Quote from: Remedialone on May 30, 2008, 10:40:47 AM

Quote from: jeffislouie on May 30, 2008, 10:33:20 AM

Quote from: Remedialone on May 29, 2008, 06:41:45 PM

Quote from: TimMitchell on May 29, 2008, 06:19:12 PM

Quote

Saddam's torture chambers and gassing of the Kurds was a result of the civil war in Iraq, he shouldn't be held accountable for crimes committed during a war and we have no way of knowing whether or not he specified to torture the Iraqis or gas the kurds.

By your rationale most independent observers have said that the rape rooms were operated by Uday and not Saddam.  So it is ok then right?  Saddam shouldn't be held accountable for something we cannot connect him to.  In terms of being certain I am certain enough in my claims to say that the US government turned a blind eye to the atrocities and in some cases encouraged them.

Ok, you are confusing the difference between the head of state having knowledge about something and the government orchestrating it. If a General in Iraq set up rape rooms and purposefully hid it from the President, then I would still consider it the government's doing (albeit unknowingly). If A colonel rapes an Iraqi woman, that is a crime attributed to that individual.

Claiming that the US government turned a blind eye and encouraged some of these cases is unverifiable and inconsistant with the evidence that is available. It is simply your opinion and nothing else.

Tim according to Paul Bremer he informed Bush on January 16, 2004.  Bush acted on Abu Ghraib after 60 minutes aired in April

Well, once again a bush hating liberal mixes up the truth to paint bush with the 'evil' brush.
You've inspired me to rebut....
The army found out about the abuse at Abu Gharib on January 13th and launched a criminal investigation on January 14th.  One day later.
Bush was briefed by Rumsfeld and General Pace in February.
By March 20th, 6 soldiers were facing charges.  17 were suspended by February 26th.
Here's the AP's timeline.
http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/signal/iraq/abughraib-timeline.htm
All I had to do was google, instead of either inventing truths or listening to George Soros....
The President's job is like a CEO's job.  Disciplining military personnel at a remote prison during war time isn't in his job desciption.  It IS the military's job to handle it at a lower level.  It was handled.  Why the anti-bush crowd wants to portray the President's job as a micromanaging robot who never makes mistake is beyond reasonable and shows that they merely wish to destroy Bush out of hatred instead of their stated desire of 'accountability'.
And I'm not sure if you've noticed, but you are increasingly hostile.  Is it that time of the month, or do you just get all riled up talking about things that you made up your mind about while listening to shouters?

Absolutely I am hostile about this.  I admitted to being wrong on the dates.  I however am not wrong on us sending people off to be tortured.  It is well documented.  I believe I have been pretty open minded about this whole thing, I have acknowledged fault where it lies, accepted responsibility for my falsehoods.  I wish you would do the same, but I forget being a Republican in your mind means never admitting you are wrong and never backing down from something as inconvenient as the truth.  I have no problems with some of the Republicans on this board even though I disagree with them.  I light heartedly joke with them certainly, but overly hostile?  Never.  I certainly do not dismiss them merely because they are a conservative. 

And I forgot that being a liberal means you are angry, have no problem inventing facts, have no issue with making statements that are contradictory, and quick to label people as a republican or a conservative.  For the record, I am more of a libertarian than conservative.  But I also don't jump all over message boards pushing my hatred of Bush all over the place.  I am not here to agree with you, nor am I here to defend Bush.  YOU blasted Bush, holding him responsible for Abu Gharib and railing on him about torture all the while forgiving and dismissing Hussein's direct culpability in the rape rooms and torture rooms at the royal palaces.  He isn't responsible for Abu Gharib - that was dealt with efficiently and correctly.  Blaming Bush for Abu Gharib is like blaming Hussein for RAP.  Do we torture?  According to the government's definition, no. 
I've thought about this and I realize it's dangerous ground, but if I had a detainee who I knew had information that could save hundreds, thousands or millions of lives, I might use some techniques that were less than ethical to obtain information.
I wouldn't break his shoulders and force him to sleep, arms shackled above his head like McCain was subject to, but I've seen journalists undergo waterboarding.  It doesn't hurt, it just scares people.  It is demonized in the media as if we waterboard every prisoner immediately after detaining them. 
That said, things could be dangerous and go to far.  It needs to be limited in scope and application with oversight.  But I do believe that since 9/11, America is safer.  Maybe it is that we've scared the terrorists into leaving us pretty much alone.  Maybe it's that they perceive Bush as a cowboy.  Maybe it's that we've taken out several of their leadership and decimated their supplies.
Maybe it's dumb luck.
I'm fine with any of the above.

