Guantanamo

Arguing with a liberal is like arguing with your eleven year old after he’s been told to put the Game Boy away because homework isn’t finished yet.

I’m almost done.

No, put it away right now.

But Daddy, this level is almost   You take the toy away because it was already his third warning and now eleven year old boy is attitude boy.  (Just the way  a liberal cops an attitude  when his  arguments fall apart.    Too bad we can’t give them a spank.    “Bad liberal, bad liberal.    You lie one more time little liberal and I’m going to have to wash your mouth out with soap!”)

Back to  eleven year old, You’re so mean, that level is hard

Shut up and do your homework or this sucker is going in the trash, and don’t you dare stop pouting, I want to see that miserable look stuck to your face for the rest of the evening!

A liberal’s idea of countering a debate is telling you you’re an ass or a liar, or a meanie, and never acknowledging or rebutting any points or facts with intellectually understandable arguments.   Come to think of it, my eleven year old arguing for Game Boy makes a little more sense than a liberal.

While conservatives chide liberals for their willingness to supplant intent and goals in the U.S. Constitution, almost uniformly their response to these assertions is, What about Guantanamo!   Invariably followed by, George Bush is a Nazi!

If you want a real good example of the liberal debating technique, just watch Hannity and Colmes on Fox one evening.   Hannity or some conservative guest will site a fact like heat rises and Alan Colmes will say, No it doesn’t, no it doesn’t, not if it’s hotter up there than it is down here.

Ostensibly, George W. Bush has superseded the Constitution of the United States by holding military detainees at the Guantanamo Bay military facility.   Now, the obstreperous and incessant harangue from the left to release these prisoners and to abandon the base back to Cuba is deafening.   According to the lefties, Guantanamo has no strategic purpose.

Strategic purposes are important too!   Jimmy Carter gave away the Panama Canal that America built and had sovereignty over because that minor gateway from Pacific to Atlantic has ceased to have strategic purpose idiot.  

To understand the liberal thought process you must imagine you are the strongest and brightest member of a group, only to find your goal as a member of this group is to become the weakest and the dumbest.   To earn your popularity you need to do stupid things and excoriate your own accomplishments.   If you do something really debauched like cut off your own limb on a stage in front of people and call it artistic expression, then you go straight to the head of the class.

Liberal political policy extends this psychotic theme to empowering our enemies and demolishing our  military and our economic supremacy, because it is precisely this supremacy which makes us vulnerable.   Go figure, the weaker we get, the safer we’ll be.   (Check out Column #47 Dear Hugo Chavez,)  

The U.S. Constitution has limited jurisdiction over aliens in American custody out of the country; a good reason to keep Guantanamo.

Even if detractors don’t want to acknowledge that little caveat, they should at least read the Fifth Amendment, the one they are all bent out of shape about due process:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

One little clause might get your attention even if your IQ hovers right around that of the turnip, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger

This concept might be tough for the turnip heads to wrap their little brains around, but the Founders deliberately gave the Commander in Chief expanded powers over members of the military, and especially in times of war or public danger.   Even if Congress didn’t declare war because of policy dispute or political squabbling the Founders still wanted the President to have the authority and powers necessary to protect the American people, hence the open term public danger .

Libs can’t stand that a Republican could have such authority, and so their tendency to interpret that damn living document.   Of course it must be interpreted because if a Democrat becomes president again, it needs to be reinterpreted.

Guantanamo Bay was first inhabited by U.S. Forces in 1898 during the Spanish-American war.   Cuba and the United States signed an agreement in 1904 to give the U.S. sovereignty over an area of approximately 45 square miles as long as it was used for coal mining and naval operations.   In 1934, a newer agreement was signed where explanation was included to secure the agreement without change, unless both parties (the U.S. and Cuba) agreed to such change.   To Castro’s dismay, such agreement has never occurred and will not as long as the United States Presidency is occupied by a bright and strong leader.

With Barack Obama on the horizon for the Democrats who likes Cuba’s form of government better than ours, and John McCain exhibiting dismay over operations at the facility, it probably won’t be long before the United States of America gives up another asset valuable and important to our national security.

