Doanna

Having been married and lived in Scotland for 10 years I thought I would add to your comments:

The emigrants from Scotland and Ireland and their descendants celebrate old customs much more than the
inhabitants of their former countries. Here, as in USA,Canada & NZ there are pipe bands and Scottish and Irish dancing in most
towns and National Days are times to relive old memories. Burns' Nights are common and I attended a reenactment of one in
Dunedin recently. They made me wear a Stewart skirt and I led the Haggis procession. I received comments on my nice legs (not a
hair on them LOL) Fortunately I keep quite fit which helped when I had to try and do some Highland dancing.

Allison,I used to dislike Chamberlain and think him a traitor but after reading more about that terrible period ,though not being a Conservative I find I respect him more;first,hadn't realised his government was responsible for the 'Kinder Transport' which admitted thousands of Jewishpeople from Hitlers' Reich to England-my childhood friends were a result of this-also his decision to go ahead with Spitfire and Hurricane production-AND the development of 'Chain-Home Radio beacons'-Radar -ALL of which saved us AND played no small part in eventual defeat of Nazi Germany.
By the way not one jewish refugee was admitted entry to the US-not one!xx

Is there any way in which the Moderators can be made aware of the fact that a vociferous Fascist is pollutung this Forum?xx

I don't have a kilt. I don't like wearing male clothing.
If you really want to annoy a Scotsman (which is very easy to do anyway) just tell him that you love his skirt!
To get slightly back on topic I think bagpipes could easily be described as an instrument of torture.
I do have some tartan skirts.
I don't have any Scottish knickers, but I've got some beautiful French ones.

Janis-am only half-Scots but love the sound of bagpipes!By the way,I love your skirt-AND those cute Scottish Tranny Regiments!Wow!xx

Very nice Janis but not a Murray one or have the green and blue faded LOL. Having watched every performance of the Edinburgh Tattoo for 2 successive years, I still like the pipe bands.

Read somewhere that most of the so-called clan tartans were designed by English ladies-daughters of the regiment-Colonels'Ladies-that sort of thing.

I know it's tantamount to treason for a Scots girl to say she doesn't like the sound of bagpipes.
(I'll probably get banished to England or something!)
Those aren't real pipes, they belong to my friend Fiona's Mum who has them hanging on her living room wall.

Will Nina, coming from someone as far left as you, so wanting of government to provide everything for you; I can understand how you would think someone like me who votes slightly right of center, attends church regularly, has my own business, pays taxes, provides for my family, pays for my own SRS surgery and counts on government to provide nothing for me; is a vociferous fascist. So if that is your definition for vociferous fascist, I'm quite all right with it. Are you aware the term can equally be used for those that are the extreme opposite like you? Have a wonderful day.

Hugs,
Marsha

Marsha,your ignorance ,malice,stupidity and down-right hypocracy astonishes me.What do you know about my personal circumstances and how on earth do you think that attending church services regularly makes you superior to any body else?You smug,sanctimoneous ,sneering creep.You are a bully,a coward and a sadist-i spit on you and your filthy crypto-fascist politics;if you are slightly right-of-centre,god help your poor country.xx-Hope you fall down a big hole and break your arse,Nina-xx

Nina,
1) refer to "Evian Conference"
2) Radar...Christian Hülsmeyer in 1904 Reichspatent Nr. 165546 and 169154 as well as British patent (1904) for the first full Radar - called "telemobiloscope"
-----------------------------------

Donna-thank you for that information-Robert Wtason-Watt,I do believe?Anyway,very important technical breakthrough and equally obvious that i don't know as much as you-cheers,Nina-xx

Lovely Tartan Skirts, But why must the scots always play the bl**dy awful bag pipes, they sound like someone strangling a cat!

Fortunately in England we're not often assaulted by them except on the TV (Telly) and the mute button usually takes care of them.

