Ann Coulter: Watching MSNBC is torture

Thanks Observer,

You saved me some research.

major differance im not out blabbing my mouth how this day and age of torture is not considered torture, she is blabbing about liberals complaining about waterboarding that they do now saying how its nothing, of course i wouldnt want to do any of it, torture is torture no matter what...and if she doesnt think that waterboarding the American way is torture then i would like to see her try it along with Hannity

Id like to see her get "waterboarded"

Hmmm...One liberal wants to see Ann 'get waterboarded'. Wanda Sykes wants to see Rush's kidneys fail.

So much for the party of 'peace and tolerance', eh?

sure Pat take that one thing out of the whole paragraph, read the whole thing and read the article instead of trolling

sure Pat take that one thing out of the whole paragraph,

Are you denying that you said you want to see Ann waterboarded? C'mon, Dawn darlin'...either you're for waterboarding or your not. Make up your mind.

read the whole thing and read the article

I did. You said you wanted to see Ann Coulter waterboarded.

instead of trolling

Interesting that it took you only 2 posts to resort to namecalling. Is this more 'love and tolerance' from the left?

Face it Dawn. Documentation indicates that waterboarding was successful in many instances. Who knows? Maybe it even saved your butt a time or two by obtaining the necessary information to stop an attack.

i didnt call you a troll, i said you were trolling another big differance

And i dont deny wanting to see Ann Coulter waterboarded i do, i really would like to jess ventura waterboard her and all the other ones, i will pay alot of money to see that

And im sorry no documentation will convince me saying its ok to torture to get what you want, its like saying you need to spank a kid for doing something wrong but then expecting them not to hit anyone

And im sorry no documentation will convince me saying its ok to torture to get what you want,

The only reason no documentation (or factual data) will convince you that waterboarding works is because you are fundamentally opposed to it and won't listen to the logic regarding it...doing your own due diligence and weighing facts, rather than emotions. And that's fine. But fess up to your true reasoning rather than fabricating excuses.

its like saying you need to spank a kid for doing something wrong but then expecting them not to hit anyone

Equating the attempt to stop attacks like 9-11 to trying to stop a kid from becoming a bully is absurd.

I sure do miss PatN when she's away...

iloveamerica59, friend request sent.

Big smiles to see my friend Pat!

Ellie and Juno....It's because of you two that I'm back and you know it. =)

(((hugs)))

; )

I'm gonna revel in a wish come true!

Some of the above diatribe does beg a question: have any of you so ready to dish it out or judge it's harshness tried a mock up where you could slap your side or otherwise indicate enough? Some law inforcement folks are required to be tasered so they will know what it is like. When I get time, I am going to get some friends to assist and try it. I will let you gutless opinionated slugs know at least how bad I thought it was.

themman

Their too chicken, they would rather just blab their mouths about it, then try it to prove their point

Its torture pure and simple, no matter how you look at it, and it didnt need to be done to save thousands of lives, pleaseee wake up, we are a power nation why do we need to prove anything with torture, just making more enemies is all we doing

Dawn, do you have children?

yess i do 1 biological son and 2 foster boys

you got something smart to come at me with..save it and you say anything bad about my kids ill report it..so better be good...:)

The only reason no documentation (or factual data) will convince you that waterboarding works is because you are fundamentally opposed to it and won't listen to the logic regarding it...doing your own due diligence and weighing facts, rather than emotions. And that's fine. But fess up to your true reasoning rather than fabricating excuses.

Yes Pat , you should do some research and weigh the facts and then quit giving excuses as to why you and the rest of the conservative rabble keep ignoring them.

Here it is from the mouth of an ex FBI interrogator. ..but I suppose YOU know better than he does , right?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30721458/

A former FBI interrogator who questioned al-Qaida prisoners testified Wednesday that the Bush administration falsely boasted of success from extreme techniques like waterboarding, when those methods were slow, unreliable and made an important witness stop talking.

yess i do 1 biological son and 2 foster boys

I have one biological son....kudos to you for taking in two foster boys. (I sincerely mean that too)

you got something smart to come at me with..save it and you say anything bad about my kids ill report it..so better be good...:)

I'm definately a smarta$$ but I'd never say anything about anyone's kids. Wouldn't want it done to me. I asked you because I was going to ask you a question pertaining to torture...but perhaps this isn't the thread for it.... so I won't. Never mind.

Thank you, im giving you a vote for that :)

Dawn,

There have been plenty of experts who have testified that torture does not accomplish what is intended and frankly, I believe them. I can envision a person saying anything the tormentor wants to obtain relief. With respect to waterboarding, it is a case of curiousity on my part. I am sick of hearing opinions from arm chair quarterbacks about how bad or not so bad it is. As a matter of fact, I have at least two friends wanting to try it too, just to have a feel for it. I appreciate your concern and thank you for that but the truth is, I have every conficence we will yell calf rope before we are in any real peril.

themman

well i respect your bravery for wanting to prove either, more than i can say for some, but the fact remains the prisoners did not have that choice.

good luck with your test, and please be careful :)

Dawn,

but the fact remains the prisoners did not have that choice.

I agree emphatically, nor could they say enough and stop.

Again, thanks for your concern. Rest assured, we are curious, not suicidal.

Does rinsing my sinuses with a high volume pressurized saline wash count? I kind of have my suspicions... I think am waterboarding myself on a regular basis... (twice daily, to be precise)

:-)

Yuck, Whatever, I hate that stuff.

Welcome to my world, Juno...

:-)

whatever

Can you take a video of that so i can see it..lol..i do nasal washouts myself but i dont know if its high pressured lol..does tickle though

Dawn...

There are just some things the world wide everybody doesn't need to see!

Bleah! Yuck...gross!!!

:-P

ILA59,

“He has the guts to speak the truth without trying to appease the libs.”

But any of the elected to your party cannot do the same can they? uumm

He is not elected hence (not a leader) anything he says cannot really hurt him just like Coulter.

ILA59,

“Look at our so-called leader - Steele. I first I thought he could be a runner with Palin, but after all those missteps he's made, I don't think so. “

But you did not answer my question.