 

 

Copyright 2008 Jim Pontillo    

60 thoughts on “Guantanamo

  1. my roomates tell me i annoy them becuase i argue like a conservative and i sau “so does that mean it annoys you that i use facts and dont cry half way through an arguement” when will hippies learn

  2. I’m neither liberal nor am I conservative. In different groups and at different times I have been labeled both. I have debated various flora and won. Still, I can hardly agree that Gitmo is “valuable and important to our national security”. Your only quasi-valid argument for preserving the base as a detention facility is: “The U.S. Constitution has limited jurisdiction over aliens in American custody out of the country; a good reason to keep Guantanamo.” This makes some sense. If we need an end-run around our legal system at home we can use a detention facility in another land. I agree that there could be a good reason for this in some cases. However, your very assertion seems to negate your argument about the 5th amendment. You don’t seem to be quite sure that “except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger” actually refers to those serving in other countries…and for good reason.
    Our own leaders feared that other countries would apply the same tactics to American soldiers and, thus, made us signatories of the Geneva Conventions. I know, I know….”here comes the liberal brainwash” you are thinking. Well, soldiers who have served since WWII were rather thankful for the protections they enjoyed and the red-cross packages they received. Many of those who did not receive that care were never able to return home. It is not the place of anyone, individual or state, to expect a level of respect or due care and not return it in kind. We signed and we are obliged, for the greater good, to do our utmost to follow through. I’m not saying that we should not have taken prisoners there at all, but it appears that our methods were careless and inefficient. We used a massive dragnet and refused to throw back the “undersized” catch. Kangaroo courts, abuse, torture , and no or, worse yet, mis-representation put a tarnish on the endeavor. The hero of democracy?

  3. As an aside:

    I had to force myself to respond to this blog simply because, honestly, it doesn’t come across as intelligent. For all the weaknesses of rabid liberals in the debating style, dogged conservatives appear to have an awful lot of bile to spew. None of it is intelligent. The author’s reproachable reliance upon ad hominem and straw man arguments is a sign of limited argumentative skills. The few good points that he made are lost in the shadow of his contempt. This blog seems to be more about emotional chest pounding than it is about intellectual stimulation.

    “The dog doesn’t bite the mailman because he likes to bite, but because he has no intelligent means of asking him to leave.” -me

  4. With regards to your initial example… I’ve found that children always respond to a combination of tolerance, understanding, and a clearly stated explanation for why things ought to be the way they ought to be, more than baseless discipline (baseless, because they’re children; they’re relying on you to teach them why things work the way they do). If the kid’s biggest goal for the day is to beat that really hard level, and there’s no reason his homework can’t wait for five more minutes that he’s aware of, of course he’ll be upset; this is natural. Here, however, your analogy falls apart; the difference between this child, and “The Liberal,” is that “The Liberal” is basing his statements on his own built-up beliefs, which you are just as stubbornly refusing to listen to as he is with regards to yours. You’re acting like he is a child, i.e. doesn’t know anything, because his views differ from yours.

  5. Your website displays a quote from Alexander Hamilton regarding the fact that a Constitution, because it must be permanent and, yet, cannot account for possible changes in circumstances in times to come, must make ‘provisions’ as opposed to ‘guarantees.’ This argument would seem to actually uphold the liberal viewpoint that the right to bear arms needs adjustment, due to the fact that since the time of Alexander Hamilton we’ve gone from black-powder single-shots taking a minute or more to load to automatic weapons that can kill dozens of people in seconds, and that these as well as other advanced weapons (flamethrowers, high explosives, and so forth) can be obtained by those who want to obtain them, in the end. Indeed, the founding fathers were truly liberals; you uphold your condescension towards liberals today by creating a fictional “socialist agenda” separation between the founding fathers and them. If founding liberals were so great compared to ones now, why do you call yourself a conservative, and not a ‘liberal in the founding tradition’ or some such thing?

  6. Nicholas Oefinger,

    Lou’s terrific accolades for my debating prowess aside—

    You read my column #54. That piece didn’t explain contemporary conservative thought clearly? The modern day conservative inclination is to insure freedom and liberty shall not be prostituted in trade for government largesse (i.e. health care, social security, etc.)

    Contemporary liberalism tries to stake out refuge with the Founders and suggest they would do all the things liberals want to do to today and take care of everyone. Where is the evidence?

    Benjamin Franklin stated he would consider it quite harsh that his government would demand a whole ten percent of his time in service to the state. (He was suggesting a 10% tax would be quite harsh indeed.)

    As for the right to bear arms—Australia recently confiscated all arms from the citizenry and crime has sky-rocketed.

    The argument that technological advancement should trump Constitutional freedoms is ridiculous. Criminals have guns. The State has guns. Take guns away from the people and how do they defend themselves?

    Hitler, Mao, and Stalin thought it was a great idea too.

    Your fascist and communist credentials seem strong!

  7. Lou,

    Go ahead and watch Hannity and Colmes and honestly tell me that Colmes (not that Hannity is always so impressive) engages arguments intellectually, and doesn’t just disagree with everything every conservative says.

    If you can successfully manage that, then I’ll concede your point that I use “Ad Hominem” and “Straw Man” arguments.

