djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 19, 2014 19:17:14 GMT -5
here is the thing, Virgil. 10 years ago, i would never have guessed that 33 states would have given gays the right to marry. NEVER. i would have not guessed that THREE would have done it. so, that turned out to be quite cynical. when confronted with the TRUTH: that people are denied equal rights under law: the American public capitulated to a higher ideal than their superficial "ick" of gays. and yes, i really think that. ditto for torture. if it can be shown as unproductive, it will fall. the only thing that is keeping it viable is the idea that it "works". Wow! That's how you remember that happening? gaymarriage.procon.org/view.timeline.php?timelineID=000030yes, that is precisely how i remember it happening your gotcha crap is getting very tiresome, b2r. as i have said before, i can back up everything i post here. edit: if you are picking nits between "overturning bans" and "allowing rights", you are making a distinction without difference.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 19, 2014 19:19:19 GMT -5
here is the thing, Virgil. 10 years ago, i would never have guessed that 33 states would have given gays the right to marry. NEVER. i would have not guessed that THREE would have done it. so, that turned out to be quite cynical. when confronted with the TRUTH: that people are denied equal rights under law: the American public capitulated to a higher ideal than their superficial "ick" of gays. and yes, i really think that. ditto for torture. if it can be shown as unproductive, it will fall. the only thing that is keeping it viable is the idea that it "works". Suffice it to say that I consider both the gay "marriage" issue and the ready embrace of torture to be symptoms of moral decay. Furthermore, your arguments attempting to tie those to "truth" have no rational basis to them. Different topic. Different thread. When the next 9/11 happens or a dirty bomb goes off in NYC, killing 50,000 people, we shall see how Americans' ideals play out. Milgram's 37, old friend. Milgram's 37. morality is not a popularity contest. you, better than anyone else here, should know that. but i don't think they will bomb us after the financial collapse that you are predicting, any more than they would bomb Bangladesh.
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Dec 19, 2014 19:31:34 GMT -5
here is the thing, Virgil. 10 years ago, i would never have guessed that 33 states would have given gays the right to marry. NEVER. i would have not guessed that THREE would have done it. so, that turned out to be quite cynical. when confronted with the TRUTH: that people are denied equal rights under law: the American public capitulated to a higher ideal than their superficial "ick" of gays. and yes, i really think that. ditto for torture. if it can be shown as unproductive, it will fall. the only thing that is keeping it viable is the idea that it "works". Wow! That's how you remember that happening? gaymarriage.procon.org/view.timeline.php?timelineID=000030 There's a way that reflects the truth...then there is how you portrayed it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 19, 2014 19:35:04 GMT -5
There's a way that reflects the truth...then there is how you portrayed it. ................and the two are identical. yes. i know that. so please stop fucking with me, b2r. tyia.
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Dec 19, 2014 19:44:45 GMT -5
There's a way that reflects the truth...then there is how you portrayed it. ................and the two are identical. yes. i know that. so please stop fucking with me, b2r. tyia. The two are not identical, and a mod should have asked for a link instead of thumb-upping that nonsense.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 19, 2014 19:50:45 GMT -5
................and the two are identical. yes. i know that. so please stop fucking with me, b2r. tyia. The two are not identical, yes they are, actually. and a mod should have asked for a link instead of thumb-upping that nonsense. you should become a moderator, rather than playing back seat QB. edit: ftr, i felt the same way when a moderator thumb-upped your nonsense- so you have my "sympathies".
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Dec 19, 2014 20:08:17 GMT -5
The two are not identical, yes they are, actually. No they aren't, actually. and a mod should have asked for a link instead of thumb-upping that nonsense. you should become a moderator, rather than playing back seat QB. You should post the facts...not propaganda.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 19, 2014 20:18:55 GMT -5
you should become a moderator, rather than playing back seat QB. You should post the facts...not propaganda. you have no idea how hilarious that is coming from you, do you?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 19, 2014 20:27:07 GMT -5
The two are not identical,
yes they are, actually. No they aren't, actually.
really? so, it was legal in 3 or more states for gays to marry 10 years ago? it is NOT legal in 33 or more for them to marry now?
or were you picking some nit that i have not even noticed, yet? illuminate me with your vast and penetrating mind, bro.
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Dec 19, 2014 20:29:35 GMT -5
Jeebus...really?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 19, 2014 20:32:22 GMT -5
really WHAT? seriously: what NIT are you picking, b2r? i am sure it is some word i am using that you disagree with. is it LEGAL? what would you prefer? SANCTIONED? i am trying to use the common vernacular, here. TRYING.
