same name as a known terrorist, or just has done some things that fit the profile. Sure i assume the gov needs a bit more than just that, but do they actually?
My issue that I have with torture goes a little deeper though than torturing innocents. I have an issue with it period and find no situation under which physical torture is acceptable, ever. The reason is two fold. Information gained by torture is by nature fraudulent, untrustable, and just as likely to be true as be a lie, yet it is taken as fact and legitimate. The other reason is because we are supposed to be better than that. Yes, the terrorists chop of heads of reporters, yada yada, those things are horrible of course. Yes, they don’t play by any rules, yada yada yada. That does not mean we should do those things also. We should adhere to the standards we wish wish to apply. This country is not supposed to be a “do as I say not as I do” type of grown up.
You seem to think its a matter of “being nice” to the terrorists by not using torture and that because you were affected by 911, you have a right to be angry. Well, you do, but does that legitimize selling your beliefs or this country selling its, in the face of anger? I have a feeling you were against torture prior to 911. It doesnt matter that they might torture us. Be a bigger person, be a higher authority, be someone who will do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It really doesn’t matter the reason, but being an American generally would mean that aside from the bumpkin yokels we want to set a standard, be the leader we claim to be.
As a hacker and security enthusiast, I’ve been paranoid about being labeled “terrorist” for years.
Perk
since you closed the other post I had to post this here.
You said “try something for real like the kinsey report as nathan has”
I did e.g.
“Alfred Kinsey, the preeminent sexual researcher in the history of sexual research, found in 1948 that 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children under 17 years old. [Alfred Kinsey data described in P.H. Gebhard andAB.”
You didn’t read my post.
Finally, you warned us not to use junk sources like wikipedia yet Nathan quoted wiki and you just kiss his ass.
My post 244 quoted kinsey, now go back and read, then finish your tantrum! LMAO!!!!
Edgar we’re done with this. You’re desire to vilify homosexuality is both vulgar and ignorant. You cherry pick data to support your stupidity, rather than reading what is actually going on.
First off, since 1948 there have been literally countless studies specifically on the issue of child molestation which I have both outlined for you and are scientifically very difficult to dismiss. But much more importantly, Kinsey’s 37% number was the number of adult males that had had a homosexual experience in their life, not with a young person.
Kinsey’s 1948 report is said to be the reason that the homosexual revolution could even take place. His role as an analyst about the depth and spectrum of human sexuality were so profound, that his work was assaulted by your hero, Judith Reisman HERE. He asserts quite clearly that somewhere between 10-40% of the population is homosexual, proposing the established standard of homosexuality being considered a 10% minority. Reisman made lavish and horrible claims about the homosexuality/child molestation link that you have described, but she was utterly discredited when it was found in 1998 that the vast bulk of her data came from a single adult molester in prison. Dr. Reisman has no medical training of any sort and is widely accepted by anyone with half a brain as being a complete loon. “Dr.” Reisman, like many of the other kind of people you quote as “data” regularly equate homosexuality to incest, bestiality, pedophilia even (in Judith’s case) equating Dr. Kiersey to the likes of Dr. Mengele. With friends like this…
But I digress.
Two important quotes from Kinsey’s actual report which say a tremendous amount. First, about you:
And second, about the essential nature of homosexuality itself:
I ended discussion on the issue specifically because clearly now wish to use my blog as a pulpit to scream your intolerance and bigotry.
Don’t do it any more.
I think the point here perk is that your a hipocrite! You spout off all this nonsense about how we (the conservatives) dont read your entries and are just looking for a place to cry out our hatred, when it is you (the liberals) who dont read the entries and continue to spout off conservative hatred. If this blog was just about being your soap box, PERK, then you should have said so. Leading everyone to believe your interested in debate, and then closing it down when things dont go your way…..WAAAAAAA! I’m taking my ball and going home!!!! WAAAAAAAAA!!!
GROW UP!! You praise sfnathan for taking should horrible assertions so well, while you blast conservatives in such a hatred fashion, it makes the kkk look sympathetic! You should apologize to edgar for not reading his entry, and then accusing him of being the culprit! Then you should apologize to me for accusing me of using shoty web sites like wikipedia for refrences, and applauding your fellow Libs when they use them!
