Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 491808)

Someone pithier than me said that conservatives only show empathy on an issue when they themselves have been affected by it.

Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 491814)

I think that's true of all people, actually.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 491808)

And I think that you do McCain a great disservice by saying that...

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 491808)

I disagree with the Arizona senator on many grounds, and I think he's flipped on many issues (as many politicians do), but the fact that he put aside his visceral dislike for Obama to make a public stand on this says a lot to me.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 491808)

He could have not said anything, but he went on the floor of the Senate immediately to make his views clear.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 491808)

It will be interesting to see if any structural reforms result. I am Not Optimistic.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 491822)

This is not true. I'm with Ty. The right seems to only find its compassionate side when they have some sort of personal connection.

Fuck John McCain. The only issue on which he's ever avoided taking both sides is the one he personally suffered through. He's a fucking clown who wanted to be President so bad that he completely sold out all of his principles and foisted fucking Sarah Palin on us for all of eternity. And to this day he refuses to admit what a craven, desperate move that was and talks about her like she actually has any value at all.


TM

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 491820)

Courts have recognized that torture violates customary international law. The US not prosecuting admitted torture undermines the argument that torture is recognized universally as illegal.

A pardon says this president thought what you did was illegal. Doing nothing says perhaps this president does not, which is affirmatively what the prior president and his advisers asserted.

Originally Posted by Icky Thump (Post 491813)

Instead of being tortured enemies of the state should have been given:

A. Flowers and candy;
B. US Citizenship
C. A NYC taxi medallion
D. All of the above?

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 491823)

I cannot believe I am going to defend John McCain, since he's someone who willingly chose, eyes wide open, to pander to some of the vilest scum in politics today, but I'd also give him McCain-Feingold as a place where he took a position that wasn't wholly self-interested and showed some spine. Even if he later self-eviscerated the spine and bronzed it to put on Sarah Palin's mantle.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 491826)

Yes. That law's ban on soft money with the giant, gaping goatse-shaped hole sure changed campaign contributions for the better.

TM

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 491827)

The point wasn't proffered to support the idea that McCain is capable. Frankly, he doesn't seem all that bright to me.

Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 491814)

I think that's true of all people, actually. Recall the old line about a neoconservative (original 1960s/1970s version) being a liberal who's been mugged.

And I think that you do McCain a great disservice by saying that - I'm too lazy to research this, but I'm mainly sure that I am mostly correct when I say that many people who have suffered from torture have no problem with torture as a principle, just in who is doing it. I disagree with the Arizona senator on many grounds, and I think he's flipped on many issues (as many politicians do), but the fact that he put aside his visceral dislike for Obama to make a public stand on this says a lot to me. He could have not said anything, but he went on the floor of the Senate immediately to make his views clear.

At any rate, this is our political era's version of the Church Report. It will be interesting to see if any structural reforms result. I am Not Optimistic.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 491815)

If conservatives stick with these "tough on crime" and "permanent war on terror" angles they've been running for so long, I think a lot of them are going to learn in coming years what it feels like to be a Black man dealing with the cops.

The racist police state we're creating, and the chilling effect on speech caused by the witch hunts against leakers/whistleblowers, aren't going to abate. They are going to grow, and they will need fuel for such expansion. They're going to start encroaching on the rights of targets beyond minorities and extreme leakers.

It's in no manner alarmist to argue we will have something akin to Minority Report crime and dissent prevention in about a decade. This will be largely automated, and it will punish based more on strict liability than intent-based crimes. This sort of unthinking zero tolerance state will sweep up conservatives for all sorts of infractions which can be determined by computer analysis (tax matters, business regulation violations, inside trades, whisteblowing via internet communication, etc.) in much the same way stop and frisk policies fish net poor minorities.

It'll be interesting to see how "tough on crime" or supportive of a govt that must "punish leakers" these conservatives who see nothing wrong with the Garner murder, or call for Snowden's head, are when they're in the cross hairs. And they will be.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 491820)

Courts have recognized that torture violates customary international law. The US not prosecuting admitted torture undermines the argument that torture is recognized universally as illegal.

A pardon says this president thought what you did was illegal. Doing nothing says perhaps this president does not, which is affirmatively what the prior president and his advisers asserted.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 491822)

You must be completely kidding. You're giving this asshole credit because on the one issue that is extremely personal and important to him because he was actually fucking tortured, he is willing to say that he's against torture? That's a joke right? You're impressed because you've been so programmed that you think that not falling completely in line with the GOP's strategy of shitting all over Obama no matter what the issue makes speaking out against torture somehow an act of bravery?

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 491822)

This is not true. I'm with Ty. The right seems to only find its compassionate side when they have some sort of personal connection.

Fuck John McCain. The only issue on which he's ever avoided taking both sides is the one he personally suffered through. He's a fucking clown who wanted to be President so bad that he completely sold out all of his principles and foisted fucking Sarah Palin on us for all of eternity. And to this day he refuses to admit what a craven, desperate move that was and talks about her like she actually has any value at all.

You must be completely kidding. You're giving this asshole credit because on the one issue that is extremely personal and important to him because he was actually fucking tortured, he is willing to say that he's against torture? That's a joke right? You're impressed because you've been so programmed that you think that not falling completely in line with the GOP's strategy of shitting all over Obama no matter what the issue makes speaking out against torture somehow an act of bravery?

I suppose if he said cops shouldn't kill unarmed people he should win the Congressional Medal of Freedom?

What a patriot.

This is the only sensible thing you've said in this post.

TM

[eta: Just to be clear, it was Not Bob who said all of this (except the first line)]

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 491820)

A pardon says this president thought what you did was illegal. Doing nothing says perhaps this president does not, which is affirmatively what the prior president and his advisers asserted.

Originally Posted by Icky Thump (Post 491813)

Instead of being tortured enemies of the state should have been given:

A. Flowers and candy;
B. US Citizenship
C. A NYC taxi medallion
D. All of the above?

Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 491834)

Leaving your disdain for McCain aside, I'll respond to you first point.

In my experience, people of all classes and ideologies have their views change as a result of what happens to them or their family members/friends. The old saw I repeated about neocons being liberals who have been mugged is based on this. Norman Podhoretz, Midge Decter, and the Commentary crowd went from liberal to conservative in part because of how the decline of NYC (crime, taxes, and social issues) (Podhoretz wrote a book on race in the mid-sixties that can generously be described as offensive) in the 1960s affected them and their families.

My formerly dope smoking friend is active in opposing medical marihuana laws because his kid went from pot to crack in high school and is now in NA. My cousin the banker who went to school on Pell Grants and federal loans, complains about taxes and when I call him on it, says that not everyone should go to college and "it wouldn't kill these young slackers to work for minimum wage for a few years to save for school." My close friend's wife who went to magnet public schools campaigns to cut the school board budget and for the state to give more money to charters instead.

But maybe I'm wrong.