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Dec 19, 2014 20:53:15 GMT -5
here is the thing, Virgil. 10 years ago, i would never have guessed that 33 states would have given gays the right to marry. NEVER. i would have not guessed that THREE would have done it. so, that turned out to be quite cynical. when confronted with the TRUTH: that people are denied equal rights under law: the American public capitulated to a higher ideal than their superficial "ick" of gays. and yes, i really think that. ditto for torture. if it can be shown as unproductive, it will fall. the only thing that is keeping it viable is the idea that it "works". Wow! That's how you remember that happening? gaymarriage.procon.org/view.timeline.php?timelineID=000030 This is the post we are referencing. The highlighted areas are the areas in question. These areas implie that 33, now 35 states "gave" gays the right to marry. The truth is...while some states have indeed given gays the right to marry...far more were bestowed that right by judges. The American public did not capitulate...they were capitulated by judges. You can think that, but it is not fact. Why bother with elections? We could ask a 3...5...7...9 judge panel who they think should govern us.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,514
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 19, 2014 20:59:44 GMT -5
Some states' residents would still out law interracial marriage if it weren't for the courts.
DJ-don't waste anymore of your time discussing this particular issue with b2r.
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Dec 19, 2014 21:08:49 GMT -5
The leader has spoken!
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Dec 19, 2014 21:14:47 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 3:04:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2014 21:40:23 GMT -5
This is the post we are referencing. The highlighted areas are the areas in question. These areas implie that 33, now 35 states "gave" gays the right to marry. The truth is...while some states have indeed given gays the right to marry...far more were bestowed that right by judges. The American public did not capitulate...they were capitulated by judges. You can think that, but it is not fact. Why bother with elections? We could ask a 3...5...7...9 judge panel who they think should govern us.You do realize that Judges are there to (well... when they do their job correctly, and legally, anyway) make sure that the rights of minorities aren't trampled by the desires or beliefs of the majority... right? Let's say that, one day, bisexuals outnumber heterosexuals AND homosexuals combined, and they vote in a law that says everyone must be married into foursomes and have sex with partners of both genders. Would you still be "Well, the majority wants it, I guess that's the way it should be!"? Or would you like there to be a Judge somewhere that says: "You can't force the minority heterosexuals or homosexuals to commit acts against their nature."?
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Dec 19, 2014 22:11:05 GMT -5
This is the post we are referencing. The highlighted areas are the areas in question. These areas implie that 33, now 35 states "gave" gays the right to marry. The truth is...while some states have indeed given gays the right to marry...far more were bestowed that right by judges. The American public did not capitulate...they were capitulated by judges. You can think that, but it is not fact. Why bother with elections? We could ask a 3...5...7...9 judge panel who they think should govern us.You do realize that Judges are there to (well... when they do their job correctly, and legally, anyway) make sure that the rights of minorities aren't trampled by the desires or beliefs of the majority... right? Let's say that, one day, bisexuals outnumber heterosexuals AND homosexuals combined, and they vote in a law that says everyone must be married into foursomes and have sex with partners of both genders. Would you still be "Well, the majority wants it, I guess that's the way it should be!"? Or would you like there to be a Judge somewhere that says: "You can't force the minority heterosexuals or homosexuals to commit acts against their nature."? I've never envisioned a majority of Americans as tyrannical, but I can see your point. I don't see gay marriage in that light though.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 3:04:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2014 22:44:10 GMT -5
You do realize that Judges are there to (well... when they do their job correctly, and legally, anyway) make sure that the rights of minorities aren't trampled by the desires or beliefs of the majority... right? Let's say that, one day, bisexuals outnumber heterosexuals AND homosexuals combined, and they vote in a law that says everyone must be married into foursomes and have sex with partners of both genders. Would you still be "Well, the majority wants it, I guess that's the way it should be!"? Or would you like there to be a Judge somewhere that says: "You can't force the minority heterosexuals or homosexuals to commit acts against their nature."? I've never envisioned a majority of Americans as tyrannical, but I can see your point. I don't see gay marriage in that light though. Since there are many things that are illegal that shouldn't be (and some that are legal, and shouldn't be)... I have a different view than you on the bolded.