I'm also Puzzled as to why emigrants to the US need to label themselves according to their family origin ( Irish-American, Italian American, etc) I'd have thought by now most would have sufficient roots in the "new country" to be able to forget the distant past, particularly as many were forced to travel due to starvation/ poverty, etc. Just a Thought, Sorry to be off topic,

Ok Back to the main thread, Marsha you ************* ************!!!!!!xxxxxx ............LOL.

Marsha, I don't agree with your views, but I think Nina may be going a little bit too far..

Huggles

Becca

Hugs Rebecca, I pretty much have to agree with you about the hyphenated-American nonsense. I am 1/4 English (probably breaks some of the gals hearts, either that or they are happy I'm not 100% English), 1/4 Danish, then a teensy little bit of every other European country. If I had to state everything on an applications of any type, I would probably need a whole other sheet of paper. So I can honestly say that I am proud to be an American.

And as for bagpipes, I really have to wonder what the heck the guy was blowing on when he came up with the idea that was music. I use to fly radio controlled helicopters on a big field with woods to one side. Some guy would go into the woods and practice playing his bagpipes. I can truly understand why.

And as for Nina, we would probably be great friends if we got together in person. I think I just happened to find her hot button, lol.

Hugs,
Marsha

Marcia-you sure did,hun-and by the way-that was big of you.Marcia-please understand -this is not a personal issue-I just take certain things seriously-and I value my own country-though not as you do -in such an uncritical manner.I shake your hand and give you a kiss-have a feeling we would get on-AFTER the first fusilades!xxxx

As a general rule, I don't talk politics or preach God to any of my friends. This happens to be the Polly-Ticks forum and I wasn't even the one to raise this topic. I throw in my 2 cents worth and never expect everyone to agree with my view. I believe opposing views allow for some compromise which both sides can live with. Unfortunately in politics today in our country, the parties seem to want all or nothing and the concept of working together is becoming a thing of the past. I believe that is why we see such strong controversies just like in this thread. We feud over which is better versus working together to take the best ideas from each side. I'm not sure what the answer to fixing the problem is. But it is sad when people as we have seen here, use ideology to stereotype if another person is a good or bad person, when the fact is their ideology may just be a minuscule part of that persons daily life.

Hugs,
Marsha

I had always thought that water boarding was something you did behind a motorboat on a short board instead of water skis. It was so much fun as a child. So was snow boarding.

I can understand an individual torturing someone for information to save a loved one. The problem is...what if they are torturing the wrong person? Also, governments should never be able to torture someone....indeed, a "slippery slope". I might, myself do it, under certain circumstances, but I would be willing to face the punishment for my behavior, to protect others.

Barbara-that is very plausible -I have to admit!It's a ghastly thought experiment and reminds me of the 'Games' Theory' scenarios I remember in 'moral philosophy' classes at University-it irritated me somewhat then,and does so know-much heat and little light -as you probably have seen on this thread(for which-'mea culpa!)-has been created by it.
I think what is offensive is that for a certain type of intellectual-these scenarios are diverting and mildly amusing abstract 'problems'-whereas people like me and some of my apparent adversaries in this thread see them as very much embodied in real life and history-hence get very involved and as a consequence get emotionally upset.I see nothing wrong with this-only that it creates dissention where there wasn't before.
I have to say,then that i would be capable ,in the circumstances you mention-of ,if not torture-verbal threat or some other form of coercion -which comes to the same thing!
Christ-what a bloody planet we live on-'Beam me up,Scotty!'xxxx

My view is incredibly simple. All the precepts I follow are short and sweet. And definately not ambiguous. I'll start off with an easy one: Thou shalt not kill. Four nice little words. Not rocket science is it? Why do so many find it so hard to understand?
Then we have something many learn in nursery school: Two wrongs don't make a right.
How about: Violence is never the answer? That's not a hard one either. I think you might know where I'm going with this...
My view is that all violence - no matter how it is dressed up - is wrong. I firmly follow the thinking of 'cause and effect', everything you do affects your spirituality. It is impossible to 'get away with murder' as everyone will have to face up to their behaviour and what they have done - or caused to be done - in the fullness of time.
There exists no scenario where I can meet violence with violence. It is simply not in my make-up to do so.
Waterboarding is a violent act against a person. Therefore it is wrong. Simple.
Rae xx

Nina, you might well be right but i find that VERY hard to believe. Some Clans, such as the Camerons, Frasers and Gordon's are protective of their Tartans.


