The New Road

Do you have many Republican friends?

The office I work in is majority Republican. Sales an IT tend to go Republican. We get along since we don't talk politics. When we do talk politics it's clear that they aren't the neocon/theocon brand of koolaid drinker.

They are mainly concerned about tax breaks and about fiscal responsibility. They are right about tax breaks, Republicans will give tax breaks at any time regardless of the impact. For example, during a time of war, which has never been done in the entire history of civilization.

They are wrong on fiscal responsibility. The evidence is overwhelming that if you want a government that can control spending you need to vote Democrat. Spending is way out of control in this administration and there is little end in sight. It's a Republican strategy actually, they get in, spend like drunken sailors, then after a while tighten up and cut the areas that they want to see cut; education and social programs.

It was so funny to see Bush caught off guard during his recent 'unscripted town hall event' by the woman who say that he had cut 12.7 billion from the federal student loan program. He scrambled like a cut cat. He couldn't imagine being asked a real question, and he had no way to answer. Then he said she was lying and changed the topic. She wasn't. But what the hell does he care, he is bubble boy.

Cool. For some reason, I assumed you were padded in a bubble of liberalism in San Francisco and that's why you made such blanket, stereotypical, degrading remarks about the party in general.

It's good to see that you do play well with others.

You know there are so many of us who identify ourselves as Republicans. Just because we have a party identity, that doesn't mean we agree with everything that any one of us says publicly.

Taxes have always been raised during wartime - by Republicans and Democrats. Why are George W Bush's wartime tax cuts indicative of Republicans giving tax cuts at any time?

Fiscal responsibility has always been a platform for Republicans. This president hasn't vetoed one spending bill. He's thrown money at any program or project either party has proposed. The party is conflicted on that behavior. I, personally, find it appaling that we would spend they way are with as many disasters as we have been through. How is his behavior warrant a generalized statement that Democrats are more fiscally responsible?

Who are you to tell me what is degrading? You are the one running around calling people traitors.

Nobody else has cut taxes during wartime. It's a fact.

Clinton left us with a large surplus. Under the illegal Bush administration we are seven trillion dollars in debt to the Chinese and the Saudis.

And when have you ever disagreed with Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck or Coulter? I find it so curious that your comebacks always match Hannity's party line. I'm just surprised that you haven't called me a screechy left-wing moonbat. Yet.

I agreed with you that nobody but Bush has cut taxes during wartime. I reinforced your fact. (I think you're not even reading my posts at this point because you assume you know what I'm going to say). My question was, if every other president in the history of the US has raised taxes during wartime - republican and democrat - and Bush is the first to lower them during wartime, how does that make his actions (Bush's) a republican policy? It was Bush's policy. He happens to be republican, but that doesn't mean that every person who identifies himself as a republican agrees with his policy. (I thought the question was much better in its streamlined form, by the way)

Again, you identified yourself a traitor. By definition, I could not, honestly, disagree. That was a conversation in . . . 2004? . . . 2005? Why do you keep dredging it up?

Regarding the fiscally responsible political platform: it has always been a republican stronghold. This president is working hard to diminish that - opening the door for democrats to swoop in and steal it - just like the republicans stole the democrats' traditional strongholds like education in the last election. If democrats are sucessful, we deserve to lose, for not standing up for what we believe in. Whomever represents my values the closest is going to get my vote. And I did vote for Clinton in 1992, by the way.

Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh and Coulter are all conservatives. I am pretty conservative. Therefore, I tend to agree with a lot of what they say. If you give me specific issues and quotes, I'll tell you whether or not I agree with them. But your battle isn't with me, personally, is it? Just everyone who thinks like me? Or doesn't have an independent thought process - like me? Sheep-like, mind-numbed robots like me?

I'm sure you and Al Franken would have a lively debate about issues on which you disagree, no?

Ok, your right about the tax raise stuff, sorry about that. I didn't understand what you wrote, and from that I assumed the worst.

I keep dredging it up because it was an insanely offensive series of comments, accusations and insinuations. And it's clear that you still don't realize that calling people traitors isn't funny.

As to quoting these people, I do it all the time, and you always agree with them. Most recently you agreed with Ann Coulter that President Clinton should have been assassinated. And it appears that you agree with Glen Beck that torture is a good thing. Hey, does that include boiling people alive? Raping and killing kids in front of their parents?

I was wrong about Ann Coulter. I honestly thought she was a satirist, because I laughed (laugh) out loud at the absurdity of her comments. There's a headline right now, by the way - where she says someone should poison a liberal supreme court justice. Horrible if she meant it. But she did say it was a joke . . .

I laughed at her line about Clinton. I certainly don't think any U.S. president should be assassinated.

Glenn Beck doesn't say torture is a good thing. In fact, he says quite the opposite. But if you just take snippets, you miss the context. He thinks (I'm paraphrasing) that it is a necessary evil - like war.

And I still don't think calling people traitors is funny. I wasn't laughing during our exchange. I'm sorry it offended you. You can't go through life being true to yourself without offending some people - that's true for both of us.

You guys like doing that. The economy got a lot better under Clinton, but you find a way to give the credit to Reagan. Fact of the matter is under Clinton welfare was capped, and he supported the idea then and supports it now.

This 'necessary evil' line is where you and I completely diverge. I do not see it that way at all.

Poeple are being boiled alive in our names, Jacqueline. Boiled alive. Can you imagine that. Please, for just a moment, picture it. Boiling someones hand. Then boiling them to death. Boiling them.