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Dec 19, 2014 22:49:58 GMT -5
I've never envisioned a majority of Americans as tyrannical, but I can see your point. I don't see gay marriage in that light though. Since there are many things that are illegal that shouldn't be (and some that are legal, and shouldn't be)... I have a different view than you on the bolded. Fair enough.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 20, 2014 12:24:19 GMT -5
This is the post we are referencing. The highlighted areas are the areas in question. These areas implie that 33, now 35 states "gave" gays the right to marry. The truth is...while some states have indeed given gays the right to marry...far more were bestowed that right by judges. The American public did not capitulate...they were capitulated by judges. You can think that, but it is not fact. Why bother with elections? We could ask a 3...5...7...9 judge panel who they think should govern us. the second statement was based on MY INTERPRETATION (that is why i added "yes i really think that") of POLLING DATA. it had nothing to do with how the legal standing was engendered, only of the GENERAL public support for it which has existed in the last few years. 10 years ago, public support was about 20%, and now it is about 60%. the whole reason that you have not seen NEW laws (prohibiting Gay Marriage) brought forward by the public in the last few years is that there is NOT SUFFICIENT SUPPORT FOR THEM to get them passed. but you are probably right in thinking that even if there were, the courts would overturn them. i am quite aware of the legal history of Gay Marriage. i was around for Proposition 8 in California, a measure that MANY states modeled their laws after. there have been very few instances where the PUBLIC engendered gay rights. HOWEVER, the fact remains that most Americans support Gay Marriage now, and that FACT is what i was referring to in the context of torture. what is needed to strip support from torture and torturers is a concerted campaign to change public opinion on the issue of torture, a sort of antidote to "24". if such a campaign were mounted, i think that in a decade the public would be convinced that torture is not only immoral (i think that most people believe that already) but ineffective. THAT was my point. but, of course, rather than just acknowledging that point, you took me to task for something i wasn't even saying. sometimes i wonder why i even bother.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 20, 2014 12:26:18 GMT -5
you don't appear to have any issue with propaganda, b2r. just me. incidentally, Rossiter's treatise starts from a false premise. he makes the same mistake that conservatives and neo-fascists have made since the Cold War. he basically defines liberalism in a way that allows his prognosis to proceed, and then offers that diagnosis. it is a classic case of experimentor bias: first you manufacture the myth, and then you analyze it, without ever questioning whether the mythical thing actually exists. this is the same madness that presides over the perpetual motion idiots: that somehow things can violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. i really don't have much time for that. neither should you.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Dec 22, 2014 21:53:11 GMT -5
news.yahoo.com/nyt-prosecute-dick-cheney-cia-torture-174154702.html
In its editorial, the Times said the "sadistic" techniques outlined in the committee's report "are, simply, crimes. They are prohibited by federal law, which defines torture as the intentional infliction of 'severe physical or mental pain or suffering.' They are also banned by the Convention Against Torture, the international treaty that the United States ratified in 1994 and that requires prosecution of any acts of torture."
"It is no wonder that today’s blinkered apologists are desperate to call these acts anything but torture, which they clearly were," the Times continued. "As the report reveals, these claims fail for a simple reason: C.I.A. officials admitted at the time that what they intended to do was illegal."
The Times' editorial board is calling for a special prosecutor to investigate Cheney; David Addington, Cheney's former chief of staff; former CIA Director George Tenet; and John Yoo and Jay Bybee, the lawyers "who drafted what became known as the torture memos"; Jose Rodriguez Jr., the CIA official "who ordered the destruction of the videotapes"; psychologists who devised the torture regimen; and any CIA employees who carried it out.
But the paper doubts Obama has "the political courage to order a new investigation," much less "a criminal probe of the actions of a former president."
How about a Christmas message- you know who was a real fan of torture and the death penalty- the Romans We should reflect on that and the 'least of my brothers' thing- hard to believe it is a 'Christian nation' with the recent pro-torture and death penalty polls......
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 22, 2014 23:02:49 GMT -5
news.yahoo.com/nyt-prosecute-dick-cheney-cia-torture-174154702.html
In its editorial, the Times said the "sadistic" techniques outlined in the committee's report "are, simply, crimes. They are prohibited by federal law, which defines torture as the intentional infliction of 'severe physical or mental pain or suffering.' They are also banned by the Convention Against Torture, the international treaty that the United States ratified in 1994 and that requires prosecution of any acts of torture."
"It is no wonder that today’s blinkered apologists are desperate to call these acts anything but torture, which they clearly were," the Times continued. "As the report reveals, these claims fail for a simple reason: C.I.A. officials admitted at the time that what they intended to do was illegal."
there is one more thing, along with the bolded caption above, that has been under-analyzed and discussed by the media: and that is that the CIA used the world torture to describe what they were planning on doing.
The Times' editorial board is calling for a special prosecutor to investigate Cheney; David Addington, Cheney's former chief of staff; former CIA Director George Tenet; and John Yoo and Jay Bybee, the lawyers "who drafted what became known as the torture memos"; Jose Rodriguez Jr., the CIA official "who ordered the destruction of the videotapes"; psychologists who devised the torture regimen; and any CIA employees who carried it out.
HALLELUJIA!!!! PRAISE JESUS!!!! now, if we could just get some OFFICIAL to take this idea up.
But the paper doubts Obama has "the political courage to order a new investigation," much less "a criminal probe of the actions of a former president."
How about a Christmas message- you know who was a real fan of torture and the death penalty- the Romans We should reflect on that and the 'least of my brothers' thing- hard to believe it is a 'Christian nation' with the recent pro-torture and death penalty polls......
word.
|
|