This blogs new name should be ‘Perks Soap Box: Don’t disagree with me!’
:drama:
my final comment on the subject is this.
edgar, your revisionist history, and your inability to actually understand the details of an argument make it impossible to carry it forward. It is not relevant that we disagree, but instead that we can understand each others arguments. I have many times tried to take your argument and show you the logical progression that argument takes, and all you respond with is hair splitting, petty word play, and flat out ignoring of the concepts and arguments presented. For example, to say that I said there has never been a foreign attack on US soil, is ignoring both the prior times I said “foreign terrorist attack” as well as the followup to explain the omission, and all you do is spout off about the concept of a typo, but dutifully ignore the point.
It has happened virtually every time I make an argument to counter yours, which is how a debate is supposed to go. Ignoring the points, and not responding to, nor following up with related arguments, is tantamount to grandstanding. I understand that you don’t want to change your mind, I don’t either, but it does not mean that you, nor the others, have to blatantly ignore the structure of debate. I can argue either side of virtually any subject which I know at least a little bit about each side. It’s not because I am a genius, or know-it-all, but because if you know how to debate, you can debate virtually anything from any point of view.
It is frustrating to see someone present themselves under the guise of debater, when all they do is present negative fallacies and null hypotheses and opinion. Present a valid logic path argument, and you will have my attention, but until then, I’m out. I’ts become a black hole, where all your doing is taking points and setting them equal to zero by brute force.
” I can argue either side of virtually any subject which I know at least a little bit about each side. It’s not because I am a genius, or know-it-all, but because if you know how to debate, you can debate virtually anything from any point of view.”
Nooooo! If you debate a subject in wich you know little or nothing about, you’ll either be ignoring statistics, denying facts, or using opinions as rebutles. This is what we seen in the last posting.
You guys had a couple of interesting facts… just not related to the issues.
You can have a debate, the arguments wich support your views of the topic, and sub arguments wich support your views on the facts presented by either party.
You guys want to talk about anything but the issue, and if there are statistics, data, or some argumental point made, all you libs do is deny deny deny! Thats not a debate tactic. Thats obstinate!
@Donkey
“I have many times tried to take your argument and show you the logical progression that argument takes, and all you respond with is hair splitting, petty word play, and flat out ignoring of the concepts and arguments presented.”
Donkey you don’t make good analogies. You try to make similar the discrimination of blacks in the past, and gays now. It’s not a correct analogy. Being black is not an action. Gay is about behavior. It’s not splitting hairs, it’s showing you your analogy is not sound.
Then you say to me,
“Present a valid logic path argument, and you will have my attention, but until then, I’m out.”
You wonder why I talk to you like you are an idiot. Look at what I posted ALREADY — just what you demanded. See, you don’t read my posts…
“1.I think homosexuality can be argued from a non christian and entirely secular perspective.
2. I chose not to discuss the morals of homosexuality here as this discussion is also related to liberty as defined by the constition.
3.I believe the strongest argument in this particular sense is the ill (we are contesting that here) side effects homosexuality has or could have on society.
4. A negative effect on society (we are contesting that at this blog) would be bad for me personally. This is where gay liberty would interfere with my liberty.
5. The Gay-Pedo link is just one single point of many in the “gay is bad for society” argument.
Therefore I’m actually quite on topic. Not only that Nathan, but prominent gay activists also agree with me, not you or the other libs here, but me.”
@PERK
The quote from kinsey was to prove to you that I DID IN FACT QUOTE KINSEY
“try something for real like the kinsey report as nathan has”-perk
You don’t read my posts. I DID QUOTE KINSEY yet you ask me to quote kinsey.
You give nathan a pass on wikipedia…unreal.
Perhaps you also did not follow up on levay and the other homo magazine’s I sourced.
All you do is focus on dr reisman. Education is everything right? But when a doctor disagrees with you then he or she is a quack.
You know, anybody reading this discussion can clearly see that you guys demand things that I’ve already put in posts, specifically. For instance Donkey wants a logical path for my argument. I frieken numbered my basic points from one to five!!! what else do you want?
You want kinsey, I already gave you kinsey. You don’t read my comments but you accuse me of not reading comments.