Lol xxxxxxxxxxxx
Anna-Marie

Aye Nina, it was Robert Watson-Watt.


Anna-Marie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartan

Rae xx

Give me a break Rae, are you telling me if you had a partner and some TG hater busts down your door and comes in and beats your partner with a baseball bat, then turns towards you, you would not defend yourself? Are you going to offer to pour some tea and discuss what he just did to your partner? I think we all have a threshold, and some of us are willing to say it exists. I clearly stated above that as a matter of self defense I would resort to anything to protect me or my family, including killing the perpetrator. I see dealing with terrorist that are willing to kill innocent people, the same way.

Hugs,
Marsha

Marsha, m'dear, I'll always give you a break ...

I don't expect others to endorse my views nor would I wish to force my views on others. But, yes, I'm afraid that is a reasonable scenario - 'though I'm not actually that keen on tea. I'm glad you answered my post as it underlines the flippancy of it. It actually isn't easy to follow my precepts hence why they are so often ignored. But your way shows how violence self-perpetuates. My way puts a brake on it. I don't expect you - or anyone to be honest - to agree with me on this but you know my final thoughts - as our theoretical villain beats me to death - would be a prayer for his / her soul. It's just the way I am and I can no more change that then fly to the moon under my own volition.
Rae xx

You are not alone Rae, I've heard others say it as you have. I would be curious to see if in reality you would actually do that or if it would be human nature for self preservation to kick in and you would fight back. Although curious, I would never want that to happen to you or anyone else. I can respect your choice, I don't think I could ever sit and take a beating.

Hugs,
Marsha

Lol, Marsha, it's funny you should mention '... but in reality ...' as I had been reflecting on our posts and pondering the same thing. Could I, in reality, fulfill my idealistic view? I know it would be incredibly hard but that's - for me - down to the duality of human nature. I would like to think my spiritualist side would hold sway. I then realised a little nugget of help that I had failed to consider which gives me an unfair advantage. Nowadays - and in this context I have to say I feel truly blessed - I suffer from stage 3 emphysema. There is no way I could defend myself let alone others. Or, as my Mam would probably eloquently put it - I couldn't blow the skin off a rice pudding!
I'd also ask you to think about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. How the human mind copes with the actions it is sometimes forced to take. I don't want to wander too far off topic but it's something worthwhile to throw into the mix.
Rae xx

LOL, fancy you bring up PTSD. I don't know if you are thinking in terms of the effects of war or not, but PTSD doesn't have to have anything to do with that stuff.

One of my close friends suffers from PTSD. The cause had nothing to do with the military. She happens to be TS and one night when she got off work which happened to be performing in a drag show, as she left the business, some guy came up to her and beat the crap out of her. This happened in another city. I honestly have to tell you I have never seen anyone live in fear the way she does.

I can feel for you and others with disabilities who have limited abilities to protect yourselves. You are absolutely right that violence effects both the perpetrator and the victim. I think the best answer to putting an end to violence is by not being a victim. If you are a terrorist and don't want to be tortured, then don't do the terror. If you are someone like my friend, don't be a victim, be prepared to protect yourself anyway you can.

So the way it looks is we have two different approaches. Yours has the good guys refusing to fight back, hoping to set an example for the violent perpetrator to learn from. My view works from the other direction, letting the victims know there are consequences for certain behavior, the terrorist is potentially tortured or killed, the crime victim suffers the beating. Avoiding that behavior leads to a peaceful environment.