    The problem is liberal arguments ARE consistently emotional and plagued by “Ad Hominem and Straw Man” attacks.

    Ask a liberal why he wants to raise taxes?

    Liberal: “To get the rich cheaters! It’s not fair…blah, blah, blah.”

    Yeah, but when you do that the rich cheaters change their behavior and figure out other ways to get their income causing more of the total tax liability to shift to the poor and middle class.

    Liberal: ??????????????????????????

    Ask a liberal how market forces are going to help keep health care costs down when the government controls it all?

    Liberal: They will mandate it?

    Yeah, what government program has done better than the private enterprise at anything?

    Liberal: ??????????????????????????

    Ad Hominem and Straw Man attacks—my ass.

    The truth is my examples have not been ridiculous enough to portray liberals the way they really are. I’ve given them way too much credit.

  8. Gitmo is an ideal site for holding ‘political’ prisoners. It alleviates the burden of the ordinary US citizen to admit, when questioned, whether or not they knew exactly what was going on ‘up the road’ should the whole exercise be unfavorably exposed. These would compare with the questions asked by the 101st Airborne of German citizens during WWII who lived within ‘sniffing’ distance of Auchswitz, and who declared “I had no idea” As to visiting ‘rights’, can anyone tells me which Greyhound stops near the front door? Does the staff-vacancies board really stipulate only ‘Ku Klux Klan members need apply’ ?

  9. “If you can successfully manage that, then I’ll concede your point that I use “Ad Hominem” and “Straw Man” arguments.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/strawman

    One man’s stupidity does not indict every liberal. Your argument sets up Colmes as the defender of liberalism, and states that all liberals are stupid by association.

    “Ask a liberal why he wants to raise taxes?”

    As I and others have said here before, many times, an increased social safety net and welfare state require higher taxes. We have never said that it’s “To get the rich cheaters! It’s not fair…blah, blah, blah.” I have argued rationally and provided evidence of welfare states with high taxes that are more successful than America. Who is this imaginary liberal who represents every liberal’s desire to punish wealthy people?

    “Ask a liberal how market forces are going to help keep health care costs down when the government controls it all?”

    Many liberals do not believe in the power of laissez-faire to fix all of life’s problems, and would not care how market forces would affect Universal Healthcare. And if you look at the facts, UHC costs less than private, market care anyway.

    Then you end your rebuttal with an ad hominem attack calling liberals ridiculous: “The truth is my examples have not been ridiculous enough to portray liberals the way they really are. I’ve given them way too much credit.”

    You also took Lou’s argument that assault weapons cause far more chaos and damage than the second amendment intended, and twisted it into an argument for fascism:
    “Take guns away from the people and how do they defend themselves?

    Hitler, Mao, and Stalin thought it was a great idea too.

    Your fascist and communist credentials seem strong!” A strawman and ad hominem attack in one.

  10. More ad hominems:

    “A liberal’s idea of countering a debate is telling you you’re an ass or a liar, or a meanie, and never acknowledging or rebutting any points or facts with intellectually understandable arguments. Come to think of it, my eleven year old arguing for Game Boy makes a little more sense than a liberal.”
    -Liberals are dumb children

    “To understand the liberal thought process you must imagine you are the strongest and brightest member of a group, only to find your goal as a member of this group is to become the weakest and the dumbest. To earn your popularity you need to do stupid things and excoriate your own accomplishments. If you do something really debauched like cut off your own limb on a stage in front of people and call it artistic expression, then you go straight to the head of the class.”
    -Liberals are super dumb, it’s like a dumbness contest

    “Liberal political policy extends this psychotic theme to empowering our enemies”
    -Liberals are insane traitors

    “This concept might be tough for the turnip heads to wrap their little brains around”
    -Liberals have the IQ of a turnip

    “With Barack Obama on the horizon for the Democrats who likes Cuba’s form of government better than ours”
    -Barack Obama hates democracy and loves communism

  11. I’d say your parenting skills are about as good as your debating skills.

    You know, really, really, really bad.

  12. George Bush is the biggest tax collector in history, you must consider the deficit which is a TAX!!!!!! It taxes the value of the dollar.

  13. “I have argued rationally and provided evidence of welfare states with high taxes that are more successful than America.”

    What is your definition of more successful, Crumbunist?

    A country which possesses a weaker economy than the U.S. is more successful?

    A country which possesses a weaker military than the U.S. is more successful?

    A country which creates less technological innovation than the U.S. is more successful?

    A country which causes their citizens to flee to the U.S. for superior medical care is more successful?

    I guess I didn’t understand what more successful really meant.

    Game, Set, Match. You got me.