Then, bases on all of that bullshit, you pull the post. Follow up on super gay lib levay (the neuroscientists) and see why he agrees with ME regarding genetics.
Last note to donkey:
Donkey, a typo is short for typing error. Like thiss. Orrr thiis. People are unfairly comparing the gay movement to the civil rights struggle that blacks went through, and lots of black don’t appreciate it. Check out a black blog (ever read one? probably not)and you’ll see they take offense to that whole notion.
If you are allowed to believe that the civil rights struggle for blacks is analogous to the gay movement, then you are going to be more inclined to support the gay movement. Fact is the two are not comparable. that’s not splitting hairs. That’s destroying one of the legs of your argument.
It’s simple, people don’t believe in the gay lifestyle and they don’t believe that folks participating in the gay lifestyle deserve BENEFITS.
Blacks were not discriminated against because of a dangerous lifestyle but solely because they were black. Not only did blacks not enjoy special benefits but infact they were denied common rights. “Black only” this and that. Cassius Clay couldn’t even eat a hamburger in white only restaurant after winning the gold in 1960!
I’m not splitting hairs just to be a dick. I’m actually trying to show you that the black/gay analogy is indeed unsound.
Look man, if you believe that being gay is a genetic thing then you are more likely to support gay benefits.
If you believe that black civil rights and the gay movement are perfectly analogous then you are likely to support gay rights.
It’s important to show that these two arguments are not factually in your favor. Think about it if you dare.
@PErk
You want to shit all over my religion and call me a closet homo in every comment but you have the balls to say I’m hateful and all that BS?
What makes Nathan so fucking special that you have to kiss his ass and talk aobut ‘how brave’ he’s been standing up to us mean spirited rightwingers?
You guys all bash openly my religion like it’s nothing. YOu don’t hear me crying about it like a little bitch! I’m still here.
It’s always open season on christians but say ANYTHING about gays and it’s time to shut the post down.
Go follow up my super gay references.
Chew on this…
The Los Angeles Times conducted a survey in 1985 of 2,628 adults across the U.S. Of those, 27% of the women and 16% of the men had been sexually molested. Seven percent of the girls and 93% of the men had been molested by adults of the same sex. This means that 40% of child molestations were by homosexuals. (Los Angeles Times, August 25-6, 1985)
In 1984, a Vermont survey of 161 adolescents who were sex offenders found that 35 of them were homosexuals (22%). (Wasserman, J., “Adolescent Sex Offenders—Vermont, 1984” Journal American Medical Association, 1986; 255:181-2)
In 1991, of the 100 child molesters at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons, a third were heterosexual, a third were bisexual, and a third were homosexual. (Dr. Raymond Knight, “Differential Prevalence of Personality Disorders in Rapists and Child Molesters,” Eastern Psychological Association Conference, New York, April 12, 1991)
Drs. Freund and Heasman of the Clark Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto reviewed two studies on child molesters and calculated that 34% and 32% of the sex offenders were homosexual. In cases these doctors had handled, 36% of the molesters were homosexuals. (Freund, K. “Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,” Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 1984; 10:193-200)
Are all of these sources JUNK too? Let me know because I have a zillion sources saved and I can dig throught them if I have to, until you guys admit that the souces are OK…and the data will be consistent.
@trent
I never said to argue without knowing ANY facts or information. What I said was, any topic can be argued, from both sides, IF you know at least a little bit about each side. The point in a social debate is to expand understanding primarily, which requires that no party in the debate has full knowledge of the topic or the answers. Otherwise, why debate? If one person KNOWS the answers, it’s a lecture, not a debate and that person should leave the debate. So again your off with the revising, and altering what people say, to make it fit your distraction tactic.
@edgar
and again, you refuse to acknowledge a point as valid, even though it is, by ignoring the surrounding context. I never said that gay sex is like being black. I never even said being gay is like being black. I agree that blacks hate the comparison, but i’m not black, so I don’t give a fuck.
The point, AGAIN, is that a black person has no choice about being black. And IF being gay is not a choice, and you are born with it, then it is a valid comparison (obviously this is the point of disagreement). My qualifier, in my original statement was that Nathan stated that he did not chose to be gay, that he was born that way. All i was doing was making a point to the idea that if that is true, then it is similar to blacks being oppressed just because of their skin color. But again, you refuse to actually read the paragraphs as a whole, and you refuse to actually understand the points.