Ok, once again, SAME point, this is not only about Abu Ghraib, there are other sources of the torture claim.  Since waterboarding is harmless what do you think of thishttp://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866.  It is nice to hear libertarians stick up for torture.  I am sure that is one of their central planks.  You believe it is safer?  Evidence?  I have owned up to my mis-statement, I appologize it was wrong, I got my dates confused.  Does that mean we don't ship people off to be tortured?  Do we do the torture ourselves?  We signed the Geneva treaties, we agree that waterboarding legally fits the definition of torture.  Discomfort and fear are covered in the definition of torture.  They should be held responsible for the crimes for blurring the lines of ethical treatment of prisoners.

Quote from: Remedialone on May 29, 2008, 06:41:45 PM

Quote from: TimMitchell on May 29, 2008, 06:19:12 PM

Quote

Saddam's torture chambers and gassing of the Kurds was a result of the civil war in Iraq, he shouldn't be held accountable for crimes committed during a war and we have no way of knowing whether or not he specified to torture the Iraqis or gas the kurds.

By your rationale most independent observers have said that the rape rooms were operated by Uday and not Saddam.  So it is ok then right?  Saddam shouldn't be held accountable for something we cannot connect him to.  In terms of being certain I am certain enough in my claims to say that the US government turned a blind eye to the atrocities and in some cases encouraged them.

Ok, you are confusing the difference between the head of state having knowledge about something and the government orchestrating it. If a General in Iraq set up rape rooms and purposefully hid it from the President, then I would still consider it the government's doing (albeit unknowingly). If A colonel rapes an Iraqi woman, that is a crime attributed to that individual.

Claiming that the US government turned a blind eye and encouraged some of these cases is unverifiable and inconsistant with the evidence that is available. It is simply your opinion and nothing else.

Tim according to Paul Bremer he informed Bush on January 16, 2004.  Bush acted on Abu Ghraib after 60 minutes aired in April

Well, once again a bush hating liberal mixes up the truth to paint bush with the 'evil' brush.
You've inspired me to rebut....
The army found out about the abuse at Abu Gharib on January 13th and launched a criminal investigation on January 14th.  One day later.
Bush was briefed by Rumsfeld and General Pace in February.
By March 20th, 6 soldiers were facing charges.  17 were suspended by February 26th.
Here's the AP's timeline.
http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/signal/iraq/abughraib-timeline.htm
All I had to do was google, instead of either inventing truths or listening to George Soros....
The President's job is like a CEO's job.  Disciplining military personnel at a remote prison during war time isn't in his job desciption.  It IS the military's job to handle it at a lower level.  It was handled.  Why the anti-bush crowd wants to portray the President's job as a micromanaging robot who never makes mistake is beyond reasonable and shows that they merely wish to destroy Bush out of hatred instead of their stated desire of 'accountability'.
And I'm not sure if you've noticed, but you are increasingly hostile.  Is it that time of the month, or do you just get all riled up talking about things that you made up your mind about while listening to shouters?

Absolutely I am hostile about this.  I admitted to being wrong on the dates.  I however am not wrong on us sending people off to be tortured.  It is well documented.  I believe I have been pretty open minded about this whole thing, I have acknowledged fault where it lies, accepted responsibility for my falsehoods.  I wish you would do the same, but I forget being a Republican in your mind means never admitting you are wrong and never backing down from something as inconvenient as the truth.  I have no problems with some of the Republicans on this board even though I disagree with them.  I light heartedly joke with them certainly, but overly hostile?  Never.  I certainly do not dismiss them merely because they are a conservative. 

Quick modification to my post.  You are telling me we should elect the guy who has demonstrated the best ability to lead a large organization?  Like a campaign?  Since McCain went bankrupt during his campaign is it safe to assume you are an Obama backer then? 