  14. One more thing Crumb,

    Tax increases decrease revenue into the government.

    How many stats do I need to show you?

    Raise taxes on the wealthy and the poor and middle class pay more of the total tax burden.

    Raise taxes on the wealthy and the poor and middle class pay more of the total tax burden.

    Raise taxes on the wealthy and the poor and middle class pay more of the total tax burden.

    You got it yet?

  15. A high GDP does not equal a wealthy public – look at Equatorial Guinea, with a GDP per capita of $50,200, but 30% unemployment and mass poverty.

    America spends more money on military than Iceland, Norway, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, Japan, The Netherlands, France, and Finland put together, many times over, and yet all of those countries rate ahead of the USA on the Human Development Index.

    Of course the core of the world economy, with the third-highest population in the world and 19% of growth world product will lead scientific growth. Who said otherwise?

    As has been pointed out, many times, though a handful of people under UHC go to the US because they can afford treatment, many more Americans are unable to pay the bill for their private care. Which would be the more successful system, the one that fails the people en masse, or the one that fails a few hundred people?

    Success isn’t measured by who has the bigger dick. If the people are the state, then the state only succeeds when its people do.

  16. If high taxes are so bad, then why is Europe’s economy skyrocketing? What if it doesn’t matter what percentage of the taxes are paid by the middle class as long as the government has money and the workers aren’t forced into poverty by paying them?

  17. To start off much like Lou:
    I am neither a socialist or a conservative but I am an American Jew. All emotions aside the one thing this article and the following responses fails to mention are those who are innocent who are being tortured. Granted it is very tough as a Jew watching extremist Muslims attack my spiritual nation (Israel) every day to start giving a rats ass about extremist Muslims. Throw on top that these same extremists are killing my fellow countrymen while they defend a weak nation (Iraq). But I am one who believes in justice. It is not justice to persecute the innocent with the guilty. Though I cannot bring up facts or or incidents. With no court system to define if a person is guilty or innocent it is very possible if not entirely likely innocent people are being tortured right along with those who are guilty. Don’t get me wrong. The guilty ones at Guantanamo deserve everything they get and then some! But someone who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time and ends up on the wrong end of a water boarding table when the person has done nothing to merit that sort of treatment is injustice and it is down right wrong! That’s a tactic of Al-Queda and terrorists world-wide to kill and torture the innocent lives (9/11 for example). Thousands of my people (Israelis) have been tortured and killed by the PLO weather they did anything against the PLO or not. How can those advocating a war against terror use terroristic tactics? I’m fine with Guantanamo being a holding block for supposed terrorists but the “advanced interrogation techniques” should be held off from until guilt or innocence is proven in some kind of court. I do not fail to acknowledge that the President has the power to do what he has done but just because you can do something doesn’t necessarily make it right.

  18. Crumb,

    When do people succeed?

    Where in the world is opportunity better available than in the United States?

    If you believe setting arbitrary standards for wages (i.e. minimum wage), arbitrary programs for retirement (social security where the government has looted the funds for other use), and arbitrary methods of awarding things like education and government contracts (affirmative action), then I suppose you believe government defines what success is, and how much of it the people ought to have.

    Reality is, nobody in America stays poor if they exert the simple and responsible actions of maintaining a job and taking care of their family.

    We cannot reward bad decisions; discomfort is the reward for bad decisions and the motivator to avoid them in the future.

    The United States is unique in the world. Our culture celebrates individual excellence and rewards it.

    European culture, as in Asia, Russia, etc., elevates the State above the individual and empowers the State to make decisions for its people.

    The whole world is against the United States because that construction can never compete with a nation that allows its people to gain from their own innovations and efforts.

    You can site all the stupid studies you want (studies by Europeans or American liberals who want to subjugate America), but it won’t change the fact that the United States of America will continue to be the biggest “dick” on the planet until we destroy ourselves from within.

    Our liberals, working with European idiots and their stupid studies are doing the best they can to make that happen.

  19. Some Jew,

    Water Boarding has only been used three times since 2001.  (On three Al-Qaeda top officers, all in Guantanamo, now facing war crimes charges and possible execution for the 9/11 attacks.)

    Of the 775 detainees that were incarcerated there, 420 have been released. The rest are facing trials.

    I hardly think this represents “abuse of power” and “thwarts justice” as the media would have you believe.

  20. Comedian Ron White say’s he got kicked off the high school debating team because his comeback was “Oh Yeah – Well Then F*** YOU!).

    Just thought I’d interject that comic moment.

  21. Some Jew,

    As I recall, Bill O’Reilly interviewed the FBI agent responsible for getting the authorization to use waterboarding. He said it has only been used 3 times since 9/11. I believe it should be easy enough to verify if you are so inclined.