Your lame attempt at a logical method argument is not gonna pass muster. your first 3 items are opinion statements, not logical decisions or choice paths. Your 4th point is valid, though, until you path it out, and it becomes circular. Your 5th point is valid as well, however, i already provided an argument explaining why your argument is correlative and probably not actually causative. just cause you put numbers in front of it, doesn’t make it logical, it just makes it a list.
So here is a logical argument for you.
Pedophilia is considered bad in the US.
A majority of Pedophilia is committed by men.
A majority of victims of pedophilia are girls, at a ratio of 2:1.
Males who molest boys tend to molest a greater number of boys (150 approx) than males who molest girls (18 approx).
Therefore a male boy molester accounts for over 8x the number of molestations when compared to a male girl molester.
Assume a sample group of 999 molested children, distributed according to the proportion of 2 females for every 1 male which is the ratio of abuse, which means 666 girls, 333 boys.
Therefore, 2.22 men are responsible for the boy molestations, whereas 37 men are responsible for the girl molestations.
To expand, this means that of the 39.22 offenders, 94% is straight, and 6% is gay.
The male population in the US is about 6% gay if you average all the major studies and stats.
If we agree that gay men will molest boys and we agree that straight men will molest girls, then there is ZERO difference between gay and straight pedos.
The problem with your pedophile arguments has been that you have been building your argument on incorrect math (not because your dumb, but because it is confusing and there are a lot of sites out there propagating the incorrect math). A pedophile who commits the act against boys, will do it a lot, and if you assume those are gay, then it seems like gay men commit a lot of pedophilia. However, all it actually means is that when a gay man (just assuming they are gay) commits pedophilia, they go to town and do it a disproportionately large number of times. However, there are FAR fewer of them, and total overall, is still 30% less than the male/female abuse.
cite: http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/freund_etiological.htm
My final word on this: The conversation has been mostly about two things.
1. Is homosexuality bad for the world?
2. Should gay people be allowed to marry and have other civil rights?
Argument #1, Edgar, Jack and Trent made the argument (on cherry-picked data) that gays are more promiscuous, leading to more disease in the world, such as AIDS, and gays lead to more child molestation in the world. But they never addressed the argument that lesbians are not a part of the problems they are citing, or that men in general are the leading cause of problems related to sexual assault and sexual diseases. They lost that argument because they never addressed the counter argument – men are the causal factor in sexual assault and promiscuity, not homosexuality. Edgar would have to prove that lesbians were the problem as well to prove that homosexuality was the problem.
Argument #2, It’s good policy for gays to have the right to marry. My argument, which they never addressed, is that marriage promotes stable relationships (for gay men especially), and the very issue that Edgar, Trent & Jack dislike about gay men (promiscuity) would be improved by allowing for gay marriage. The final argument against this is that gay marriage runs against tradition. This was refuted as well (without argument by the conservatives) when I listed a lengthy history of traditional marriage that has even included same sex marriage in centuries past.
Edgar, Trent and Jack can run from the arguments made, but they did not win them because they did not present sound counter arguments that refuted ours. They lost the argument.
Edgar, Trent, and Brain Donkey, since Perk wants his blog back, I encourage you all to write one final argument and let’s all move on. My last post was my last word.
I appreciate your sentiment SFN, but actually I think that you alone deserve the last word. There have been plenty before hand, and all from people that are NOT homosexual, so in the final analysis, ours/their opinion does not really matter. Any future readers on the issue will certainly have the opportunity to see what Edgar, Trent and Jack have to say – there’s been no shortage of their words or opinions. You are the only one truly affected by the issue. You get the last word.
With that I officially close the discussion, again. If I start another thread on it then we’ll go again, but outside of that, I’ll trim or delete posts that endeavor to get another leg up on the issue from here forward.
I’m not closing this post because people might still want to comment on it, but again, I’ll shut down any arguments posted about this issue from here on.
Thanks for allow me (and us) to use your blog to argue this debate. You disagree strongly with me but you still let me speak. Hat’s off!