Re: Scott Walker Embraces Religious Diversity

Gomezz Adddams Tue Dec 16, 2014 9:41 am

Paquette wrote:I think it's safe to say that people in here strongly reject Reagan's position that torture is an abhorrent practice.

You as well as the leftist blogosphere are cherry picking Reagan's letter to the Senate. Keep in mind that Reagan also stated in that letter that "it was not possible to negotiate a treaty that was acceptable to the United States in all respects. Accordingly, certain reservations, understandings, and declarations have been drafted, which are discussed in the report of the Department of State"

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=35858

One of those statements of reservation concerned Article One of the Convention on Torture, which defines torture, and where the US changed the meaning of intent to a heightened "specific intent" as opposed to the "general intent" stated in the treaty. In addition the US statement of reservation rejects the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice regarding conformity to the Convention and rightly so as this would be a violation of US sovereignty.

It is within this context that the Justice Department under George W Bush found that the "enhanced interrogation" used at Gitmo or in Eastern Europe did not violate US law or the treaty. Perhaps you should do a little more research rather than just parroting the thin gruel the leftists and MSM are serving. I guess than shouldn't be surprising or unexpected.

Skeptical Tue Dec 16, 2014 11:27 am

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Paquette wrote:I think it's safe to say that people in here strongly reject Reagan's position that torture is an abhorrent practice.

You as well as the leftist blogosphere are cherry picking Reagan's letter to the Senate. Keep in mind that Reagan also stated in that letter that "it was not possible to negotiate a treaty that was acceptable to the United States in all respects. Accordingly, certain reservations, understandings, and declarations have been drafted, which are discussed in the report of the Department of State"

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=35858

One of those statements of reservation concerned Article One of the Convention on Torture, which defines torture, and where the US changed the meaning of intent to a heightened "specific intent" as opposed to the "general intent" stated in the treaty. In addition the US statement of reservation rejects the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice regarding conformity to the Convention and rightly so as this would be a violation of US sovereignty.

It is within this context that the Justice Department under George W Bush found that the "enhanced interrogation" used at Gitmo or in Eastern Europe did not violate US law or the treaty. Perhaps you should do a little more research rather than just parroting the thin gruel the leftists and MSM are serving. I guess than shouldn't be surprising or unexpected.

Another read that tends to show the treaty was not cut and dried nor was it a slum dunk with the United Sates as some would have us believe.

http://dwkcommentaries.com/2011/12/01/u-s-ratification-of-the-multilateral-treaty-against-torture/

Still haven't managed to find a link showing Ronald Reagan's personal involvement in developing (IIRC the term "crafting" was used earlier) the text of the definition of torture.

Can you find anything on that Gomezz ?

Gomezz Adddams Tue Dec 16, 2014 12:05 pm

Skeptical wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Paquette wrote:I think it's safe to say that people in here strongly reject Reagan's position that torture is an abhorrent practice.

You as well as the leftist blogosphere are cherry picking Reagan's letter to the Senate. Keep in mind that Reagan also stated in that letter that "it was not possible to negotiate a treaty that was acceptable to the United States in all respects. Accordingly, certain reservations, understandings, and declarations have been drafted, which are discussed in the report of the Department of State"

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=35858

One of those statements of reservation concerned Article One of the Convention on Torture, which defines torture, and where the US changed the meaning of intent to a heightened "specific intent" as opposed to the "general intent" stated in the treaty. In addition the US statement of reservation rejects the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice regarding conformity to the Convention and rightly so as this would be a violation of US sovereignty.

It is within this context that the Justice Department under George W Bush found that the "enhanced interrogation" used at Gitmo or in Eastern Europe did not violate US law or the treaty. Perhaps you should do a little more research rather than just parroting the thin gruel the leftists and MSM are serving. I guess than shouldn't be surprising or unexpected.

Another read that tends to show the treaty was not cut and dried nor was it a slum dunk with the United Sates as some would have us believe.

http://dwkcommentaries.com/2011/12/01/u-s-ratification-of-the-multilateral-treaty-against-torture/

Still haven't managed to find a link showing Ronald Reagan's personal involvement in developing (IIRC the term "crafting" was used earlier) the text of the definition of torture.

Can you find anything on that Gomezz ?

If it was meant that Reagan had a hands on participation in writing the treaty, I've found nothing. There is no doubt that several Secretary of States and numerous US diplomats were involved in the writing and definition of terms of the treaty which by association might be construed that Reagan "crafted" the wording. But that would also mean that there are fingerprints of five different Presidents on the document.