He is not an elected leader is he or coulter?

There is a big difference why else would you bring up Steele who is elected correct?

He is not elected hence (not a leader)

So in your book, MLK Jr. wasn't a 'leader', either, right? What some convoluted logic. Would suggest you think before you hit the 'post comment' button.

Pat N,

I did not ask you.

Jack,

Republican leaders must be fat, white men or anorexic bitches. That's why they cannot accept Michael Steele. Limpy and Coulter were "elected" by God and that's all that counts in the Going Obsolete Party.

I did not ask you.

Is this the liberal equivalent of 'nanner-nanner-boo-boo'? Sorry, Jack. You post it on a public thread, it's fair game. You made the comment that someone is not a leader unless they are elected. I'm asking you to either back up that statement or back down from it.

ILove and PatN, Steele has been a disappointment.

ILove and PatN, Steele has been a disappointment.

Ellie,

I agree wholeheartedly. I keep waiting for him to lose that 'deer-in-the-headlights' look. I sincerely thought he'd be stronger.

The reason why Rush is not a true leader is that he, ultimately, cannot be held accountable for his words or actions -- provided he draws enough ratings to justify the expense of his show.

Unfortunately for you Repubs, your actual congressional leaders ARE accountable for their votes, one way or the other.

I think that is the frustration regarding folks like Rush and Coulter. It is easy to sprout nonsense when you are not held accountable for the content of your speech. It is difficult to actually govern when you are held to account by voters, special interests, your own party's leadership, etc...

I would take conservatives more seriously if they had some coherent plan for governance beyond ("Cut Taxes", "States-Rights", "Jesus!")

Behind closed doors, Republicans act the same as Democrats...

Steele has been a disappointment.

I'm still routing for him, though. Keeping in mind, that much of the story (ies) is spun around by our wonderful oppositional media.

The reason why Rush is not a true leader is that he, ultimately, cannot be held accountable for his words or actions

That's absurd. I just looked up the definition of 'leader'. Then I looked up 'lead'. Neither definition says anything about accountability for actions.

Unfortunately for you Repubs, your actual congressional leaders ARE accountable for their votes, one way or the other.

As are yours. And since yours hold the majority...we'll be observing their 'leadership' ability closely.

I think that is the frustration regarding folks like Rush and Coulter. It is easy to sprout nonsense when you are not held accountable for the content of your speech.

Huh? Did we abolish the FCC? When did that happen?

Is this the liberal equivalent of 'nanner-nanner-boo-boo'? Sorry, Jack. You post it on a public thread, it's fair game.

Ya know, I was going to stay quiet on this one since debunking Coulter is about as challenging as breathing... but I'm seeing a level of smug self-superiority on this seed that makes it hard for me to let tonight's heapin' helpin' of Ann's bull@!$%# go unanswered.

The media wail about "torture," but are noticeably short on facts.

Says the lady who has no footnotes, no references, no citations.

Liberals try to disguise the utter wussification of our interrogation techniques by constantly prattling on about "the banality of evil."

Ann, the term was coined by a Jewish holocaust survivor and author in 1963 in her book The Banality of Evil. Dya think a holocaust survivor might know a thing or two about evil? Do ya think FDR might have been the first Dem to use the term, say, while fighting the Nazis?

Start with the fact that the average Gitmo detainee has gained 20 pounds in captivity.

Hmm, they are apparently well-fed. Fine. THEY'RE IN JAIL YOU TWIT. NO CHARGES. NO SENTENCES. NO DUE PROCESS. Aside from that slight deviation from our 232 years of Constitutional law, you seem to be intimating that water boarding a well-fed prisoner is not torture. Interesting logic.

In terms of "torture," there was "the attention grasp," which you have seen in every department store you have ever been where a mother was trying to get her misbehaving child's attention.

Yep, a smack upside the head or a German Shepard growling at my balls would get my attention with a quickness. Yours too I bet.

Contrary to MSNBC hosts who are afraid of bugs, water and their own shadows, waterboarding was most definitely not a "war crime" for which the Japanese were prosecuted after World War II -- no matter how many times Mrs. Jonathan Turley, professor of cooking at George Washington University, says so.

Wow. This guy gets around. In addition to being a "professor of cooking", he's also been a professor at Tulane and George Washington University and was ranked 38th in the top 100 most cited "public intellectuals". I wonder why you left those bits out Ann. It seems somewhat relevant to question of his credibility that you so glibly assassinate.

Oh yea, lest you think I forgot about the "no Japanese were prosecuted" bull@!$%#...

On November 29, 2007, Sen. McCain, while campaigning in St. Petersburg, Florida, said, "Following World War II war crime trials were convened. The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding."

From an interview with R John Pritcher, author of The Tokyo War Crimes Trial: The Complete Transcripts of the Proceedings of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East:

"McCain is referencing the Tokyo Trials, officially known as the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. After World War II, an international coalition convened to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture. At the top of the list of techniques was water-based interrogation, known variously then as 'water cure,' 'water torture' and 'waterboarding,' according to the charging documents. It simulates drowning." Politifact went on to report, "A number of the Japanese soldiers convicted by American judges were hanged, while others received lengthy prison sentences or time in labor camps."

Ann Coulter... you sly dog... you just lied! And it only took a 30 second Google search to prove it and cite it.

Here's another, slighly more important point though: What the heck does what the Japanese did during WWII have to do with what our government does in the here and how? How about if I concede that American torture wasn't anywhere near as brutal as what the Japanese did, you concede that it's completely irrelevant to the question.

What IS relevant is the 8th Amendment. You know, the one that ends with "cruel and unusual punishment". Is Water boarding the usual thing in our prisons, Ann?

Meanwhile, the alleged "torture" under the Bush administration consists of things like:

-- "failing to respect a Serbian national holiday"; or
-- "forgetting to wear plastic gloves while handling a Quran."

