Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 321 To 330 Of 657 Comments
PROSECUTING TORTURE AS A DISTRACTION FROM THE ECONOMY
@Nagarajuan Sivakumar:
What in the hell does that have to do with what yoyo said?
"X never happened!"
"Here is evidence of X."
". . . you're a poopy-face!"You do understand that "so-and-so did worse" is an implicit admission that what is being discussed is in fact a bad thing, right? You don't go to "Hitler did worse" to defend opening a homeless shelter.
(in your response, please focus on the use of the name Hitler, make very clear that you didn't use the name Hitler, and condescendly insult me for claiming you said something you didn't. Make sure to completely and totally ignore the obvious metaphor, as that might force you to actually adress the issue. kthx)
@ "Nobody was prosecuted for just waterboarding" crowd:
Nobody was prosecuted in WW2 for gassing an individual Jew -- so that's okay?
. . . oh, and yes they have:
"Cases of waterboarding have occurred on U.S. soil, as well. In 1983, Texas Sheriff James Parker was charged, along with three of his deputies, for handcuffing prisoners to chairs, placing towels over their faces, and pouring water on the cloth until they gave what the officers considered to be confessions. The sheriff and his deputies were all convicted and sentenced to four years in prison."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834"It's not torture because they're not POWs"
Your logic (haha) is a wreck. whether someone is a POW doesn't determine whether they are tortured -- their status as POWs determines whether the torture is a war crime. If I kidnap and torture you, you're not a POW (since I'm not at war with you) -- so you wern't tortured?"I was waterboarded in SERE so its not torture"
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 12.07.2009 @ 17:14
Wonder why you were waterboarded in SERE? Were the instructors bored that day? Or was it so you would know what it was like WHEN YOU WERE CAPTURED AND TORTURED?
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/
You went through it. He ran it -- who should I think has a better concept of its purpose?
Ain't metaphysics great? The adult equivilant of babies making turd-pies: Completely irrevelant, useless, and a pain in the ass to clean up the mess, but makes baby awfully proud of itself.
It will always have "profound theological implications" (really, any knowledge will), but I hope the reason they ignored those implications is because "ne'er the twain shall meet" -- theology can't inform (or be informed by) knowledge.
I mean, we've known for thousands of years that people don't rise from the dead, that bodies don't turn into pillars of salt, that spiders can't seal off a cave entrance is a day, that a handful of people can't fit two of every species onto a boat and care for their needs for more than a month (polar bears must have loved a month of the MidEastern climate), etc. We can date human history pretty conclusively back well over 8,000 years, but some people believe that the earth is 2,000 years younger than that. All of which has had zero impact on people's faith, and rightly so.
No matter what science determines (or thinks it determines), it doesn't, and shouldn't, change what people believe.
(goes back to smearing feces on the wall and feeling proud of himself)
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 12.07.2009 @ 16:36
@manoman:
How do you know you don't have food in front of you? Your senses tell you. If your senses told you that there was food there, then you would eat it.
Bottom line, you know absolutely nothing save what you experienced, and you experience through your senses (and whatever conclusions you draw from them). How do you know there's a moon? You saw it, and you saw what you believe are the effects of it (seeing tidal shifts, determining that the moon caused them, etc.). Did you create the moon? As far as you are concerned . . . yes.
The old koan "if a tree falls and there is nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound?" sums it up.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 12.07.2009 @ 01:39
@funny man:
" I’m thinking so I am? "
Cogito ergo sum -- I think, therefore I am. When do we as a society determine when a body needs to be let go? When the heart stops? We can artifically cycle the blood. When the lungs stop? We can get around that. Organ failure? Loss of limbs? Loss of senses? All surmountable.
When the brain stops? Even assuming every other aspect of the body is functioning perfectly, no thoughts means walk away because they're dead.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 11.07.2009 @ 17:36
Wow -- did we read the same article?
So consiousness is based on what we observe. If Hallucinations are created in the conciousness, then you're in a bit of a pickle.
DeCartes (despite all the flaws in his thinking) made a pretty convincing argument that observation cannot be the genesis of truth or conciousness hundreds of years ago. Observation requires interpretation, which demands conciousness. Observation cannot create conciousness if observation requires conciousness to be observation in the first place.
When I look down on my desk, I observe a laptop. But I only observe a laptop because my conciousness distinguishes between what "is" the laptop and what "is not" the laptop. Visually, the image is a mass of colors that I impose dividing lines upon. Conciousness creates the observation and imposes bias, not the other way around.
Jaques Derrida was a champion of this in the mid 20th Century (Postmodern Deconstructionism), as was Michel Foucalt to a lesser extent. If you really want to feel your mind melt, dive into some of his stuff.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 11.07.2009 @ 14:45
@chuck tuscon:
"All I’m saying is that people who believe that Joseph Smith was given magical golden tablets and magical glasses to read (and interpret) them with by an angel of the lord out in the woods on a hill, are brainwashed idiots who should never, ever, be allowed to run the most powerful country on earth."
A opposed to any other religious faith, which makes total and complete logical sense?
I agree that Mormonism makes me giggle, but how is it any sillier than any other faith? You think America is going to vote for an Athiest? Given we haven't yet, why start now?
p.s.: If you asked me 3 years ago if a Mormon could get elected, I would have said no way. Of course, I'd have said the same thing about a black man . . . so I guess things change.
Got one for ya - how about a Carpenter's son who says he's the son of God, died a traitor's death, and his followers claim the guy just got up after three days and walked out of his tomb like nothing happened.