To me it appears that paquette is pulling a "WWRR Do?" in an attempt to prove that the conservative Reagan was nothing more than a centrist. Ever since the East Coast liberal wing (Thomas Dewey and Henry Lodge) of the Republican Party stole the nomination for Eisenhower, Eisenhower Republicans seem to have felt it was their God given right to be offended that somehow their father's Republican brand has been damaged by the conservative/libertarian branch of the party. The sad irony is that it has been the Eisenhower Republicans that have done the most to damage to the brand starting with the embarrassment of the Nixon Administration, followed by the buffoonery of Gerald Ford to the inept candidacies of Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney.

Skeptical Tue Dec 16, 2014 1:45 pm

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Skeptical wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Paquette wrote:I think it's safe to say that people in here strongly reject Reagan's position that torture is an abhorrent practice.

You as well as the leftist blogosphere are cherry picking Reagan's letter to the Senate. Keep in mind that Reagan also stated in that letter that "it was not possible to negotiate a treaty that was acceptable to the United States in all respects. Accordingly, certain reservations, understandings, and declarations have been drafted, which are discussed in the report of the Department of State"

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=35858

One of those statements of reservation concerned Article One of the Convention on Torture, which defines torture, and where the US changed the meaning of intent to a heightened "specific intent" as opposed to the "general intent" stated in the treaty. In addition the US statement of reservation rejects the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice regarding conformity to the Convention and rightly so as this would be a violation of US sovereignty.

It is within this context that the Justice Department under George W Bush found that the "enhanced interrogation" used at Gitmo or in Eastern Europe did not violate US law or the treaty. Perhaps you should do a little more research rather than just parroting the thin gruel the leftists and MSM are serving. I guess than shouldn't be surprising or unexpected.

Another read that tends to show the treaty was not cut and dried nor was it a slum dunk with the United Sates as some would have us believe.

http://dwkcommentaries.com/2011/12/01/u-s-ratification-of-the-multilateral-treaty-against-torture/

Still haven't managed to find a link showing Ronald Reagan's personal involvement in developing (IIRC the term "crafting" was used earlier) the text of the definition of torture.

Can you find anything on that Gomezz ?

If it was meant that Reagan had a hands on participation in writing the treaty, I've found nothing. There is no doubt that several Secretary of States and numerous US diplomats were involved in the writing and definition of terms of the treaty which by association might be construed that Reagan "crafted" the wording. But that would also mean that there are fingerprints of five different Presidents on the document.

To me it appears that paquette is pulling a "WWRR Do?" in an attempt to prove that the conservative Reagan was nothing more than a centrist. Ever since the East Coast liberal wing (Thomas Dewey and Henry Lodge) of the Republican Party stole the nomination for Eisenhower, Eisenhower Republicans seem to have felt it was their God given right to be offended that somehow their father's Republican brand has been damaged by the conservative/libertarian branch of the party. The sad irony is that it has been the Eisenhower Republicans that have done the most to damage to the brand starting with the embarrassment of the Nixon Administration, followed by the buffoonery of Gerald Ford to the inept candidacies of Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney.

Actually it appears paquette found a button and sewed a vest on it!

Rusty Houser Wed Dec 17, 2014 7:02 am

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Paquette wrote:I think it's safe to say that people in here strongly reject Reagan's position that torture is an abhorrent practice.

You as well as the leftist blogosphere are cherry picking Reagan's letter to the Senate. Keep in mind that Reagan also stated in that letter that "it was not possible to negotiate a treaty that was acceptable to the United States in all respects. Accordingly, certain reservations, understandings, and declarations have been drafted, which are discussed in the report of the Department of State"

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=35858

One of those statements of reservation concerned Article One of the Convention on Torture, which defines torture, and where the US changed the meaning of intent to a heightened "specific intent" as opposed to the "general intent" stated in the treaty. In addition the US statement of reservation rejects the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice regarding conformity to the Convention and rightly so as this would be a violation of US sovereignty.

It is within this context that the Justice Department under George W Bush found that the "enhanced interrogation" used at Gitmo or in Eastern Europe did not violate US law or the treaty. Perhaps you should do a little more research rather than just parroting the thin gruel the leftists and MSM are serving. I guess than shouldn't be surprising or unexpected.

"Cherry picking" is an interesting accusation considering I linked the entire letter, not just a part of it. Reagan's concerns about the administrative process were clearly spelled out right along side of his extremely clear condemnation of torture.