    The information about Guantanamo detainees is on Wikipedia.

  22. “If you believe setting arbitrary standards for wages (i.e. minimum wage), arbitrary programs for retirement (social security where the government has looted the funds for other use), and arbitrary methods of awarding things like education and government contracts (affirmative action), then I suppose you believe government defines what success is, and how much of it the people ought to have.”

    Another strawman. When did I ever argue in favour of any of these things? Social security is doomed because the population drawing on it is growing too fast [thanks, Baby Boomers], on top of which there are much better investments to make than SS. Affirmative Action can go against meritocracy and be a racist policy [not always]. Minimum wage is based on the cost of living in a certain region, and a full work week [but the cost of living varies from place to place, and employers like WalMart avoid paying benefits by employing everyone part-time].

    The United States is just as nepotistic as any other first-world nation. Want to get into politics? You had better be the son of a senator or heir to a fortune if you want to make it big these days. Every democratic, wealthy state shares the same value of merit, it’s just that highly developed welfare states try to take care of their people in order to make them more productive, and better exercise their skills.

    And that post is peppered with more ad hominem attacks.

  23. There are a few ways to measure success. There are tons of numbers and indexes out there to be used. I’ll use Norway and Canada, the two countries getting thrown around as welfare bonanzas the most, as well as the USA and Iceland, current top HDI country for comparison.

    Freedom of the Press (lower # is better)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders#Worldwide_press_freedom_index
    1. Iceland 0.75
    1. Norway 0.75
    18. Canada 4.88
    48. United States 14.50

    Corruption (higher # is better)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
    6. Iceland 9.2
    9. Canada 8.7
    9. Norway 8.7
    20. United States 7.2

    Privacy (higher # is better) (Norway and Iceland unlisted)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_International#PI_and_public_controversy
    1. Germany 3.9
    2. Canada 3.6
    30. United States 2.0
    34. Russia 1.4

    Poverty
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Poverty_Index#The_human_poverty_index_for_selected_OECD_countries_.28HPI-2.29

    Homicide Rate per 100,000 people
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate#2000s
    Iceland 1.03
    Norway 0.78
    Canada 1.85
    United States 5.9
    (the developed country closest to the US is Switzerland, 2.94)

    If the people are the state [they are] and the state succeeds when the people do, then a successful state would protect the rights and freedoms of its people, would work to lift its people out of poverty, and ensure the safety of their wellbeing. I am not and have never been arguing for the destruction of America, just that America’s way is not the only way, and in many cases it’s not the best way.

  24. I must say, after linking from Ann Coultier’s site to this… and admittedly only perusing it quickly… your definition of Liberalism in oppostion of Wickpedia’s (what do they know anyway! yeah!) is so bizarre and unfamiliar and foreign to how I think that I think this site should be called “formykuntry” instead. There. Now THAT’S an equaled appropriate comment for this site’s intelligence. ;>

  25. Crumb,

    You’ve got to slow down. You’ve got my spamometer spinning like a top, and I just don’t have time to moderate all your comments.

    I’ve been up since two this morning, and at the rate I’m going today, I’m going to be here until midnight!

  26. Guantanamo Bay was the final nail in the neoconservative ideology in America. How anybody can defend this abberation of democratic, enlightened western values is beyond me – and now thankfully beyond most sane voters. It will be up to the next President to pick up the pieces of America’s shattered world image as the greatest democracy in the world and begin to rebuild what is left of it.

    As for this piece it strikes me as being the last SOS of the good ship neocon, sinking helplessly in a sea of ideological contradictions and historical irrelevance.

  27. I wasn’t aware that I brought up the gun issue. Anyway, let it be known that I own three myself and believe it is my right to own them. On the other hand, I know a few people who share the same right and most definitely should not even own a water pistol. This is a perfect example of the american dilemma. We all believe we have certain rights and yet are uncomfortable allowing everyone else to have them.
    Conservatives deal with this by screaming for harsh, unrealistic punishments for abusers (more big government in my opinion) and liberals beg for bans and such (more big government). They are all shrill in my opinion. We need an intelligent, forward-looking approach to all of our inequalities, not blunt hammer-blows.