Oh, and Waterboarding! Don't forget that one Ann! I know you like to make light of it, but some of us "Americans" take our "Constitution" pretty seriously. We figure it's a responsibility that comes with all of those "rights" thingies. We think that the millions of Americans who died to protect it should be honored. It's not just some scam you run wherein you professionally lie to people and call it an honest day's labor.

But the lunatic claim was passed around with increasing credibility until it ended up being cited as hard fact in The New York Times, The Boston Globe and on "Good Morning America."

...and Senator McCain. Don't forget him! Say, doesn't he know a thing or two about the subject? Wasn't he subjected to the subject? I wonder why'd you leave him out.

One of the earliest entries in the "waterboarding as war crimes" myth must be this October 2006 article in The Washington Post, citing a case raised by Sen. Teddy Kennedy -- and heaven knows Kennedy understands the horrors of a near-drowning:

"Twenty-one years earlier, in 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk."

Even if that description of what Asano did were true -- and it isn't -- the only relevant word in the entire paragraph is "civilian."

Ann Counter: professional irrelevenator (Yea, I just made the word up. Copyright 2009). Yukio Asano wasn't executed; he got hard labor. Ted Kennedy never claimed he was; you, however claim he did. Let the transcript show you lied, yet again.

One again Miss Irrelevancy, what the Japanese did to POWs or civilians during WWII isn't a part of this discussion.

So every other part of that paragraph is utterly irrelevant to the treatment of prisoners of war, much less non-uniformed enemy combatants at Guantanamo, who could have been shot on sight under the laws of war.

I'm pretty sure all of the enemy combatants at Guantanamo have nice orange uniforms, and that under the laws of war, shooting people in a POW camp is a bad thing.

What Americans need to understand is that under liberals' own "laws of war," they will invent apocryphal incidents from history in order to give aid and comfort to America's enemies and to undermine those who kept us safe for the past eight years.

Ending up with a bang, are we Ann? It sounds like you're saying liberals invented WWII to further an argument you've built entirely around a logical fallacy. Maybe you're only claiming libs invented the war crimes tribunals?

It is easy to sprout nonsense when you are not held accountable for the content of your speech.

You mean like Keith Obermann and Chrissy "I got a tingle up my leg" Matthews?

Thanks...thought it fit since he orgasmed on air after an obama speech.

*shudder* Sorry to leave such a repulsive thought in your head now....*gag*

ILoveAmerika,

I am sorry if you cannot handle the truth about your glorious leaders. If you can provide something positive that Limpy and Coulter have ever done for this country then I am willing to reconsider my position but since all I ever hear from these two is hate and venom directed toward fellow AMERICANS then I doubt you can convince me otherwise.

If you can provide something positive that Limpy and Coulter have ever done for this country then I am willing to reconsider my position

Do you want me to start with the smear letter he put on ebay and then donated the $2.1M it fetched to charity? Or shall I start smaller?

What, no comments on my pwning of Coulter? Don't any of you righteous Coulter fans have the stones to defend her? Is this a circle jerk or a debate?

If you can provide something positive that Limpy and Coulter have ever done for this country then I am willing to reconsider my position but since all I ever hear from these two is hate and venom directed toward fellow AMERICANS then I doubt you can convince me otherwise.

That's rich when you read all the hateful garbage that is posted on NV by your fellow leftists. I knew liberals could be looney...who would have ever thought you'd be hateful towards your fellow Americans.

What, no comments on my pwning of Coulter?

I'd give you kudos for owning Coulter, but she isn't here to debate you. You can't claim victory when your opponent isn't even aware their is a battle...but hey...nice try anyway.

I'd give you kudos for owning Coulter, but she isn't here to debate you. You can't claim victory when your opponent isn't even aware their is a battle...but hey...nice try anyway.

So Ann is the only one able to recognize a lie? I guess that says a lot about her fans.

What, no comments on my pwning of Coulter?

Leave it to a liberal to feel the need to beg for attention.

So Ann is the only one able to recognize a lie? I guess that says a lot about her fans.

Yea yea yea....I know...you owned Ann Coulter....even if she doesn't know it. You da the man Azzix.

Leave it to a liberal to feel the need to beg for attention.

And leave it to a Conservative to both wrong and rude about it. I'm not a liberal, thanks. I'm a registered Independent that thinks your little label wars are pretty amusing.

For the record, I'm not begging for attention, I'm begging for integrity. I was pretty sure nobody here would have enough of it to disown a proven liar that happens to tell lies they like; so far you all seem to be proving it.

Yea yea yea....I know...you owned Ann Coulter....even if she doesn't know it. You da the man Azzix.

Thanks, that is very kind of you.

Azzix

friend request sent :)

ohh that is funny..... but she is problay wearing those rubber ones so the electrodes wont work lol

good one kj lol

You have to understand that Ann Coulter knows what torture is. You see, you must attach electrodes to her testicles for it to be torture.

Testicles....something the lib party has been missing for a long long time now.

Testicles....something the lib party has been missing for a long long time now.

Awww now. Give 'em some credit. They have big enough nads to attack a pregnant teenager.

Those aren't "nads" Pat...just a collective sack of cowardice.

Yeah, the libs are so stupid to teach their teenagers NOT to get pregnant. Silly, silly libs.

Yeah, the libs are so stupid to teach their teenagers NOT to get pregnant. Silly, silly libs.

So you deny attacking a teenage girl for getting pregnant? Or do you pick specific young girls to attack according to political parties? Silly libs my a$$...pack of vicious cowards if you ask me.

all libs are cowards.

Not all of them. Zell Miller...got to give props to that guy.

I have absolutely no problem with Bristol Palin having a baby out of wedlock. And if she can keep one teenage girl from getting pregnant, then she'll be a success as an abstinence only advocate. Miss California has the right to say what she wants and should have answered her question in the way she believes. That being said, if they want freedom of speech to say what they want, you have to let others have the freedom to disagree.

Not all liberals are weak sacks of cowarice, just like not all conservatives are hypocritical bathroom humping prostitute purveyors.

That being said, if they want freedom of speech to say what they want, you have to let others have the freedom to disagree.