I just don't see the good guys giving in approach as workable. You basically are gambling believing the bad guys have a heart and care. Good people get hurt when you are wrong.

Hugs,
Marsha

Nina,
It was Christian Hülsmeyer who received the "British" patent in 1904 as well. NikolaTesla in 1917, Emile Girareau in 1934 (French patent #788795)
Full pulsed Radar ...Robert Page (Naval Research Laboratory, Wash DC) in December 1934, then in May 1935, by Rudolf Kühnhold (Germany) , then June 1935 by Robert A. Watson Watt in Great Britain.

America, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, and the Soviet Union were all developing Radar based systems before the Second World War.

who'd a-thunk it eh?

Zoe, you could not be more right. Even though this has been a spirited debate with many twists and turns. And it does shed light on our varied personalities and view points.

But like Christine said, "Lets have a sensible and logical debate on this subject. PLEASE do not make this an us and them debate."

I think we have slightly gone to the us against us!

Janis, I just love your pic's and humor, and you always seem to have the right photo for the occasion, you go girl....
Huggs..Tammy

Marsha, yes, in my post I was using PTSD as a result of (military) violence but am fully aware it can be triggered by any ... er ... trauma!
I don't think 'the good guys' would be 'giving in'. I simply feel that any evil act you commit or cause to be committed goes against you in the same way every good act goes in your favour. I also rather suspect more people get hurt doing things your way then mine ...
Rae x

The part I am having a problem with in what you are saying Rae is do you honestly believe the violent dictators like Idi Amin and various warlords will go away if nobody chooses to challenge them?

I can understand along the spiritual line of thinking that good behavior is rewarded and bad is punished. However, do you honestly believe God put us here to be punished in the life we live today, and isn't being a victim of violence the same as being punished? Could you not say that protecting others from being harmed is good behavior? If God wants us all to be in heaven, why not just bypass our life on earth? The Bible says "Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven." I interpret that to mean God wants our lives on earth to be like heaven and that our lives here and now are equally important. Life here and now is not about earning brownie points so you can one day enter into heaven. The Bible has numerous examples of good versus evil.

You say you suspect more have been hurt doing things my way. With the many massacres which have gone on in history, I suspect you are wrong. In each case, someone eventually stepped in to stop the bloodshed. I believe the difference here is I'm willing to step in early and do whatever it takes to stop the bloodshed rather than waiting for things to get so bad there is no choice.

And that brings us right back to the original topic for those who thought all this was off track. I believe once violence has occurred, that we need to step in and do whatever it takes to stop it before the violence gets out of hand, and that includes what some of you call torture. I see the people who don't want to do anything as the ones who allow violence to escalate in the first place. I don't condone violence in any way, but once a violent act has been committed, something needs to be done to ensure it never happens again.

I am not going to sit there and ask my attacker to please kill me gently. Dead is Dead!

Hugs,
Marsha






Hugs,
Marsha

Marsha, I'm not asking you to share my views. My standpoint is quite simple: torture is violence - violence is wrong - violence begets violence.
As for your biblical quotations I'd have to go way off topic to answer as the bible, for me, is an unreliable source of information in it's current format.
Rae xx

There is a time for peace and a time for force. The Old Testament is full of God having the Israelites "smite" their enemies. One needs to use good judgment to know which to use and when to switch. For some people, even the threat of force will stop their aggression. I am an expert and a professional in the skill of defusing potentially violent situations.and in stopping violence. There are some situations when the choice is clearly get hurt/die (or let others who you love be victims) or stop the aggressor. I have no moral problems deciding who deserves not to be hurt. I have paid the price of 15 years of pain and poverty because I stuck to my professional ethics and used minimal force. I have walked the walk. I have also used deadly force, or it's threat, in the street to protect lives. One merely needs to have the moral courage to take responsibility for deciding what is necessary rather than letting that responsibility for that decision be put upon some book of laws, civil or religious. No matter your justification, allowing someone to be injured or killed is still on the person who stood by and did nothing as much as she who acted to stop it. Guilt by omission is still guilt, for omission is, itself, an act of decision.