Forgive the lateness of my reply... my internship has gotten really busy the last few days, but Lincoln is definately a conservative. Let me dissect each of your points.

 This was not his desire until the war was underway. Again, check out historians like Jaffa. When he ran in 1860, he just wanted the Northwest Ordinance's restrictions banning slavery west of the Ohio River enforced. Yes, he saw slavery as an evil but he took conservative means to eradicate that evil. He did not advocate immediate abolition until the Confederate rebellion began. Prior to this, he wanted to act prudently and adhere to past decisions restricting slavery in the west, not a radical or revolutionary instant change. This is a conservative standpoint. As Lincoln himself said, What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried." That is precisely what he did in trying to get the radical south to adhere to already agreed to Northwest Ordinance restrictions. It was only once the war was underway that he took a more radical approach but again that was partly out of the fact he realized that the military conflict at hand was more important than acting prudently and partly (since the slaves were pretty much all in the rebelling states at the time) an adapted military strategy.  So, no, Lincoln was conservative in his approach to abolition and only became more revolutionary when the war effort called for it.


2. "Lincoln opposed the Dred Scott Decision which would certainly not be original intent."
Wrong. Dred Scott was nothing more than the court playing politics like they have since done in Lochner, Roe, Lawrence etc. In opposing the Dred Scott decision but acting within his constitutional boundaries, Lincoln followed a textual reading of the constitution because his acts were based on the textual limits of the judiciary. Essentially, he pointed to the constitution and noted that the court was overstepping its bounds. Nowhere in the text of the constitution itself does it say that Blacks can never be citizens. That was the culture at the time, which actually fits more in line with the views of a "living constitution" "better adapted to our modern time and place" that liberals advocate so thoroughly. Further, by acting within his constitutional boundaries in opposition to the decision instead of advocating quick radical change, he was even more conservative in his approach towards the issue.



3. "Lincoln had the support of Fredrick Douglass." Of course he did, but really this shows nothing more than what I have said in 1 because who else was Douglass going to support? those who did not believe the ordinance should be enforced? those advocating a more radical change but are unlikely to achieve it? Douglass was smart and realized Lincoln was the best shot at abolition and the later passed civil war amendments.

4. "Lincoln refused to hunt and fish because he disliked killing animals"

I don't hunt or fish either. If I remember correctly, it wasnt that he hated hunting as much as hed much prefer reading etc. Thats not a liberal or conservative thing. Indeed, hunting or fishing themselves have no political affiliation, particularly in Lincoln's day when almost everyone owned a gun anyways. Yes, conservatives generally hunt and fish more than liberals, just as liberals crochet and do yoga more than conservatives generally do. But these are not related to their ideologies so much as where they are from. Conservatives are generally concentrated in the South and West which have long histories of hunting and fishing and have large hunting and fishing cultures. It is entirely seperate from the ideology itself. Indeed, many conservatives including myself who live in areas other than the south and west (like me in taxachusetts) neither hunt nor fish.

The Dred Scott decision was a conservative interpretation of the constitutional 3/5 compromise.  It was based on their interpretation of Original Intent.

Lincoln (like Obama) tried to walk a fine line on his intentions.  He knew that if he were to run on a platform of abolishing slavery that he would lose the election.  Obama I am sure would love to implement Universal Healthcare (purely speculation on my part) but if he did the conservatives would be "OMG!  English Healthcare system doesn't work, everyone who goes to the hospital there dies immediately."  So he runs on the middle ground exactly as Lincoln does, had the South not started the Civil War I am sure he would have pushed for restricting states rights in determining the basis of their economy, but not gotten rid of slavery in its existing locations, similar to how Obama doesn't want to get rid of your right to overpay for healthcare, he simply wants to help others with a more affordable solution.

You bring up Jaffa over and over again.  Please note I specified unbiased.  I don't think Jaffa meets this criteria based on his association with the Claremont Institute.  If you want to read conservative positions on Lincoln please read The Real Lincoln by DiLorenzo.  Not saying he is unbiased but at least you could maybe see what a real conservative believes.

