Conservative Radio Host Gets Waterboarded To Prove It's Not Torture; Lasts 6 Seconds

[spittledip]

I don't support torture, but I find it ironic that the same people who are against torture are for abortion.

 

[davestar]

Originally posted by: spittledip
I don't support torture, but I find it ironic that the same people who are against torture are for abortion.

i fail to see any connection.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: davestar

Originally posted by: spittledip
I don't support torture, but I find it ironic that the same people who are against torture are for abortion.

i fail to see any connection.

Perhaps you should use Google to find an ultrasound video called Silent Scream...maybe you'll undestand the connection a little better then.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: spittledip

I don't support torture, but I find it ironic that the same people who are against torture are for abortion.

< sarcasm >

I don't support chocolate icecream, but I find it ironic that the same people who are against chocolate icecream are for running shoes.

< /sarcasm >

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: spittledip

I don't support torture, but I find it ironic that the same people who are against torture are for abortion.

< sarcasm >

I don't support chocolate icecream, but I find it ironic that the same people who are against chocolate icecream are for running shoes.

< /sarcasm >

Find the video, watch it...and then get back to me on whether or not you think the subjects are related or not.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Find the video, watch it...and then get back to me on whether or not you think the subjects are related or not.

I've seen the video. They're not.

You're welcome to your agenda, but it's not the subject of this thread.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

No where have I stated that "waterboarding" as done by the CIA/govt to those couple terrorists was or was not "torture". And yes, it is an ASSumption for harvey and the like to do so because I only specifically addressed the stunt by MANCOW.

You're so full of shit, my ASSumption is jealous. It took you until the above post just to cop to the idea that "waterboarded by the standards that the CIA or the gov't would" actually is TORTURE, and you still haven't had the guts to tell us YOUR understanding of the word, TORTURE.

And I challenge you to prove that the CIA has any "manual" or any other "official" standard ANYWHERE to define specific angle of head, amount of water per unit of time, time of day, phase of the moon or anything else that would distinguish or otherwise define what was done to Mancow as anything other than waterboarding.

The emphasis is due to people not being able to read and understand that my statements were about this particular incident - you know....what the OP is about - not some generic "waterboarding" or "torture" thread. Some here don't seem to be able to see the difference with the facts staring them in the face.

When anyone calls you on your bullshit, all you can manage is to deny and try to weasel around the obvious meaning of any of your worthless posts.

The most significant thing about the totality af your posts in this thread is that YOU are too chickenshit to define your own understanding of any of the terms, let alone state your own opinion about their meaning and their application to the subject. Through your own epic failure, you leave your words without meaning, and anything you think you're saying on the subject without credibility.

Some engineer you are when the best defense of a position you can build is a shakey, unsupportable house of cards. :laugh:

Sorry harvey but that's utter bullshit. You made shit up(assumed) and have tried to change what my post said. That is YOU twisting, denying, and weaseling - not me. So next time, take your meds and actually READ what I post instead of talking out of your ass.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Find the video, watch it...and then get back to me on whether or not you think the subjects are related or not.

I've seen the video. They're not.

You're welcome to your agenda, but it's not the subject of this thread.

I'm deeply saddened to hear you say that.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: davestar

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: davestar

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Can you please point out where I stated it wasn't "torture" in the MANCOW situation? I rather think it was since the guy DIDN'T KNOW THE PROPER TECHNIQUES! However, MANCOW (the shock jock) was NOT "waterboarded" the way the CIA or our gov't did to the couple of terrorists.

so you think Mancow was tortured because he wasn't properly waterboarded? interesting. i'm sure you realize that the implication of your comment is that if he was properly waterboarded, then it wouldn't be torture. so you don't think that the CIA's waterboarding was torture.

or is that unfairly parsing your words, like every other inconvenient response you your ramblings?

No where have I stated that "waterboarding" as done by the CIA/govt to those couple terrorists was or was not "torture". And yes, it is an ASSumption for harvey and the like to do so because I only specifically addressed the stunt by MANCOW.

I rather think it [Mancow's specific situation] was [torture] since the guy DIDN'T KNOW THE PROPER TECHNIQUES [of CIA waterboarding]!

are you really either so ignorant of syntax or so dishonest to claim that the quoted sentence reveals nothing about your opinion of CIA-sanctioned waterboarding?