Wendy,
You have described the situation perfectly. There is a time for action and there is a time for talk.... one should not blot out the other.
If we have to take the "Hard Line", we should not hesitate regardless of how distasteful it is. We must also accept the remorse for having done so, but balance that with the overall good that would be achieved by the act.
No good person should ever want to be put in that position....but no good person should walk away from that responsibility either.
Doing the "right thing" is not always an easy thing to do - but it is what separates us from those who "cringe in the dark corners" with their hands held out.... never questioning where the Soylent Green comes from.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The empty-handed painter from your streets
Is drawing crazy patterns on your sheets." ...Bob Dylan

What an interesting thread!!! and lots of differing opinions!

There’s been quite a bit of talk about bashing people for living or coming from different countries, which of course, is racist. If I disagree with someone’s opinions I will say so and voice my look on the situation regardless of where they reside. If anyone wants to read a racist connotation into it then more fool them, I like to think I am not racist and do my best to ensure I don’t come over as so.

Some people express their hate for the Germans. I don’t know any Germans that had anything to do with the holocaust. In fact all my German friends express their shock and dislike towards Nazis. I think it is only stupid people who are racist towards people because of their origin.

Torture is torture. No civilised person will enact or condone torture. If anyone condones torture then they should accept that they are neither civilised or an enlightened individual. I'm not particularly religious but the Bible does have its uses, for example, Jesus is quoted to say the meek will inherit the earth. A meek person is a gentle person who does not harm, threaten or cause any individual feelings of worthlessness or shame. I will also go as far as to say the Pope is not a meek person as he has quite clearly stated that particular people in society should be persecuted and treated with disrespect and that’s why I have no respect for him.

Try not to confuse freedom with being civilised. I recall a line from Ghostbusters, "Its every New Yorkers god given right to be horrid to everyone.", which of course is true, but it doesn’t mean it is civilised behaviour. The other day my path crossed an Asian youth who took great delight in saying "All gays should be killed." I have nothing against gays and I said that this is a civilised country where everyone has the right to live in peace and free from persecution. I promptly called the police where he was arrested and probably deported.

Also, a meek person wouldn’t carry a gun or fire one either. I could go on with my opinion but I hope I have expressed my feelings sufficiently. Thanks for listening and respecting my opinion.

Love
Penny
x

How on earth people can twist the words of a pacifists view on violence into 'letting others be victims' is completely and utterly ridiculous. Sorry, there really is too much violence in the world and it's this kind of kindergarden thinking which perpetuates it. I am content with having the moral courage to not participate in it. Nor, I should point out, is there any feelings of guilt associated with this whatsoever!
Rae xx

Rae.

What can I say, whilst advocating that any form of torture is immoral, unethical, etc, I feel guilty about my own feelings, that if it saved my life or those of people I love, I would be relieved that someone had sunk so low.

I understand your point of view perfectly, Cristine, I just don't think and feel that way. I would be horified if the torture of another human somehow 'saved' my life. That would be a tragedy for all concerned.
Rae xx

Hugs Cristine, maybe after we are done attending everyone else's funerals, the two of us can get together and go out for a drink or something.
Love,
Marsha

"The defendants published leaflets at a time of war, calling for people to sabotage armaments..........By so doing, they aided the enemy and demoralized our troops. They are therefore sentenced to death. They lose their rights as citizens for all time".
These words were spoken by Volksgerichtshof (People's Court) judge Roland Freisler in 1943 to Sophie Scholl and her brother and a friend, who were members of an organisation called Die Weiße Rose (The White Rose). They were students opposed to the Nazi regime. Although these people were non-violent they were considered terrorist in their time and they were beheaded. 24 months later Friesler was dead and by May 1945 the war was over. Today Sophie Scholl is remembered as a heroine and a martyr to the cause of freedom.
I am unsure why I am posting this exactly, perhaps it is because I am thinking of the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. In-groups and Out-groups, us and them. If the Germans had won the war Sophie Scholl would still be a terrorist, and her execution would be considered justice by the victors. I will stop now I think, sorry if this is deemed irrelevant.