Sure....others do indeed have the freedom to disagree....but to degrade them while doing so is uncalled for. That's what infuriates me.

Sarah Palin chose to be in the spotlight and was expected to be attacked...but her children? No...sorry....just doesn't fly. I actually saw a website that was created to attack Sarah Palin's youngest child who has down syndrome. Not sure if it still exists but it was one of the most disgusting and seriously deranged things I have ever seen. How does anyone justify the attacks on a baby?

Not all liberals are weak sacks of cowarice, just like not all conservatives are hypocritical bathroom humping prostitute purveyors.

No, but enough of these idiots exist to make the rest of us look bad.

Exactly, I don't know why people seem to think the nutjobs are the party. I give Sarah Palin credit for being in the position she is. Not alot of women have been govenor of their state. For every Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh there is a Jeanne Garafalo and Alec Baldwin. Still all four of them wants what is best for the United States.

For every Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh there is a Jeanne Garafalo and Alec Baldwin. Still all four of them wants what is best for the United States.

Not sure I agree with this 100%. Oh, I believe they all want what's best...but I believe that all four of them are guilty of letting that desire get sidelined in favor of money, attention and ratings.

And I'll agree that they enjoy the money, attention and ratings that their ramblings bring to them.

We'd better be careful, or we'll be drummed out of our parties by the nutjobs. Have a good night.

Do you have anything to comment about the topic at hand? Otherwise ....

She better be careful. Dawn will accuse her of 'trolling' =)

funny...

ILA59,

“Do you have anything to comment about the topic at hand? Otherwise .... “

I see you are having trouble. You cannot answer questions but you can threaten real fair and balanced. LOL

Hey Margo, that's a creative idea, I'm all for it!

i dont call that pwning

But i will say she engages better in Your thread then you do

Alright Pat, stop pwning people. It's embarrassing to watch you attack the unarmed in a battle of wits. :)

I just can't help it. When people leave themselves wide open...well, you know. pwning them is like popping a big zit. It's messy, dirty icky work...but it relieves the pressure. =)

You guys, lets give props for thinking out of the box. If the enemy will give up Intel after being forced to watch Ann, that's good. At worst, they may have an epiphany and decide freedom has a few merits.

Hey Iwubmerka59

You three high fiving yourselves for.......? So Iwub, you "borrowed" my line from "A Farewell to Trolls" seed comment # 23.10

I guess imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Leave it to Ann Coulter to use weight gain through forced feeding that has been deemed cruel and unusual as an example of how great gitmo is

So you're suggestion is to let them starve to death, Brad? Tell me....had they let them starve to death, what would have been the reaction from the left?

So you're suggestion is to let them starve to death, Brad?

Not at all. There are plenty of ways to feed unwilling people that haven't been deemed painful, torturous, and unsanitary. Nor is it in any way healthy (and can be quite dangerous) to force feed people to the point that they actually GAINING weight. Regardless, even if it wasn't dangerous, unhealthy, unsanitary, and painful (which it is well documented as it being), it would STILL be in extremely poor taste to claim that the fact that prisoners were forced to gain weight as an example of how good they were treated. That is just pure disingenuious bull@!$%#.

Wow. Thanks Pat, for explaining to me the pathology of conservatism. Leaders don't have accountability. That explains everything.

The dictionary is the 'pathology of conservatism'. That's fairly desperate on your part, dontchya thnk?

Sorry hon. There have been plenty of so-called 'leaders' on both sides of the political spectrum that haven't been held accountable for their actions. The fact that you disagree, simply reveals the 'pathology of liberalism'.

First, I disagree with the notion that Rush is not a "leader", although his leadership qualities are sixth rate at best. He regularly violates every one of the 21 Laws of Leadership.

He plays fast and loose with the truth, is dismissive of those who disagree with him, harangues and criticizes in a mean-spirited way and has about the biggest ego I've ever seen. And yes, accountability is a crucial tenet of leadership, which should come as no surprise, because accountability is a crucial tenet to success in life as well. Success in life is a virtual impossibility without feedback of our performance and accountability of our actions.

The fact is, there is no question Rush has listeners, but that isn't the same as followers. However, it's a pretty safe assumption that many of his listeners also follow his guidance, so he is by definition a "leader". A piss-poor leader to be sure, but a leader nonetheless.

There have been plenty of so-called 'leaders' on both sides of the political spectrum that haven't been held accountable for their actions.

Just because there have been cases where leadership has not been held accountable does not mean they should not be held accountable. Pat, for what it's worth, it appears to me that you are too busy trying to appear the superior Conservative to fully think your argument through.

Azzix:

While I will say that Ann has her moments of mean rhetoric. I disagree with your assessment of Rush. Like many, I thought of him in such terms, taking the popular opinion of him into account.

Over the course of the last election, feeling completely vilified by the vitriol of the MSM toward republicans and conservatives, I sought out Rush for a break and relief. He is sardonic, often using irony to make his points, and he does NOT adhere to PC language.

Here is what I've learned he does believe in: 1. God 2. the USA as envisioned by the founders / the Constitution 3. the Individual

He is sardonic, often using irony to make his points, and he does NOT adhere to PC language.

These are qualities to be admired, and if Rush provides you entertainment, then he's doing his job. I don't have any truck with that part of his schtick. My problem with Rush is mainly that he's a professional @!$%#-disturber whose message is more important than anything else, including his integrity. A person of integrity recognizes and applauds these qualities in others, even political rivals.

Here is what I've learned he does believe in: 1. God 2. the USA as envisioned by the founders / the Constitution 3. the Individual

IMO he's got it bass-ackwards. To me, the order is 1) Self/God, 2) Country, 3) Church/Religion

Self/God, because we are inextricably linked and to try to artificially separate them in some list is to build a house on a failed foundation, and Country before religion because we as citizens have a duty to uphold our Constitution first, for without it nothing else would matter.

Sorry that you view my list as "in order of importance" as Rush would see it. I separated them in an effort to be succinct.

I agree that they are linked: Much like the Natural Rights of Life/Liberty/Property. Take one away and the others fail.