So you can try to downplay Reagan's disgust of torture by pointing to peripheral negotiations on how the ban would be enforced but that does nothing to dispute the main point, that Reagan thought torture is "an abhorrent practice". It's like saying he doesn't like hot dogs because he wants them grilled instead of boiled.

But you can always tell when someone has a weak argument, they drag out the old straw man and beat it to death. You can tell me that I'm a "leftist" all you want but that doesn't change reality just like pointing to some administrative disagreements doesn't change the reality that Reagan was vehemently opposed to torture. If supporting Reagan's ban on torture makes me a lefty, so be it.

None of this changes the fact that torture is against the law both in international law and the laws of the United States. The party I signed up for used to be the law and order party but I find little evidence of that in today's republican party.

Rusty Houser Wed Dec 17, 2014 7:35 am

Now lets imagine a hypothetical situation. Just suppose some extremist wacko who identifies with the right of the political spectrum fills a rental truck full of explosives and blows up a federal building. Our intelligence community implements the "by any means" doctrine to "keep us safe".

They start rounding up his colleagues and anyone who has had any association with him for indefinite detention and enhanced interrogation. All they have to do is call them "enemy combatants" and they can claim that they're justified.

Will you still support torture if the target changes and hits a little closer to home or will you turn to the "leftists" like Reagan, Rand Paul, Graham and McCain to protect your basic human rights?

Don't torture you, don't torture me. Torture that fellow behind the tree.

Shortie's Ex Mon Dec 22, 2014 2:09 pm

Wow. This thread went well astray.

Aren't there mods on this forum to keep things on track ?

BladeRunner Mon Dec 22, 2014 3:38 pm

Shortie's Lover wrote:Wow. This thread went well astray.

Aren't there mods on this forum to keep things on track ?

If you don't like it, just press the Report Button.

Darth Cheney Mon Dec 22, 2014 5:57 pm

Paquette wrote:Now lets imagine a hypothetical situation. Just suppose some extremist wacko who identifies with the right of the political spectrum fills a rental truck full of explosives and blows up a federal building. Our intelligence community implements the "by any means" doctrine to "keep us safe".

They start rounding up his colleagues and anyone who has had any association with him for indefinite detention and enhanced interrogation. All they have to do is call them "enemy combatants" and they can claim that they're justified.

Will you still support torture if the target changes and hits a little closer to home or will you turn to the "leftists" like Reagan, Rand Paul, Graham and McCain to protect your basic human rights?

Don't torture you, don't torture me. Torture that fellow behind the tree.

Still pushing that liberal line of bullshit I see...unfortunately for you there isn't a bunch of brain dead liberals on this site to believe your crap. Try posting on the Daily Kos or whatever that site is.

Rusty Houser Tue Dec 23, 2014 6:13 am

Darth Cheney wrote:
Paquette wrote:Now lets imagine a hypothetical situation. Just suppose some extremist wacko who identifies with the right of the political spectrum fills a rental truck full of explosives and blows up a federal building. Our intelligence community implements the "by any means" doctrine to "keep us safe".

They start rounding up his colleagues and anyone who has had any association with him for indefinite detention and enhanced interrogation. All they have to do is call them "enemy combatants" and they can claim that they're justified.

Will you still support torture if the target changes and hits a little closer to home or will you turn to the "leftists" like Reagan, Rand Paul, Graham and McCain to protect your basic human rights?

Don't torture you, don't torture me. Torture that fellow behind the tree.

Still pushing that liberal line of bullshit I see...unfortunately for you there isn't a bunch of brain dead liberals on this site to believe your crap. Try posting on the Daily Kos or whatever that site is.

Further proof that Reagan would be condemned as a liberal by today's GOP. If Reagan is now a liberal, I guess I am too.

Dr. Evil Tue Dec 23, 2014 6:56 am

Paquette wrote:
Darth Cheney wrote:
Paquette wrote:Now lets imagine a hypothetical situation. Just suppose some extremist wacko who identifies with the right of the political spectrum fills a rental truck full of explosives and blows up a federal building. Our intelligence community implements the "by any means" doctrine to "keep us safe".

They start rounding up his colleagues and anyone who has had any association with him for indefinite detention and enhanced interrogation. All they have to do is call them "enemy combatants" and they can claim that they're justified.

Will you still support torture if the target changes and hits a little closer to home or will you turn to the "leftists" like Reagan, Rand Paul, Graham and McCain to protect your basic human rights?

Don't torture you, don't torture me. Torture that fellow behind the tree.

Still pushing that liberal line of bullshit I see...unfortunately for you there isn't a bunch of brain dead liberals on this site to believe your crap. Try posting on the Daily Kos or whatever that site is.