Hi Alison,

Very good point, not "irrelevant" at all.

History is written by the winners of conflicts, their enemies are always the terrorists, their supporters the brave heroes. One of the reasons that torture is totally subjective, if always evil.

Earlier in this thread Marsha wanted to exclude George W. Bush, under whose administration torture became the official policy of my country (albeit under b*llsh*t speak like "enhanced interrogation"), using the idiot proposition that "fairness" demanded that he was above criticism since "historians" haven't had time to find him without sin.

Some people just never get it, I'm glad you do and expressed it here.

Best,
Mellie

Rae,
It sounds like you honestly believe that those of us who would condone torture (water-boarding and sleep deprivation etc..) - if it would save innocent lives, would not feel terrible at having to do so. Nothing could be further from the truth! - but I guess it is convenient for you to assume that.

Penny,
you say that,
1) "Torture is torture. No civilised person will enact or condone torture. If anyone condones torture then they should accept that they are neither civilised or an enlightened individual."
** It must be wonderful to be so civilized and enlightened as you obviously believe you are...

2) "I will also go as far as to say the Pope is not a meek person as he has quite clearly stated that particular people in society should be persecuted and treated with disrespect and that’s why I have no respect for him. "
** I have never heard him say that particular people should be persecuted. Perhaps you "hear things" that most of us don't.
** It seems that it is OK for you to have no respect for someone ...particularly if they don't agree with - YOUR opinions...
** Tell me something, how does what you have posted (above) relate to "Water-boarding?"

3) "Try not to confuse freedom with being civilised. I recall a line from Ghostbusters, "Its every New Yorkers god given right to be horrid to everyone.", which of course is true, but it doesn’t mean it is civilised behaviour."
** Being such a "civilized and enlightened" individual as you feel you are... I question why any "reasonable" person would use a movie like "ghostbusters" to form (or validate) an opinion about anything....
** The Asian fellow you met (mentioned later in your post) was horrid...wasn't he?
** Tell me something, how does what you have posted (above) relate to "Water-boarding?"

4) "Also, a meek person wouldn’t carry a gun or fire one either. I could go on with my opinion but I hope I have expressed my feelings sufficiently. Thanks for listening and respecting my opinion. "
** Hmmmm, I wonder what Country you are referring to... But then, you also based your evidence (above "3)") on the "Ghostbusters" movie. LOL, LOL
** It's a pity that you have no tolerance for other peoples opinions.
** Tell me something, how does what you have posted (above) relate to "Water-boarding?"

5) "I'm not particularly religious but the Bible does have its uses, for example, Jesus is quoted to say the meek will inherit the earth. A meek person is a gentle person who does not harm, threaten or cause any individual feelings of worthlessness or shame."
** The height of hypocrisy! You are only too quick to quote Jesus...if it serves your purpose..You then inject your own interpretation to what Jesus said by adding "A meek person is a gentle person who does not harm, threaten or cause any individual feelings of worthlessness or shame." ...just so it will fit your own perspective.
** Tell me something, how does what you have posted (above) relate to "Water-boarding?"

6) "The other day my path crossed an Asian youth who took great delight in saying "All gays should be killed." I have nothing against gays and I said that this is a civilised country where everyone has the right to live in peace and free from persecution. I promptly called the police where he was arrested and probably deported."
** good for you!! I'm certain that "made your day". Tell me Penny, did you paths cross on the way to the "Welfare Office"?