@!$%#-disturber-- My imagination may be failing me, but I'm seeing this as "Poo"-disturber?

Rush uses newspaper articles, news commentary, etc. Then extrapolates from them "relevant/irrelevant" and gives his view on the given subject and on how it squares with his beliefs . . . balanced with human nature and historical precedent.

I have noticed a vast amount of disinformation regarding Rush. For instance, the "hope the Country fails" spin. This is not true, yet it is attributed to Rush. (You may recall Wanda "quoting" this at the Press Dinner?) Rush doesn't talk in sound-bites or slogans.

Rush believes that the policies that the president wishes to implement will lead to socialism. Rush believes socialism is bad for Liberty. And Rush hopes that anyone trying to remake America into a socialist state will fail, as that failure will preserve America.

I agree with his assessment. I want my country to persevere and prosper.

I have noticed a vast amount of disinformation regarding Rush. For instance, the "hope the Country fails" spin. This is not true, yet it is attributed to Rush.

It is absolutely true; I heard the words he spoke. He claimed the President is attempting to turn our country into a socialist state and that he hopes that effort fails. But he's either an idiot or a very clever liar, because any honest person knows that nothing Obama has done even remotely resembles true socialism.

So what is your average integrity-loving person supposed to think when someone claims so-in-so is doing such-and-such when they can clearly see that is untrue, and further, they hope they fail at that thing they are clearly not doing?

He, or his dittoheads, have no concept of what "socialism" is, and couldn't identify it if it bit them in the ass. He is free-associating a boogeyman from our Cold War past (A Communist boogeyman, btw) in an attempt to demonize policies we've had in place since FDR and Johnson's Great Society. Very successful, popular policies, I might add.

so⋅cial⋅ism

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

He has taken his dittoheads down the slippery slope fallacy from hell. He is somehow intimating that providing health care for Americans will result in state control of factories. He is somehow claiming that by taking an ownership position in GM, they will wake up next week with UnkaSam in control of all the factories.

I want my country to persevere and prosper.

Here's an exercise: walk up to 100 random Americans and see if any of them don't want their country to persevere and prosper. I'm absolutely convinced that Obama wants that as well.

Rush, like all of us, makes a decision first, and then attempts to find data to back it up. There's nothing wrong with that. Dishonesty pops into the equation when you deliberately ignore, undermine or belittle evidence to the contrary. Dishonesty is refusing to change your position when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Tell me, when was the last time Rush admitted being wrong about something substantive?

Well, that's where we disagree. Control over the private sector is exactly what he's exacting. By multiple means, hook or crook.

If you heard Rush speak his words, then you weren't listening. Again, the president is not the country, if a given president wants to do things that are bad for the country, that president should fail, that is GOOD for the country.

I've heard Rush say "okay folks, I guess I was wrong." But not really often, since he has an uncanny ability to nail an issue right on the mark.

Here's an exercise: walk up to 100 random Americans and see if any of them don't want their country to persevere and prosper. I'm absolutely convinced that Obama wants that as well.

Yep, and many of us believe that the president is in error as to the means to the end. Whether by design or ignorance. Government take-over is not the the means to Liberty.

Control over the private sector is exactly what he's exacting. By multiple means, hook or crook.

So you're saying that he's got some hidden agenda to take over the private sector? You do realize if that's the case, then President Bush must also be in on the plan, since he's the one that setup the circumstances that made Obama's actions politically possible?

Again, the president is not the country, if a given president wants to do things that are bad for the country, that president should fail, that is GOOD for the country.

Of course the President is not the country. That's beside the point. The point is that when the President fails, Americans die, lose jobs & homes, pay higher taxes, etc. When he fails, we ALL suffer.

If you've got some evidence he's frying and eating babies or plans to launch a military coup d'etat and tear up the Constitution, by all means, I'll join you in working for failure. Until then, not so much.

Yep, and many of us believe that the president is in error as to the means to the end. Whether by design or ignorance. Government take-over is not the the means to Liberty.

Believe what you like. I believed Bush was a walking trainwreck, but I never wished for him to fail. That's not the way a Democracy works. You don't get to take your ball and go home because your guy didn't win. You take a seat for the next four years and work to get your guy in the next time around.

I am well aware of president Bush's failures, president Obama doesn't get a pass from me just because someone else was wrong first.

We are at an impasse, I fear. I don't see success and failure in the same way. Bush "succeeded" in pushing TARP, which is bad for us, had he failed to push TARP, that would have been good for us. Same, same BO.

And we will be paying higher taxes, in various forms.

We are a Republic. And yes, voters speaking out against BAD policy is EXACTLY how our system is set up to work.

You don't get to take your ball and go home because your guy didn't win.

Since we are a Republic, yes, if I wanted to, I could indeed take my ball and go home, provided I trusted those elected to represent my POV.

You take a seat for the next four years and work to get your guy in the next time around.

Excuse me? Is this a contradiction to the sentence ahead of it? Did you make an error? Or are you actually telling me not to engage in the issues that affect my life?

I am well aware of president Bush's failures, president Obama doesn't get a pass from me just because someone else was wrong first.

I have not claimed that two wrongs make a right; that because Bush screwed up Obama should get a pass if he screws up.

I simply pointed out that for your theory of "Obama is using current events to deliberately take over industry and implement socialism" to be plausible, Bush's actions at screwing everything up would have had to be a part of the plan.

We are at an impasse, I fear. I don't see success and failure in the same way. Bush "succeeded" in pushing TARP, which is bad for us, had he failed to push TARP, that would have been good for us. Same, same BO.

You are somehow looking down the road not traveled and describing what never happened? For all we know, without TARP the whole system would've collapsed -- that was the story they sold TARP to the Congress and public with, after all.

Maybe they were right, maybe they weren't. That is what I mean when I said "taking a seat". At the time, Bush was driving; now Obama is. You absolutly can and should offer your voice and ideas as you see things -- that's what makes this a Republic work. In the end though, whoever is driving is going to decide if we're turning left or turning right, any they will (or at least, should) be held accountable for their decisions.