The cultural points I brought up were to show you that he had much more in common with liberals of the day and today than he had with conservatives.

Who said Liberals are atheistic?  I am a Liberal, I don't attend church, because much like Lincoln, I am capable of reading the bible on my own.  I am very much a Christian.

The South hasn't changed all that much in it's attitudes towards Liberals.  What was the conservative position at the time on the Northwest Ordinance?  (Hint:  completely opposite of Lincoln's)

I am glad to know you believe that the Constitution does not need to always apply.  I am sure that was the Founder's Original Intent, what Invasion are we currently under that HC should be suspended?  Lincoln was the last president to use  it as it was intended. (Yes that includes my Personal favorite President FDR) http://www.thefreedictionary.com/invasion

The rumored to sleep with his guard was said in jest, it was a friendly barb, I would also like to point out that yes liberals are more open about homosexuality, Liberals even purposefully elect Gay politicians... they're fabulous, but the rumored part says just what it is, a rumor that cannot be proven, because if he was, it happened on the sly, just like it does currently in the Republican Party. http://www.badmouth.net/top-five-republican-gay-sex-scandals/On an entirely different note, one of my favorite jokes to come out because of the proliferation of the Republican, uhm, indiscretions "How many straight Republicans does it take to change a Lightbulb?"  "I would say both of them, but once the lights are out who knows what would happen."  In short, lighten up Francis.. it was a joke.

Landgrant and Homestead:  Welfare.  How does this differ from FDR creating the CCC?  WPA?  SS?  It was necessary to the economy, and more importantly it restored the faith in America.

So you are saying it is necessary to regulate businesses?  Is it maybe even in the constitution?  Who would have seen that coming. 

It is dumbasses making the loans as well as the people who took them.  One would assume that in these interactions one side would have a degree in finance and commerce and the other side are people who probably don't.  Who are the bigger dumbasses here?   People who were told "there is noway you can lose money on a house, so stop renting" or the people who lent money to people knowing the whole game was a house of cards?

Didn't the right elect George Bush with limited experience?  How about Eisenhower?  If Obama had served in the Senate for 40 years you would say that he has been in the Congress too long he no longer knows how to make decisions by himself.  This is a ludicrous argument and designed to distract from the issue.

Is this the comment you are referring to? "I don’t think so," Obama said, when asked whether McCain's age should be a factor in the race.  "Senator McCain is healthy, he is campaigning actively all across the country, his doctors have given him a clean bill of health, I don’t think it should be an issue in the campaign."

You and I will surely disagree on Wright, that is fine by me.  It is an extremely radical position to say that the Black community needs to take steps to pull itself up by its bootstraps and help fix the problems that afflict it... I can see why you would hate that kind of leadership.  In terms of his politically incorrect statements, let's see the entire sermon before getting our panties in a bunch.  In fact before judging the man lets look at his entire carreer and not just 90 seconds.  I don't judge John McCain because he was against MLK day.  I don't judge him because he said he would be in Iraq for 100 years.  I judge him on his career.  Maybe that is a radical departure from your train of thought.  Rezko was admittedly a poor decision.  I am sure he was unaware as he has stated.  It has yet to be shown that he did anything at all wrong in regards to him.   Ayers and Obama served on the board of a Charitable organization with Ayers, Ayers also gave Obama a campaign donation, now I know, Politicians shouldn't get donations, and certainly people shouldn't do work on charities, but can't we overlook this?

I have no problem with the lateness of your reply, I myself will be not posting here come Thursday evening because I am going down to the Great State of Texas to see my baby brother off to war (say a prayer for him if you see fit).  I am sure our conversations will continue well past that point.

Quote from: Remedialone on May 29, 2008, 07:20:49 PM

Quote from: piggy pop on May 29, 2008, 07:14:56 PM

Quote from: Remedialone on May 29, 2008, 07:13:44 PM

Piggy, kind of what I am getting at.

I strongly believe in short and blunt statements.  I'm a restater.  A short and blunt restater.

Your going to be a terribily unconvential lawyer

Quote

I stand corrected... now since we are such a humanitarian nation why do we allow prisoners to be shipped overseas for torture?  Why do we bomb media outlets?  Are these just actions?