People's children are being raped and killed in front of them in our names. Do you stand for that too?

And for what? People who actually know. People who have been tortured, like John McCain, stand completely against you on this.

But yet you seem to find this 'necessary evil' line from Glen Beck, and the other neocon trash, appealing. Have you ever thought for a moment about the people advocating torture? Glen Beck is a chickenhawk who never served. Rush Limbaugh dodged the draft by claiming he had a boil on his fat ass.

Real people with experience tell us torture is wrong. But you choose to listen to some shock jocks who bring this stuff up just to get ratings.

What's really sad is that people like Glen, Rush and Ann don't believe the shit they spew in real life. It's just to get ratings. But you actually believe it. And here you are, telling me that torture is right.

Would you torture my daughter to death, Jacqueline?

Sweet faced, three year old, big blue-eyed, happy-faced Megan? Heavens no!

That being said . . .

I had this morbid curiosity about death from my late teens to my early twenties. I researched the holocaust - experiments on parents and children to determine who would break down and electrocute the other faster. And slavery and the civil war, serial killers and the death penalty... many of my opinions were formed during that time. Being a theatre major fed into that - because we plunged deeply into the psyche, too. Find out what makes you tick, so you can control that - empty yourself and be filled with the character. I'm one of the most empathetic people I know, so it does hurt my feelings when you accuse me of blindly following.

The only references to boiling people I could find were in Uzbekistan.

I'm pretty sure the purpose of torture is to extract information. Dead people don't talk, so I can't imagine how boiling to death would serve any purpose - other than to torture and say we did. Sadists torture people. I can't imagine anyone volunteering for that job. It's sick. Sickening.

And I don't think it is or ever has been our policy as a nation to allow raping and killing of children in front of their parents. If that's happening, I can't fathom the US advocating it.

Back to your girl and mine. If Megan bites or hits another child in playgroup, should she go to timeout? If Amanda cheats on a test at school, should she get a failing grade? If Megan drives too fast, should she get a speeding ticket? If Amanda drives drunk and kills a pedestrian, should she be charged with manslaughter?

Hypothetically, our kids grow up, meet at Berkely, become sorority sisters, and get seduced into joining a militia (I know it's a huge stretch, but I think your question warrants it) who's aim is to nuke Dallas TX. If Megan and Amanda hold the information to save Dallas, then yes, I want that information extracted from them. Hopefully they would give it up on their own, without extreme measures. Hopefully they wouldn't be willing to suffer and die for their cause.

I hate to think of anyone's child being tortured or punished. The anguish of the parents must be horrible. But we all make choices. That's what life is.

"The only references to boiling people I could find were in Uzbekistan."

Right, that is where we rendition people to so the they can boil them for us.

"And I don't think it is or ever has been our policy as a nation to allow raping and killing of children in front of their parents. If that's happening, I can't fathom the US advocating it."

The additional Abu Ghraib material that is held up in court because the DOD doesn't want it released is rumored to include a video of contractors raping young children in front of their parents to coerce confessions.

"If Megan drives too fast, should she get a speeding ticket? If Amanda drives drunk and kills a pedestrian, should she be charged with manslaughter?"

Jacqueline, torture is not a speeding ticket. It's not even legal. It's not legal!!!!

Wake up. People on the radio have convinced you that we need to be torturing people. When people who actually understand torture, and have lived through torture are completely opposed to it.

Why was the McCain-sponsored bill necessary if any and all torture is not legal? Why would there be a list of acceptible means of coersion if those means are not legal? Are those practices on the list legal tactics that our military can use in extreme circumstances (not torture) or are they illegal torture?

I read the Abu Grahb documents at the NY Times website when the whoe scandal broke. We all know that stuff was illegal. The people who did it have been tried and convicted. I'm not talking about that.

Stress & Duress

What we have seen from Bush is that he does whatever he wants to do, legal or not. McCain wanted clear language to say that we would follow our existing guidelines and not torture. Bush and Cheney fought very hard against that. The Constitution bans torture, the Geneva convention bans torture. But to these guys the Constitution is just a "god damn piece of paper" (Bush's words), and the Geneva convention is "qaint" (Alberto Gonzoles' words).

As to Abu Ghraib, even you can see that Lindey England didn't think that crap up all on her own. They were using those exact same procedures in Iraq, Afghanistan and Gitmo. Either she really got around, or the orders came from up top. And she wasn't doing much travelling. The pictures showed Linsdey, so Linsdey got the axe. The prosecution was a joke.

You be the judge. Geneva convention:

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

Which we signed on to, by the way. Now, the definition of waterboarding:

Waterboarding is a technique used by interrogators to extract information from a subject. The subject is strapped to a board and lowered into the water until the subject believes that they will drown. The subject is then taken from the water and resuscitated. If necessary it is repeated. The technique is designed to be more psychological than physical, as the victim is led to believe that he or she is being killed. This technique strengthens the interrogators control of the subject and makes the subject experience the fear of death.

Now, hear the words of Alberto Gonzales as he wrote to Bush about how far we can take torture:

Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death. For purely mental pain or suffering to amount to torture (under U.S. law), it must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years. . . . We conclude that the statute, taken as a whole, makes plain that it prohibits only extreme acts.

Your just reading back to me more radio bullshit. If you had a look around and read and listened to stuff outside of drug addicts and sex offenders you would have a better view of what is going on.