And we will be paying higher taxes, in various forms.

Yep. It sucks. No doubt about it. The next couple of generations will be stuck paying down a massive debt. There's nothing to be done about that, although I'm very angry about it. The best we can do is learn a lesson or two from the experience ("don't elect an idiot to the White House because 'he's a guy you could have a beer with'" perhaps?)

Since we are a Republic, yes, if I wanted to, I could indeed take my ball and go home, provided I trusted those elected to represent my POV.

Sure, you could. Or you could suck it up and do your best to contribute to your country, even if you don't like the guy who's in charge (like many of us did for the last eight years). My country is far more important to me than the guy who happens to be in charge of it at the moment.

Excuse me? Is this a contradiction to the sentence ahead of it? Did you make an error? Or are you actually telling me not to engage in the issues that affect my life?

See previous explanation. No, I'm not saying don't engage. Absolutely engage. Do your best. Just know that in the end the final decisions belong to someone else.

Just know that in the end the final decisions belong to someone else.

Well, that is a problem. One that I hope, with my voice, and the voices that may join with mine, we'll be able to avert. There are reports that the BO admin engage in poll taking to some high extent. Some have even speculated that those polls may have helped in the decision to not release the photos of EIT.

Sigh.

There are reports that the BO admin engage in poll taking to some high extent. Some have even speculated that those polls may have helped in the decision to not release the photos of EIT.

I have no problem with polictians asking their constituents what they think about various issues. IMO it's a good thing when they poll. (honestly, as opposed to push polling)

Maybe, if sound. Really depends on the profile of the people they are reaching out to, though, don't you think?

It is kinda sad too, since our fellows in DC are supposed to be taking the measure of the people they represent.

Actually Scotty, she didn't. In #5.17 I conclusively show she's lying about several important facts in the issue, and that she's building her entire argument on a logical fallacy.

If you'd like to rebut those assertions, by all means, please do.

Sorry, Azzix, but I don't see that you or anybody else has shown that Coulter is lying, conclusively or otherwise.

You seem to have missed the whole point of Coulter's Japanese waterboarding point. (By incomprehension or by design, I do not know.) The word "waterboard" has been defined differently since WWII and today. Back when the Japanese used it, it was severe and fell within definition of torture by today's standards.

But by today's standards, the procedures carried out by our military on the unlawful combatants was not legally defined as torture. And that's a fact you seem to have missed.

The point, my friend, is that war is hell and we are at war with radical Islam whether we like it or not. They declared war on us back in the 1980s. You and people like you and this liberal Congress and radical-liberal president are making America less safe in a hostile war.

I hope this helps you understand.

Sorry, Azzix, but I don't see that you or anybody else has shown that Coulter is lying, conclusively or otherwise.

When she claims Jonathan Turley said something he did in fact, not say, something that is easily checked, she is a liar. When she claims Senator Kennedy said something that he did not, in fact say, something also easily checked, she is a liar.

When she withholds important information about a witness' credibility and instead claims "she is a professor of cooking", she tells a lie of omission.

When she claims the torture allegations were simply a fabrication of some major news outlets that was passed around until people believed it and conveniently leaves out the testimony of a Republican Senator who knows a lot about the subject, she tells a whopper of a lie.

I have to say, you have some very high standards for lying!

You seem to have missed the whole point of Coulter's Japanese waterboarding point. (By incomprehension or by design, I do not know.) The word "waterboard" has been defined differently since WWII and today. Back when the Japanese used it, it was severe and fell within definition of torture by today's standards.

But by today's standards, the procedures carried out by our military on the unlawful combatants was not legally defined as torture. And that's a fact you seem to have missed.

What huh? Are you saying that the waterboarding used then was somehow worse than the waterboarding used now? Do they put fruit flavoring into the water now to make it more tasty? Perhaps you are saying we're just more barbaric today and think something that was torture then is no longer torture?

Please, provide some kind of citation that supports your ridiculous assertion that somehow we've changed the standard of what constitutes torture between then and now to make this more permissable.

The point, my friend, is that war is hell and we are at war with radical Islam whether we like it or not

Actually, that is not the point. No matter who we are at war with: Nazis, Japanese, Islamic Extremists or purple space aliens, the Constitution applies, and the 8th Amendment plainly prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Do you wish to claim that waterboarding is a usual practice within our prisons?

Ann knows this as well; she knows that whatever the Japanese did is irrelevant. They didn't have our laws. She is comparing apples to origami.

In summary:

A) I show conclusively she lied at least four times.
B) There is no "changing standard" of torture that would make what was once torture not toture.
C) What the Japanese or anyone else did is irrelevant to what our government may do under our Constitution.

Scotty,

It seems pretty clear that my words unsettled you (have a look at what cognitive psychology says about repeated use of somebody's name -- you used mine eight times); I'm sorry that I've forced to reconsider your positions and that made you upset. I will not take the same dismissive, condescending tone you have taken, however.

The use of that self-superior tone in this thread against others who were only trying to make their voices heard was what got me going in this thread at all. Normally I avoid commenting on people like Rush and Coulter; responses like yours are exactly the reason why. Forcing people to re-evaluate their beliefs often brings out the worst in us.

If it's any comfort, the truth is very often unsettling when it contradicts your current belief systems, but it very quickly becomes comfortable. After all, it's the truth.

If fact, I'm only going to rebut one thing, since the rest of your post is made up of statements of opinion. The statutory description of waterboarding you supplied is fact. There is only one small problem with your use of it to support your position: it directly contradicts your position. Waterboarding exactly fits the definition that you yourself included.

Be well.

And to think I was only trying to be friendly in using your name. That you would try to turn that into a weapon against me hurts me deeply, Azzix.

You have an unusual definition of friendly, in that you insult and dismiss me throughout your post. If that's you trying to be friendly, I don't wish to ever see you unfriendly.

I'm afraid you're confusing me again, Azzix. How does it directly contradict my position?