I don't know what you are referring to when you say we are bombing media outlets. About Guantanamo, if we are sending prisoners overseas for torture than it is wrong. Any form of torture is wrong. However, many people contend that their is no torture happening in Cuba. I believe that prinsoners are war are being treated far better in this war than in any other war in history.

I will say having debates like this is making me really looking forward to law school. Most of the debates I have online or at school eventually boils down to "YOUR A RETARD!!!1!"

I think ultimately all debates will devolve into that even in law school.

Al Jazeera was bombed by coalition forces in Kabul, that could be chocked up to friendly fire if it wasn't for a top secret memo that got leaked that we were planning on bombing AlJazeera in Qatar.  Kind of suspicious.  I am not talking about Cuba when I am referring to outsourcing torture I am referring to us outsourcing torture to Egypt and a few other countries after Abu Ghraib was made public.  I am sure this is more abuses that despite being done with the knowledge of our government, using government planes to fly them there is merely the act of a few rogue agents.

Quote from: Alecto on May 29, 2008, 01:21:54 PM

If you really want to be an attorney, then I suggest you develop a thicker skin.  I imagine the disciplinary committee is similar to a judge, in that it does not appreciate frivolous complaints.  Save your breath for an attorney that is being unethical, not one that just has poor taste in jokes.  I am beginning to wonder, however, if you do want to be an attorney, or if you're just some a@@hole troll, b/c you keep commenting about how "you" want to be attorneys, not how "we" want to be attorneys.  Maybe you're just too good to lump yourselves in with the rest of us?  And by the way, it's "attorneys" not "attorney's."  Inappropriate use of the possessive apostrophe really irks me.

Thanks for the advice.
You can imagine all you want.  You are beginning to wonder if I want to be an attorney?  Good for you.  I'm beginning to wonder if I should care even a little bit about what you are beginning to wonder about.
I am no 'troll'.  I am an active member of this board, a law student, and a person who doesn't like to let it lie when people insult others based on their religious beliefs. 
Thanks for the lesson in proper grammar - the true mark of a person who is frustrated, unable to argue, and either embarrassed to be wrong in anyway or unable to accept that they are wrong.
The reason I used the word "you" and not the word "we" is that I wasn't condemning my own bad behavior, I was condemning yours (which is perpetual).
Say what you want, I don't really mind - but making fun of people who failed out of law school because they are religious and incapable of reason (or pray too much or whatever you reasoning is) isn't okay.  And, frankly speaking, I don't want to be associated with people who think that sort of joke is at all humorous.
So yes, I AM too good to associate with the likes of you.
Instead of letting it go (which would be mature - by both of us), admitting it was in poor taste, or simply making sure to be clear to all who come here that this was a light hearted joke, you choose to vilify me and attack me for standing up for what I believe is right (which is that people shouldn't be made fun of for being religious OR for failing out of law school).
Guess what?  Your opinion is of no consequence precisely BECAUSE of your behavior.
Yes, this was a joke.  Yes, I responded, a heinous crime, by pointing out that the statement made was unacceptable, offensive, and bigoted.  Do I deserve to be attacked, called a troll, and given grammar lessons?  Maybe in your world.
But then again, I don't live in your world.  I am an adult.  I am careful not to say things that come off as bigoted or offensive.  I find no joy in reading that people fail out of law school, nor do I find it funny when people make fun of religious people for their faith.  I'm sorry that doesn't conform to your standards.

And let me make this perfectly clear - if you are representative of the type of person who becomes an attorney (and thankfully, you are more of an excpetion), then I don't WANT to be 'lumped in' with you in any way, shape or form.

You can choose to live your life however you wish.  I'll be the one taking the high road, not making fun of people for their religious beliefs or academic acheivements or failures.

And it doesn't make me a troll to not respond to insipid comments either.  It makes me intelligent.
I do so appreciate the grammar lesson.
Here is a couple of annoying improper apostrohes for you:

The'yll
Iv'e
Wer'e
apostroph'es
ass'hole

I'll let you fight this one out with the others but you are chastising them for making fun of your improper grammar but you call me out on a made up word that had an obvious meaning?  I am glad we hold others accountable to a higher standard than ourselves.