How much sillier is that than the Mormons?
ed.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 10.07.2009 @ 14:47
C'MON, AMERICA! SNAP OUT OF IT!
@nikM:
"With all the (taxpayer) money going to ACORN, along with all the POWER being handed to them (see also: 2010 Census), there’s very little hope that the electoral process will survive."
So what about the 2010 census?
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_acorn_providing_workers_for_the_2010.htmlExactly what power is being given to them to destroy america?
This is off-topic, but I've never understood the hate for ACORN. Can any Reds in here enlighten me as to what makes them so evil?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 7.07.2009 @ 17:16
@ Freedom's Truth:
okay, I'll bite. What has she done for Alaska? What was Alaska like before she got there? What problems did she fix or avoid?
Alaska generally does allright -- it's got alot of income, and not too many expenses. She didn't make that happen. She just didn't fu@k that up . . . giving her the same effective leadership talent as a table lamp.
But you're right about one thing: all of the negativity toward her is clearly a Liberal Media Elite Plot to make a genius look bad. Hell, you saw it with those "gotcha" questions like "what newspapers do you read". Very sneaky of them to add "what" to "do you read". No real American could be expected to answer a trick question like that on the spot. And all that trick editing, making it look like her answers were rambling, incoherent nonsense. I do some video editing, and I gotta tell you I'm impressed how they made it look like she actually said all that using such tricks like turning the camera to "record" and leaving it pointed at her. Sneaky liberals.
Oddly enough, I had much the same conversation with a hardcore Conservative friend of mine during the campaign. After telling me how it was all a plot I asked them if they had actually watched the Couric interview. She admitted she hadn't, but Rush and Fox News told her everything she needed to know about it. I sent her a link to the video. Two days later I got a response, and I'm quoting: "wow -- that was really pretty bad."
p.s.: I'm taking a sidebet with myself as to your response. 20% odds you ignore the question and yell about how Obama is destroying Christmas, 30% you insult me for being such a gullible sheep, and 50% you do both. C'mon . . . disappoint me.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 2.07.2009 @ 21:36
@ Mike Giles:
"If Palin is such a horrible choice as the GOP standard bearer, why are all the usual suspects, on the left, side in such a tizzy about her? They should be encouraging the GOP to nominate such a “obvious loser”."
We are. Dear god we are.
Why are people who don't like her in a tizzy about her? Because she's (a) relatively attractive and (b) a hilarious train wreck and (c) a target people can point to and say "see? That's why Republicans are dangerous -- bewcause they're all like her."
If I understand what you're saying, you're implying that if people are paying attention to her, then she must be either very skillful or very powerful. Taking the second part first . . . anybody that might have the ability to start a war with nukes is dangerous and someone I take seriously. That doesn't mean I respect them. Assuming Iran gets the missles working, Ahmadiddlyajad becomes heart-stoppingly important and serious . . . does that mean you now think he's a brilliant, talented, engaging and inspirational leader of men?
If you're saying that people paying attention to her implies that she is respected, admired, and inspirational . . . well, then The Real Wives of New Jersey must be the template for the American Family, The Springer Show must be the our ideal of Journalism, porn is our target for inter-gender relations (well, that might be a bad example), and a 15-car pile-up on the freeway with a few fatalities must be our ideal for enjoying the scenery.
Personally, I consider her both -- a hilarious joke that is terrifingly dangerous. I can't think of a single thing she has said or done that has increased my estimation of her . . . usually the best she gets is I don't respect her less when she's done.
Like I said, she's purty no doubt, and the platitudes are nice and all, but what has she said or done that makes anybody think she's more qualified to run this country and speak for me than, say, Tyra Banks?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 2.07.2009 @ 11:52
Nice article Mr. M.
Granted the McCain campaign seems to have been staffed with Democratic double-agents (seriously, who told him that the best bet to get elected was to ditch his maverick, straight-talk image and go for a "I'm more Bush-like than W" strategy?), but no amount of bad organization erases the fact that she just wasn't (IMHO still isn't) ready for prime time. Seems like a nice lady and all, but I wasn't giving her the launch codes.
Gotta disagree with this, though:
"not having immersed herself in the nuance and details of policy, personalities, and politics - a failing that she will no doubt correct if she is going to run in 2012"
No question she damn well should correct it if she's ever going to have the remotest chance of getting elected (she'll never get my vote, but there's plenty of other votes out there), but I can't detect the slightest trace that she's even trying to fix this. Maybe she's got the best poker-face on the planet, pulling an Annie Duke "gee, I guess you're real smart and I'm such a silly girl, oops I got all your chips" fake-out, but honestly I'm terrified that she's actually bought into the fanaticism that her "gee shucks you betcha" charm is all America needs (p.s.:when Reds moan about the 'cult of Obama'. I just think about Palinites and shake my head sadly).
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 1.07.2009 @ 11:10
What has she done since the campaign? Gwet into a pissing match with GOP central, which would be a ballsy move if it was coming from a hard-core Playa, but is really coming off as "I'm too important for you not to jump when i say". Either she's brilliant or deluded . . . and I don't know anybody that goes from that unprepared to ninja-level Art of War strategy that quickly.
Frankly, she should sit out 2012. Her name is still too scarred to not scare away voters. Give it a decade in the trenches, play the game, lay low and rack up a sizeable bank of favors, and she could (terrifingly for me) be a real force -- basically, pull a Gingrich. Jumping back in without giving people a chance to think she's "smartened" up is a recipie for disaster.
