Obama General Discussion, vol. 5 - Page 21 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-24-2013, 08:45 PM   #301
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Entombed in a shrine of zeroes and ones, you know?
Posts: 18,728
Local Time: 12:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post

Besides, you still haven't explained how water-boarding (under medical supervision and congressional oversight) is more vile and inhumane than being atomized by a drone missile.
Why would he need to do something absurd like that?
__________________

__________________
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2013, 08:50 PM   #302
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,194
Local Time: 12:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Or he would prefer to side with those in the military that oppose its repeal. Or do they all hate gays too?
yes, they do. if they still oppose repeal, which has gone seamlessly, as we told you it would, and as has been the experience of the rest of the developed world, it seems fair to say that "hate" is the only remaining explanation for opposition. what else would it be?





Quote:
And I prefer to side with those that say we gained a great deal of intel from the enhanced interrogation of a few select enemy combatants. Torture is your word for this not mine, if I thought we were truly torturing people I'd be against it also.
what intelligence was gained, and how good that actual intelligence was, are points of debate. reasonable people can disagree. reasonable people cannot disagree that waterboarding is torture.

it simply is. it's widely recognized as torture by numerous international conventions and treaties, including by the US (we've prosecuted as war criminals individuals who have used such practices), and like, say, John McCain, until the "torture memos" where John Yoo suddenly decided it wasn't.

it was used by the Khamer Rouge no less:






Quote:
Besides, you still haven't explained how water-boarding (under medical supervision and congressional oversight) is more vile and inhumane than being atomized by a drone missile.

there's a legal question here, and a moral question.

the legality of drones vs. torture falls clearly on the side of drones. they are legal. torture is not. no matter what Dick Cheney says.

the morality is something else and i agree much more slippery. i'm not comfortable with the drone program, and i fear the "blowback" that comes whenever you bomb innocent civilians -- however, it's also inarguable that much of AQ has been decimated by these drones, and many view them as the "least worst" option available.

i don't have an answer, but it is something for debate.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2013, 08:53 PM   #303
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,194
Local Time: 12:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Not really because we'd be 6 months closer to a world with Atomic Mullahs.

Why should we trust the world's most involved state sponsor of terrorism again?


because of the people who actually live in Iran.

i know NRO conservatives think all muslims are the same, but Iran is quite a complex place, and real change is possible.

U2 Dublin in solidarity with people of Iran 25 July 2009 - YouTube
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2013, 09:18 PM   #304
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 10:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
because of the people who actually live in Iran.

i know NRO conservatives think all muslims are the same, but Iran is quite a complex place, and real change is possible.
l know all Huffington Post liberals believe Muslims deserve to live under dictators but speaking of "real change" the people of Iran pleaded with our president in 2009 to help topple the Islamic regime. Unfortunately many died in the streets while their pleas fell on deaf ears.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2013, 09:25 PM   #305
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,876
Local Time: 12:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
l know all Huffington Post liberals believe Muslims deserve to live under dictators
What are you talking about?
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2013, 10:36 PM   #306
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,194
Local Time: 12:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
l know all Huffington Post liberals believe Muslims deserve to live under dictators but speaking of "real change" the people of Iran pleaded with our president in 2009 to help topple the Islamic regime. Unfortunately many died in the streets while their pleas fell on deaf ears.

I know you love war when someone else fights and pays for it, but sanctions and diplomacy have proven to be far more effective.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2013, 11:51 PM   #307
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Entombed in a shrine of zeroes and ones, you know?
Posts: 18,728
Local Time: 12:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
l know all Huffington Post liberals believe Muslims deserve to live under dictators but speaking of "real change" the people of Iran pleaded with our president in 2009 to help topple the Islamic regime. Unfortunately many died in the streets while their pleas fell on deaf ears.
I am sitting at home and actually let out an audible groan upon reading this slop.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2013, 09:51 AM   #308
Refugee
 
The_Pac_Mule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,341
Local Time: 12:41 PM
Quote:
Or he would prefer to side with those in the military that oppose its repeal. Or do they all hate gays too?
From a former active duty Marine that was in when DADT was repealed, no one really cared. I certainly didn't give a shit. You're gay? Cool man I'll have your back in a firefight just like you'd have mine.

One of my NCO's was gay and he was one of the greatest leaders I had known, and he was a pretty fucking badass guy all around. I'd follow him into a fight any day and know he'd have my back.

He might not be straight but his bullets flew just as straight as mine.. you can ask the Taliban about that one

And Irvine was right, those who were vocally opposed were usually bigots.
__________________
The_Pac_Mule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2013, 10:03 AM   #309
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,194
Local Time: 12:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule View Post
From a former active duty Marine that was in when DADT was repealed, no one really cared. I certainly didn't give a shit. You're gay? Cool man I'll have your back in a firefight just like you'd have mine. One of my NCO's was gay and he was one of the greatest leaders I had known, and he was a pretty fucking badass guy all around. I'd follow him into a fight any day and know he'd have my back. He might not be straight but his bullets flew just as straight as mine.. you can ask the Taliban about that one And Irvine was right, those who were vocally opposed were usually bigots.

This is an awesome post.