I should have hoped it would be as self-evident to you as it was to me. Let's look at your definition:

Section 2340 of the federal criminal code defines it as a government act “specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering”

Now then, is it your position that waterboarding does not involve physical or mental pain and suffering?

Azzix.

It strikes me as odd that while a moment ago you were bemoaning the absence of documentation and cited facts coming from Coulter, when I point you to Andrew McCarthy's excellent article on the subject containing all sorts of documentation, you don't seem to have read them.

So I'll just conveniently paste the pertinant graphs here for you;

With respect to mental pain or suffering, Section 2340 does tell us that severe “means prolonged mental harm” (emphasis added). It also provides examples of the type of prolonged behavior that is prohibited: inflicting or threatening to inflict severe pain or suffering; using or threatening to use mind-altering drugs; threatening imminent death; or threatening that a third person (say, a family member) of the victim will be subjected to equivalent cruelties.

SO IS WATERBOARDING TORTURE?
Again, we do not know the details of waterboarding as practiced (if, as reported, it is or has been practiced) by the CIA. Yet, we know generally that waterboarding is very rough stuff. It is not especially painful physically and causes no lasting bodily injury; yet, it is intended to create the sensation of drowning in a person who is bound and temporarily suffocated. Administered by someone who knows what he is doing, there is presumably no actual threat of drowning or suffocation; for the victim, though, there is clearly fear of imminent death and he could pass out from the deprivation of oxygen.

The sensation is temporary, not prolonged. There shouldn’t be much debate that subjecting someone to it repeatedly would cause the type of mental anguish required for torture. But what about doing it once, twice, or some number of instances that were not prolonged or extensive?

Reasonable minds can and do differ on this. Personally, I don’t believe it qualifies. It is not in the nature of the barbarous sadism universally condemned as torture, an ignominy the law, as we’ve seen, has been patently careful not to trivialize or conflate with lesser evils. The Washington Post and Sen. Edward Kennedy have pointed to a World War II era war crimes prosecution by the U.S. against a Japanese soldier who used what was described as “water torture” on an American civilian. But they’ve failed to note that this was far from the only conduct at issue; the soldier was also charged with having engaged, over a sustained period of time, in “beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; … burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward.” The case hardly stands for the proposition that isolated instances of waterboarding would be torture.

Moreover, American military and intelligence services reportedly use (or, at least, have used) waterboarding in their counter-interrogation training programs. Congress carved no exception into torture law for such exercises. Consequently, a conclusion that waterboarding is torture would be tantamount to a finding that our own services are committing a heinous felony, the equivalent of a war crime, against our own operatives — something I believe it is fair to say Congress cannot possibly have intended.

Here is the URL for you once more in case you would like to explore his hyperlinks embeded within the text.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjhkM2YyZmE5MThjZGNlN2IyMGI4MmE3MWM1OWQ5MjA=&w=MQ==

To sum up the money part of McCarthy's analysis, since the U.S. military uses waterboarding in the training of our own solders and the Congress has made no provision or rewrite of the description of torture, and since we know that the U.S. military is not guilty of torturing our own soldiers, then waterboarding cannot be torture.

Azzix, why is it that I get the feeling that if the Bush Administration were extracting confessions from terrorists by forcing them to watch MSNBC, you would call that torture and you would be calling Coulter "Miss Irrelevancy"?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

when I point you to Andrew McCarthy's excellent article on the subject containing all sorts of documentation, you don't seem to have read them.

I'll happily admit I didn't read the article. I took the statutory definition of torture, which we both agree is the only relevant measure, aside from the 8th Amendment to our Constitution, which is also factual law.

Now then, you didn't answer my question:

Now then, is it your position that waterboarding does not involve physical or mental pain and suffering?

I wonder why that is? It's your definition, and yet when I point out that Waterboarding meets that definition you seem to want to ignore it when it becomes inconvenient.

With respect to mental pain or suffering, Section 2340 does tell us that severe “means prolonged mental harm” (emphasis added).

Is it also your position that the 80 some-odd times we "dipped" KSM does not fit the definition of "prolonged"?

It also provides examples of the type of prolonged behavior that is prohibited: inflicting or threatening to inflict severe pain or suffering; using or threatening to use mind-altering drugs; threatening imminent death;

So the threat of imminent death also qualifies then. Ok, let's copy and paste directy from your post:

for the victim, though, there is clearly fear of imminent death and he could pass out from the deprivation of oxygen.

So, according to the victim, there is a threat of imminent death! Andrew McCarthy's logic is that of a three year old, it's almost satire.

But what about doing it once, twice, or some number of instances that were not prolonged or extensive?

How about 263 times over the course of a month? That would seem to be both "prolonged" AND "extensive".

To sum up the money part of McCarthy's analysis, since the U.S. military uses waterboarding in the training of our own solders and the Congress has made no provision or rewrite of the description of torture, and since we know that the U.S. military is not guilty of torturing our own soldiers, then waterboarding cannot be torture.

This is a logical fallacy known as "affirming the consequent". Apparently Mr. McCarthy needs to bone up on his debating skills; logical fallacies are about the quickest way to forfeit a point there is.

I realize that the level of torture practiced by the US is no way approaches that used by the Japanese or other countries around the world (the reason it's used in SERE training BTW), but that is no excuse for our use of it.

In the end, there is a very clear standard written into our 8th Amerndment: no cruel or unusual punishment. Long established Supreme Court decisions have shown this applies to everyone, not just US Citizens. The government can not administer cruel and unusual punishment to anyone, period, full stop.

Azzix.

I thought I'd answered your question clearly enough by citing McCarthy's findings. But since it's not coming through to you, I'll spell it out.

NO, waterboarding is not torture. The laws were scrutinized closely to learn how far they could go before it is defined as torture. They went up to that line and not over that line and they got the information needed to protect hundreds of thousands of American lives.

A recent poll shows that a great number of Americans agree with this line of thinking in order to keep America safe. No terroristic attacks were successful on American soil during the Bush Administration since 9/11.