    Healthcare: The insurance industry has run the numbers and figured out how to make a ton O’ bucks by keeping up borderline healthy. Do we have the government take over completely or simply trust the free market? Liberals and conservatives whine over it and intelligent, even-keeled thinkers wonder why no one creates a system balancing the needs of all Americans. (no space to explain my answer here)

    Big Business: Lets be honest, the marketplace is not free. Big companies have the money to buy the breaks they no longer have the drive to work for. They sue small, hard-working competitors right out of business. They curry favor with Washington and, worst of al, they keep American consumers on a slow drip of quasi-prosperity, allowing advancements to come to market only when they have squeezed every penny they can out of the older technology. So should we use our government to keep them at bay (liberal) or sit by our stock ticker waiting for some “natural” force to regulate the market? (conservative)

    In my opinion there is no justice served by either approach. What we need is to regulate our elected officials to protect against favoritism, end the closed door meetings (energy “task force” anyone?), and use the governments resources to excite and reward innovation.

    That would be: we need “some” regulation and some free market.
    Instead, we could just call each other names and attack boogeymen we imagine are our enemies.

    Oh, by the way, Ann Coulter is a contemptuous harpy. She represents all that is wrong with our country and serves as a symbol for the decay of a great state. And Crumbunist was right, the stuff about watching Colmes was a bad strawman argument….again.

  28. Lou,

    My mistake. The gun thing was directed to Nicholas.

    As for big business, they love regulation; they are the ones with the politician’s ear, and the greenbacks for his pockets. They can deal with any regulation there is. Little guys like me can’t. You want to guarantee big business monopolizes the market, regulate away.

    An appreciation for Ann Coulter requires an elevated IQ, a good sense of humor, and a disdain for sanctimonious political correctness. I find her quite entertaining, and for all of her critics, there is no denying her debating skills are superior. Poor little Alan Colmes gets shredded into silence two or three times a week by the little blonde.

  29. Jim, Daddy, Jim, Daddy………..stop wasting your time with these bloggers and get home!

  30. I did my research as you suggested there Jim. And while not necessarily “water boarded” I guess some form of torture is going on at Guantanamo, or at least the American Red Cross says so. Being a former military man myself I can hardly label ARC as a liberal or conservative group. Not saying that it is true. To do so would not give my country a fair shot at explaining it’s “supposed” actions but regardless it still shows the possibility or likelihood of said things happening to innocent people.

    Just to reiterate: I don’t give a rats ass if you take a guilty terrorist and drive him ass first on a stake. He deserves it and even more if he wouldn’t die from internal and external bleeding of the buttocks but each time we harm an innocent life that had nothing to do with terrorism we lose a crap load of credibility that we are not terrorists ourselves. Of course we have to hold any possible terrorists due to what they know and what info they can pass on to others after release guilty or not. But keep the electrocution, sleep deprivation, water boarding and stakes on hold until after a trial. Then let loose for all I care.

  31. Sake Mike,

    In your mind maybe. In reality the neoconservative ideology is more or less doomed now with the discredited Bush administration hobbling lamely towards the end of its tenure.

    Guantanamo bay was the final nail in the coffin with its total disregard for the principles that used to make America such a great place. The very principle (let alone the reality) of Guantanamo reeks of totalitarianism and evokes the image of a Soviet Gulag. If anything Guantanamo is proof of the terrorists’ victory in getting us to abandon our principles of liberty and democracy.

    Neocons know they have lost the argument (and indeed the ideological battle) but they will not admit it, as the flying insults at so-called ‘liberals’ (i.e. anyone against torture or in favour of habeus corpus) demonstrates.

  32. Matt,

    Somebody spiked your kool-aid! Did you read all these comments? For starters, water-boarding has only been used 3 time since 9/11. Most guantanamo detainees have been released. Less than 400 are still there. Even Lincoln denied Habeus Corpus to protect the U.S. Not that is such a great idea, but we’re at WAR. SOME JEW thinks we ought to drive those terrorists ass first on a stake. What do you think of that?????

    All we did was poor water on them, and give them 3 squares a day, a warm bed and a Koran, where they could read more about killing infidels.  JUst like a Soviet Gulag!  PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!

    Those mean bad Americans!

  33. It doesn’t matter how you justify it or work around the law, the point is that Guantanamo Bay has done a lot of damage to America’s image as a standard-bearer of rights and freedoms. The fact that anyone can make an even somewhat credible claim that the USA is pursuing police state tactics should be a warning sign that something is wrong.

  34. Crumbunist,

    If Bill Clinton was president, no one would complain a lick about Guantanamo.

    The only thing Democrats despise more than a conservative is a conservative that believes in God.

    All the liberals are crazy with admiration for Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, but George Bush is worse than Hitler because of Guantanamo.

    You guys kill me.

  35. “All the liberals are crazy with admiration for Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, but George Bush is worse than Hitler because of Guantanamo.” It’s best not to put words in other people’s mouths.