And it brings up a great point -- anyone who thinks that active duty military would have a problem serving with a gay person must have an awfully low opinion of the military.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2013, 10:09 AM   #310
Refugee
 
The_Pac_Mule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,341
Local Time: 12:41 PM
Quote:
And it brings up a great point -- anyone who thinks that active duty military would have a problem serving with a gay person must have an awfully low opinion of the military.
Not too long ago there was a lot in the military who had a problem with blacks serving. And eventually their place in the military went away. I see this as no different.
__________________
The_Pac_Mule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2013, 10:39 AM   #311
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 12:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule View Post
From a former active duty Marine that was in when DADT was repealed, no one really cared. I certainly didn't give a shit. You're gay? Cool man I'll have your back in a firefight just like you'd have mine.

One of my NCO's was gay and he was one of the greatest leaders I had known, and he was a pretty fucking badass guy all around. I'd follow him into a fight any day and know he'd have my back.

He might not be straight but his bullets flew just as straight as mine.. you can ask the Taliban about that one

And Irvine was right, those who were vocally opposed were usually bigots.

Your NCO sounds awesome. I salute him.

Some people I know who are against gays in the military say that they really believe the gay troops will be too focused on making a move on the other guys than concentrating on fighting. Pfft. Like gays are so sex crazy they can't focus on anything else. Also, gays have been in the military before, albeit closeted. They fought then so why not now?

Also, when I hear arguments against gays in the military, I think of what Chris Rock said long ago: "If they want to fight, let them fight. 'Cuz I ain't fighting!"

In other words, kudos to them!
__________________
Pearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2013, 11:34 AM   #312
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 3,697
Local Time: 08:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule View Post

And Irvine was right, those who were vocally opposed were usually bigots.
While I appreciate most of your post, I really don't think it's fair to reduce fellow humans as "bigots" - people are far more nuanced than that, they have many different reasons for feeling/thinking the way they do. For some, it is religion or upbringing. For others, they just don't "understand" it (this is where I fit. Yes, I understand "what" it is, I don't understand "why" it happens. I always try to find a "purpose" for everything - and I've struggled to find the biological/spiritual/evolutionary purpose of homosexuality). Using the term "bigot" automatically shuts off dialogue and conjurs images of the cast of Deliverance.

Regarding the legality and treatment of homosexuals, we are certainly moving in the right direction. However, there will always be some people that are simply repulsed by homosexuality even if they agree that homosexuals should be treated equally before the law.

Side note - it seems that many forget that DADT came into existence so that homosexuals could start serving in the military. Before DADT, homosexuals were banned outright.
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2013, 12:20 PM   #313
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 12:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
While I appreciate most of your post, I really don't think it's fair to reduce fellow humans as "bigots" - people are far more nuanced than that, they have many different reasons for feeling/thinking the way they do. For some, it is religion or upbringing. For others, they just don't "understand" it (this is where I fit. Yes, I understand "what" it is, I don't understand "why" it happens. I always try to find a "purpose" for everything - and I've struggled to find the biological/spiritual/evolutionary purpose of homosexuality). Using the term "bigot" automatically shuts off dialogue and conjurs images of the cast of Deliverance.
I agree with that, but at the same time, there are people who are directly affected by homophobia or know someone close to them who've been hurt by it. There are also a lot of people who do have a fear and hatred for gay people, and they're not members of Westboro. Too many bad experiences for some does lead to the term "bigot" being used often, even if it shouldn't be. Sometimes suspicions can be valid.
__________________
Pearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2013, 01:17 PM   #314
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,194
Local Time: 12:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
While I appreciate most of your post, I really don't think it's fair to reduce fellow humans as "bigots" - people are far more nuanced than that, they have many different reasons for feeling/thinking the way they do. For some, it is religion or upbringing. For others, they just don't "understand" it (this is where I fit. Yes, I understand "what" it is, I don't understand "why" it happens. I always try to find a "purpose" for everything - and I've struggled to find the biological/spiritual/evolutionary purpose of homosexuality). Using the term "bigot" automatically shuts off dialogue and conjurs images of the cast of Deliverance.

could you suggest another term?

what's important to understand, though, is that people can dislike it all they want, they just can't use the law to discriminate against people for being gay.

to all the rest i simply say that it's your issue to deal with, not mine.




Quote:
Regarding the legality and treatment of homosexuals, we are certainly moving in the right direction. However, there will always be some people that are simply repulsed by homosexuality even if they agree that homosexuals should be treated equally before the law.
i'm repulsed by cunnilingus.

oh, wait, did i just reduce heterosexuality to a single sex act? because that's what you do without even noticing it, and in the same post where you complained that being called a bigot is dehumanizing.

let it be known that i enthusiastically support the right for any legal consenting adult to engage in cunnilingus.



Quote:
Side note - it seems that many forget that DADT came into existence so that homosexuals could start serving in the military. Before DADT, homosexuals were banned outright.
DADT was a half measure that became bad policy.

thankfully, most of us have evolved.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2013, 01:31 PM   #315
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,476
Local Time: 01:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
let it be known that i enthusiastically support the right for any legal consenting adult to engage in cunnilingus.
This man appreciates your views on this important matter:

__________________

__________________

BoMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com