...but then of course, what does most of what you have posted here have to do with "Water-boarding"???

Penny, do you paint?
-------------------------------------------------


"The empty-handed painter from your streets
Is drawing crazy patterns on your sheets." ...Bob Dylan

Hey Doanna, one point if I may. My age adled brain combined with the limitations of the current software means I can only try to answer based on one reply and dodgy memory. Forgive me my humanity ...

You say: 'It sounds like you honestly believe that those of us who would condone torture (water-boarding and sleep deprivation etc..) - if it would save innocent lives, would not feel terrible at having to do so. Nothing could be further from the truth! - but I guess it is convenient for you to assume that.'

Beats me how on earth you drew that conclusion! There is nothing convenient in my belief hunni. Don't slate what you don't know. Not a bad philosophy ...

Sometimes it's easy to see why I post far less than I used to ...

Wow Penny I am surprised I didn't see you on my way to the "Welfare Office" too as I am also "DoleScum" Funny though that so many of us are these days eh? Oh course my reason is that I am a fulltime carer of someone disabled, and you have your own sent of difficult personal circumstances by hey who cares about any of that lets be judged anyway.

Geez Melody, you are really reaching tonight to come up with something to bash me over. How you can come up with Marsha wanted to exclude Bush when I only made a very brief mention of Bush in the beginning and I did not tie him to nor excuse him from the subject of torture. I only stated that an unbiased review of his presidency will not occur until down the road sometime. Right now, the reviews are emotional like yours. Right or wrong, they are emotional and blind to all the details that went on during his presidency. It was the same for Clinton, and will be the same for Obama. And the crazy thing is I didn't like Bush so stick that up your ass. So stop assuming because you are making a total ass of yourself.

But to stay on topic, as far as waterboarding to save the lives of innocent people, yes I am 100% in favor of it when used within that guideline. It is not an everyday procedure as many of those responding here make it sound.

Hugs,
Marsha

Hi Marsha,

You did indeed try to exclude a Republican President who made torture the policy of the United States. When I, not responding in any way to your biased post, replied to Cristine's original post in the thread, I mentioned in passing, not my major point, that Bush was a total failure as a president. I was ignoring your don't blame the right, they are above criticism until some undetermined time when historians have had time to evaluate their actions. I was responding to Cristine's original post.

You took that as an excuse to use my post as an excuse to claim your idiot defense was justified.

To exclude the president who authorized torture, justified it with bogus legal crap, and made it my country's policy, not just in isolated cases but as common practice in Iraq prisons, Afghanistan airbases, on American territory in Cuba and in various unsavory countries around the world where prisoners were taken in "Rendition" where torture is the norm, is really, really stupid in a thread about the morality of using torture for hypothetically good reasons.

I know you think you are a "good person" since you've told us so many times but I have my doubts, good people don't justify torture.

For the record, I'm no fan of Clinton or Obama,either. Damn center left "progressives."

As for "stick it up your ass", all I can say is that it is something a 2nd grader would say in a dispute over who gets to sit where at a school gathering in the auditorium. Whenever I try to debate you on an intelligent basis, it's like trying to talk rationally to a flower pot, I can make any point I want, but there's no intelligence there to respond...

Best,
Mellie

Melody, I don't think you ever bothered to read Cristine's original post. If you had you would see how my comment fit right in with exactly what she said about not knowing if Bush was a good or bad president. I said only when it is old history will there be an unbiased review of how Bush did. But you are so anti Bush that you just go negative when you see the name. I hadn't said anything good or bad about the guy.

Cris' post was not political. She simply asked if you had a loved one that disappeared and there was reason to believe there was limited time to rescue this person, would you consider using torture to save your loved one?

This was not political until you went Bush bashing, and no, I'm not going to argue politics with you. I read your nonsense replies ranting about Bush and how it is all my fault or something, and the thing is nowhere in the posts above your rant had I said anything about Bush being good.

Hugs,
Marsha