    Clinton had a few advantages, such as a diplomatic and charming manner, sound economic policy, and a modern foreign policy. On the other hand, the Bush administration pursues all the things that foreigners find worst about America, imperialist, world-policing bullying tactics.

  36. It was real charming when Bush did all that coke and dodged the draft

    or when he invaded a sovereign country on false pretenses

    but hey, Clinton got a blowjob, what a bastard!

    What you have to remember is that nobody is perfect, but some are a lot farther from it than others. Bush is much less ideal for twenty-first century politics than Clinton was.

  37. Sake Mike

    “Even Lincoln denied Habeus Corpus to protect the U.S”

    I presume you mean during the civil war? Correct me if I’m wrong but America is not in a state of civil war at the moment.

    “but we’re at WAR”

    The classic excuse. Where is this war happening and who is it against? The terrorists you say? Who are the terrorists? Al Quaeda you say? Where is Al Quaeda? Where are the Al Qaeda troops descending on America dropping bombs and invading cities? You like to think this is a war because wartime conditions justify any policy or action for defensive purposes. But this is not a war. You can never be ‘at war’ in the traditional sense with terrorists because they are not even an identifiable threat. Anyone can be a terrorist or a suicide bomber and for every suspect you unfairly lock up or country you invade a thousand more potential terrorists are radicalised. So long as you conceive this battle of ideologies as a ‘war’ in the physical sense you will not win. It is a battle over minds not a battle over land. It is a battle fought with words rather than tanks and missiles and it is a battle where the winner will be the one who sticks to his principles, not the side that drops the most bombs.

  38. So Matt should we also not call the war on drugs a war either?

    Matt, are you flipping kidding me. What you are saying is we should hold seminars for terrorists to attend so we can tell them what they are doing is wrong (and hope to God ones not having a bad day while in this seminar ka boom)……….
    American principles fight fire with fire….

    The American Revolution From 1775 to 1782, the Americans faced off against the largest empire in the world. Led by General Washington they won.
    The War of 1812 when it ended and the US had fought Great Britain to a stalemate, America’s independence was assured
    Mexican-American War the dispute over Texas joining the Union resulted in US conquest of California and the balance of the Southwest.
    The Civil War America’s bloodiest war as brother fought brother..
    The Spanish-American War America became a world power with its victory over the Spanish in this war
    World War I Millions died in the fields of Europe, sometimes while fighting over a few disputed yards
    World War II to the surrender of Japan in 1945 after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    The Korean War Some call it the forgotten war, but for two years America fought a full fledged war to keep South Korea free.
    Vietnam War It was the longest war that the United States fought “and the only one that the United States lost”.
    Desert Storm America took part in the 20th century took place when Kuwait was invaded by Iraq.
    Operation Enduring Freedom War came to America on September 11th 2001 with an attack on NY and Washington
    Iraqi Freedom On March 19th 2003 the United States invaded Iraq to overthrow the government of Saddam Hussein. Over three years later, US troops continue to fight an insurgency there.

    One day Europeans will wake up and thank mother America. That they don’t speak German, and they don’t have a RPG rocket launcher under your bed while sleeping with their AK-47 next to them, oh yeah and their 10-year-old son strapped in dynamite

  39. To all who support terrorism.

    It is very tiring to read comparing,
    making someone feel like they’re drowning.

    With someone else peeling the skin off with a pair of pliers.

    Do you really think the world cares about America?
    They don’t and never will because we give them too much money. When we stop, then they wil love us again. They’ll be on their knees begging for us to turn the tap on again.

    Mike

  40. Americans are such ass holes that they would go to war not only for their own freedom but for the freedom of others.
    What a bunch of ass holes…

    Matt I think your ancestors missed the boat trip to freedom????

    God bless America……………………..
    USAID provides economic and humanitarian assistance in more than 100 countries to provide a better future for all.

  41. Hey Matt,

    You want to go to the tattoo show. Jim won’t go he says he’s got shit to do and people depend on him…blah, blah, blah.

    So I need a buddy.

    Guys like you come in handy afterall.

  42. For the record, the only reason any argument of mine with a neo-conservative hack has ever “fallen apart” is lack of intelligence on the part of my interlocutor. The article above is not conservative commentary; rather, it is a particularly insidious form of reactionary statism full of straw-man arguments, not-so-hidden assumptions, and prehistoric chest-beating.

    Kyle: You also write prose like a conservative–meaning not very well.

  43. “Matt, are you flipping kidding me. What you are saying is we should hold seminars for terrorists to attend so we can tell them what they are doing is wrong (and hope to God ones not having a bad day while in this seminar ka boom)……….”

    He didn’t say anything like this. He said that shooting people makes their friends and family angry, and incites them to violence. Nice strawman though.