Azzix, you are a panzy. The Democrat Party is making America less safe with all your fretting over offenses against evil terrorists. I pray that America is never hit by a terrorist attack again. But if she is, it will be the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress led by Nancy Pelosi who are answerable to its success...all due to your attempt to bring our country's defenses down and incriminate American officials for protecting our lives and homeland.

You want to know what torture is, Azzix? Torture is being trapped in a burning inferno of glass and steel with the stench of jet fuel in your nostrals and then jumping to your death 50 storeys below.

This is a logical fallacy known as liberalism.

So I ask you simple yes/no questions, and you respond by "you're a panzy"?

I'm sorry if the logic isn't coming out the way you want it to emotionally, but the truth is right there, even if you refuse to acknowledge it. The truth doesn't change just because you call me names. The sooner you accept this, the sooner you'll get through your grieving process.

• Does waterboarding involve physical pain and suffering? If so, it's torture by your own admission.
• Does waterboarding 263 times over the course of a month fit the definition of "prolonged"? If so, it's torture by your own admission.
• You already admitted that it gives victims the impression of their own imminent death, so therefore it's torture by your own admission.

You may as well be arguing that water is dry or sunlight is cold.

The Democrat Party is making America less safe with all your fretting over offenses against evil terrorists.

You know, we lose more people in traffic accidents every single year than all of the terror incidents in the world, ever, combined? Yet, you're willing to shred a sacred document that has kept us prosperous for 232 years because of something that's happened ~3 times on American soil, ever? And you call me a panzy?

But if she is, it will be the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress led by Nancy Pelosi who are answerable to its success

So then, I assume you have held the Bush Administration responsible for the terrorist's success on 9/11? If not, you are a hypocrite.

This is a logical fallacy known as liberalism.

To quote PatN from #5.9, is this the conservative equivalent of 'nanner-nanner-boo-boo'?

Azzix.

You can plug your ears with your index fingers and jabber "I don't hear you. I don't hear you. La la la la la la." all you want while you maintain that waterboarding is torture.

Andrew McCarthy has made the case that it is not, or at the very least, that we do not know.

I call you a pansy, not as an insult, Azzox, but rather as an observation. I doubt you're a traitor or unAmerican. You're just eager to blame America first because you're a wus who can't stand it when a blonde woman like Ann Coulter is right and kicks liberal ass all up and down the street.

I call you a pansy, not as an insult, Azzox, but rather as an observation.

Here's an observation: you have once again failed to answer simple yes/no questions. We both know it's because the answer will prove you wrong, but it's instructive nonetheless to see you dance around trying to change the subject, yet again.

Andrew McCarthy has made the case that it is not, or at the very least, that we do not know.

Then get him to answer the yes or no questions. You obviously won't.

First, I'm not a liberal. You'd know that if you read the posts earlier in this seed.

NO, waterboarding is not torture. That's the second time I've directly answered your question.

Your opinion is that isn't torture. I get that. However, the facts disagree with your opinion. Simply answer the yes/no questions above if you're so sure of your correctness. The fact that you have avoided it like the plague should tell you just how illogical you're being. Once again I've asked you to answer the simple yes/no questions, and once again you've changed the subject. That should tell you something Scotty.

I've engaged in "discussion" with hard-left liberals like you before and it never matters how much proof and documentation is put before your ilk. You never get it.

Says the guy who won't answer simple yes/no questions.

• Does waterboarding involve physical pain and suffering? If so, it's torture by your own admission.
• Does waterboarding 263 times over the course of a month fit the definition of "prolonged"? If so, it's torture by your own admission.
• You already admitted that it gives victims the impression of their own imminent death, so therefore it's torture by your own admission.

It's f'ing hilarious to watch the contortions you'll go through in order to avoid doing the honorable thing and just plain admitting your wrong. It's not difficult; you won't die.

NO, it does not. Not to the degree that torture is defined.

See, that's the nice thing about the definition you yourself supplied. It doesn't have a degree of pain and suffering. Since pain is a subjective thing, it's impossible to measure it anyway. Even a tiny bit would suffice to meet your definition. YOUR DEFINITION. YOU SUPPLIED IT, REMEMBER?

NO, it does not, legally.

Are you joking? Since you claim there is some kind of definition of "prolonged" that is different from the dictionary definition, please provide your citation. Don't bother with law.com or Groklaw, it's not there.

As everyone knows, the legal system can be used to get bad guys off the hook. Ever hear of a guy named O.J. Simpson?

Wow, that's a nice little dance around the fire of truth. Instead of facing up to the quote

You already admitted that it gives victims the impression of their own imminent death, so therefore it's torture by your own admission.

...you simply change the subject to OJ Simpson!!

You would use the legal system in collusion with our enemies' designs to exploit that legal system.

It has nothing to do with our enemies. It has to do with our leaders. If they would've followed the law instead of doing what was convenient, we wouldn't have the problem of prosecuting these terrorists we have.

Our leaders did what terrorists could never do with a thousand 9/11s: shred our Constitution.

But there's wiggle room in legal systems when the bad guys do not follow the Geneva Convention, wear no uniforms, have no national identity for which they operate, sneak onto commercial jets with box cutters, murder civilians. The list goes on.

Actually, no. That's the whole point of a legal system. Guys who have no uniforms are just another perp. We have lots of 'em in our jails. Everyone gets the same treatment regardless. I'm sorry you don't understand that. Manson got the same treatment as any other murderer even though his crimes were horrendous. McVeigh got the same treatment as everyone else even though his crime was notorious. There is no place for emotion or revenge in our legal system.

I've already wasted more than all the time I should on a deaf person such as yourself who doesn't hear myself and Andrew McCarthy

Is Andrew McCarthy your boyfriend or something? The way you stick up for him it sounds like it.

I won't bother to continue this thread any longer.

Spoken like someone who has run out of ways to change the subject and defend opinion in the face of fact. Since I have the facts on my side, I can do this forever. Since you supplied the definition of torture, you can't wriggle out of it. You've tried to change the subject again and again, but that doesn't work with someone who has two brain cells to rub together. You're stuck. Your only options are to honorably concede or weasel out of the debate.

Have a nice day weasel.