Further proof that Reagan would be condemned as a liberal by today's GOP. If Reagan is now a liberal, I guess I am too.

Scott Walker Embraces Religious Diversity - Page 2 Hbo-th11

Darth Cheney Tue Dec 23, 2014 4:53 pm

Dumb shiste was referring to Timothy McVeigh who was a self identified libertarian and agnostic but keep up the moron posting.

You people really are devoid of facts but it sure doesn't slow you down.

Just Braying It Tue Dec 23, 2014 5:31 pm

Dr. Jones wrote:
Paquette wrote:
Darth Cheney wrote:
Paquette wrote:Now lets imagine a hypothetical situation. Just suppose some extremist wacko who identifies with the right of the political spectrum fills a rental truck full of explosives and blows up a federal building. Our intelligence community implements the "by any means" doctrine to "keep us safe".

They start rounding up his colleagues and anyone who has had any association with him for indefinite detention and enhanced interrogation. All they have to do is call them "enemy combatants" and they can claim that they're justified.

Will you still support torture if the target changes and hits a little closer to home or will you turn to the "leftists" like Reagan, Rand Paul, Graham and McCain to protect your basic human rights?

Don't torture you, don't torture me. Torture that fellow behind the tree.

Still pushing that liberal line of bullshit I see...unfortunately for you there isn't a bunch of brain dead liberals on this site to believe your crap. Try posting on the Daily Kos or whatever that site is.

Further proof that Reagan would be condemned as a liberal by today's GOP. If Reagan is now a liberal, I guess I am too.

Am I a liberal or conservative if I think that hurricanes are caused by global warming which is a result of kids not being able to pray in school?

Darth Cheney Tue Dec 23, 2014 7:59 pm

Liberal wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
Paquette wrote:
Darth Cheney wrote:
Paquette wrote:Now lets imagine a hypothetical situation. Just suppose some extremist wacko who identifies with the right of the political spectrum fills a rental truck full of explosives and blows up a federal building. Our intelligence community implements the "by any means" doctrine to "keep us safe".

They start rounding up his colleagues and anyone who has had any association with him for indefinite detention and enhanced interrogation. All they have to do is call them "enemy combatants" and they can claim that they're justified.

Will you still support torture if the target changes and hits a little closer to home or will you turn to the "leftists" like Reagan, Rand Paul, Graham and McCain to protect your basic human rights?

Don't torture you, don't torture me. Torture that fellow behind the tree.

Still pushing that liberal line of bullshit I see...unfortunately for you there isn't a bunch of brain dead liberals on this site to believe your crap. Try posting on the Daily Kos or whatever that site is.

Further proof that Reagan would be condemned as a liberal by today's GOP. If Reagan is now a liberal, I guess I am too.

Am I a liberal or conservative if I think that hurricanes are caused by global warming which is a result of kids not being able to pray in school?

Well...you would be a liberal if you believed in globull warming because there are zero facts supporting that and in fact, the planet has been cooling for over a decade on the first part but liberals only pray to big government for their salvation so that's a tough call. I thought you libs blamed Dick Cheney for having a hurricane machine.

Dr. Evil Tue Dec 23, 2014 8:32 pm

Liberal wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
Paquette wrote:
Darth Cheney wrote:
Paquette wrote:Now lets imagine a hypothetical situation. Just suppose some extremist wacko who identifies with the right of the political spectrum fills a rental truck full of explosives and blows up a federal building. Our intelligence community implements the "by any means" doctrine to "keep us safe".

They start rounding up his colleagues and anyone who has had any association with him for indefinite detention and enhanced interrogation. All they have to do is call them "enemy combatants" and they can claim that they're justified.

Will you still support torture if the target changes and hits a little closer to home or will you turn to the "leftists" like Reagan, Rand Paul, Graham and McCain to protect your basic human rights?

Don't torture you, don't torture me. Torture that fellow behind the tree.

Still pushing that liberal line of bullshit I see...unfortunately for you there isn't a bunch of brain dead liberals on this site to believe your crap. Try posting on the Daily Kos or whatever that site is.

Further proof that Reagan would be condemned as a liberal by today's GOP. If Reagan is now a liberal, I guess I am too.

Am I a liberal or conservative if I think that hurricanes are caused by global warming which is a result of kids not being able to pray in school?

For lack of a more comical answer, I am going to have to go with Darth and his hot tub time machine explanation on this one. It seems as well thought out and as on point as one could expect.

Sponsored content