    American principles are not based around “fighting fire with fire,” they’re based around life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don’t know what your impressive list proves except that the US has fought a lot of wars, and serves as a chance to remind Europe how useless and ungrateful they are.

    As for the other Mike; Europe is pretty powerful and wealthy now, and doesn’t really depend on Marshall Plan money any more.

    The world cares about America because America under Bush has become a belligerent, unchecked superpower stomping and hissing and threatening much of the world. It’s more than a little troubling when the so-called standard of democracy and freedom, an old ally and close friend, demands that everyone obey and starts defying the values it’s upheld so long.

    Nobody said Americans are assholes or that fighting to defend freedom is unjustifiable.

  44. Under the exceptional circumstances prescribed in the Fifth Amendment, a suspect may be INDICTED (formally accused) without formal Grand Jury proceedings. This exception only applies to the indictment process. The Sixth Amendment, however, contains NO exceptions, under any circumstances:

    “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

    The Constitution is NOT a living document, so quit putting words in the Founders’ mouths, Jim Pontillo. A small exception to the indictment process does not in any way imply that the Founders intended to allow a rogue president to circumvent the entire judicial process.

  45. True Conservative,

    “…the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…”

    Exactly which State and district was that where these terrorists committed their crimes?

    Was it New York? Was it Pakistan? Was it Iraq?

    Where were these guys caught?

    Surely you can see the difficulty in applying the sixth Amendment without reservation here. The UCMJ has different authority and protections than does the Bill of Rights, and like it or not, members of the military are not privy to all protections in the Bill of Rights. I learned that the first week of boot camp.

    Foreign combatants I would venture to say are even privy to fewer safeguards than are our military personnel. 

    Which words did I place in the Founder’s mouths, by the way?

  46. Sake Mike,

    Thanks for the history lesson there but try reading and understanding what I write first.

    “So Matt should we also not call the war on drugs a war either?”

    That’s a very good point. The ‘war’ on drugs is not a ‘war’ as such but more a sustained social effort to counter those who distribute drugs, to punish and rehabilitate those who take drugs and to make drugs a socially unacceptable practice. We don’t get rid of drugs by invading Colombia do we?

    Of course the two problems are vastly different but there are similarities in the way they penetrate society and the way they must be tackled. They are social problems that require social solutions.

    As for Europe it appears to be doing pretty well at the moment, catching China and the US economically.

    And I’m not arguing against interventionism at all. I think America should intervene more (though as part of a wider interventionist UN). The problem I have is with the Bush government’s catastrophic policy failure in response to terrorism. Thanks to them the world will now face the threat of Islamist terrorism well into the future.

  47. Crumbinist,

    Yep you can’t move for all the straw men in this argument, my favourite being that ‘liberals’ apparently disagree with Guantanamo purely because it is unconstitutional (which it is but I don’t need to look at a centuries old piece of paper to know that it is).

    Sake Mike,

    Sorry I don’t find some redneck tattooing convention very appealing…I’d be partial to a bit of deer hunting though…with guns…very manly.

  48. My first experience with your opinion is #61.

    At first, I thought it might be sarcasm, or perhaps a tongue-in-cheek stab at the conservative side of things. But then I realized that it was an only occasionally successful attempt at humor – and contained no opinion of substance.

    I could create a site which repeatedly states “George Bush and the people who voted for him are idiots” – and it would have the same level of intellect found here.

    I dont really understand the point of this blog.

  49. On February 21st, 2008 at 5:43 pm, Matt wrote:
    >It will be up to the next President
    >to pick up the pieces of America’s
    >shattered world image as the
    >greatest democracy in the world
    >and begin to rebuild what is left of it.

    Matt, you are entirely mistaken. The left hates America. The rest of the world loves us.

    Cheers,

  50. “Matt, you are entirely mistaken. The left hates America. The rest of the world loves us.”
    Nothing was said about anyone hating America. Matt said that America’s reputation as a champion of human rights and a paragon of democracy has been damaged by the Bush administration.

    Besides which, “the left hates America and the rest of the world loves us” is only true in some kind of fantasy world.

  51. Michael,

    “The left hates America. The rest of the world loves us.”

    This arrogant statement sums up everything that is wrong with the American neoconservative movement at the moment.

  52. So, you imply that you desire a civil debate by stating that you will remove ‘extremely vulgar or distasteful comments’, and yet the first several statements of your article are essentially one very long, irrational, ad-hominem/strawman hybrid assault. Whoops, I forgot that your own rules don’t actually apply to you.

    Whatever.

    Guantanamo is infringing substantially enough upon human rights that the ‘constitutionality’ issue is almost secondary..

Comments are closed.