Are you so ignorant to understand that taking a specific instance that was not "xyz" and saying it is "ABC" does not mean one doesn't think "XYZ" is or is not "ABC".

I have a feeling you won't understand the above so I'll make it easy for you simpletons - Just because something is specified(in this case torture of mancow that was supposed to be "waterboarding" but wasn't "waterboarding" like the CIA/gov't did to the couple terrorists) doesn't mean one is making a statement regarding something else. Meh - you won't understand that either...as it's already been pointed out.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Sorry harvey but that's utter bullshit. You made shit up(assumed) and have tried to change what my post said. That is YOU twisting, denying, and weaseling - not me. So next time, take your meds and actually READ what I post instead of talking out of your ass.

Keep telling yourself that, CAD. If you ever manage to convince yourself that your bullshit is true, you'll be the only one who believes it. :laugh:

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: spittledip
I don't support torture, but I find it ironic that the same people who are against torture are for abortion.

And pro-lifers tend to be pro-death penalty. Err on the side of life?

Many people against torture (normal humans that is) are also "against" war and killing, but recognize some things have to be done sometimes.

And no one likes late term abortions. The number of women who get them for the fun of it is probably on par with the number of radicals out there killing abortion doctors. As to 1st trimester abortions, most people are able to differentiate between a group of cells and an 8 month old fetus.

 

[davestar]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Are you so ignorant to understand that taking a specific instance that was not "xyz" and saying it is "ABC" does not mean one doesn't think "XYZ" is or is not "ABC".

I have a feeling you won't understand the above so I'll make it easy for you simpletons - Just because something is specified(in this case torture of mancow that was supposed to be "waterboarding" but wasn't "waterboarding" like the CIA/gov't did to the couple terrorists) doesn't mean one is making a statement regarding something else. Meh - you won't understand that either...as it's already been pointed out.

your convolutions are so disingenuous it's hilarious.

let's make it more obvious, if that's possible:

I rather think it [Mancow's specific situation] was [torture]...

you state that Mancow's waterboarding was torture.

...since the guy DIDN'T KNOW THE PROPER TECHNIQUES [of CIA waterboarding]!

you state that the reason it was torture was due to the fact that his torturer did not know the proper techniques of CIA waterboarding.

hence, the only logical conclusion that's possible to draw from your statement is that you think if the Marine had used CIA techniques, it would not have been torture.


since waterboarding seems to get you riled up and unable to think logically, i'm going to make a parallel statement about a more neutral subject:

"I rather think that guy sucks at tennis since he doesn't even know how to hold the racquet."

that sentence only makes sense if you make the *enormous leap of logic* to conclude that i think that a good tennis player knows how to hold a racquet. see the similarity?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Are you so ignorant to understand that taking a specific instance that was not "xyz" and saying it is "ABC" does not mean one doesn't think "XYZ" is or is not "ABC".

I have a feeling you won't understand the above so I'll make it easy for you simpletons - Just because something is specified(in this case torture of mancow that was supposed to be "waterboarding" but wasn't "waterboarding" like the CIA/gov't did to the couple terrorists) doesn't mean one is making a statement regarding something else. Meh - you won't understand that either...as it's already been pointed out.

CAD -- In case you haven't noticed, I'm not the only one calling you out for your bullshit symantic gymnasticss and your twisted, ever changing definitions.. when you bother to define words, at all. At the risk of posting a blatant statement of the obvious, if so many others don't understand what you think you're saying, maybe it's the speaker who has it wrong, not those of us who read your posts as utter gibberish.

I'll try one more time to ask you for some explicit, exact definitions of some terms and conditions.

The title and summary of the thread define the subject:

Topic Title: Conservative Radio Host Gets Waterboarded To Prove It's Not Torture; Lasts 6 Seconds
Topic Summary: "I don't want to say this: absolutely torture."

You said:

I do not support "torture". My definition, your definition, Bush's definition, BHO's definition are all different...

The word, TORTURE is essential to the subject so you can't avoid the word. If "my" definition and Barack Obama's definition aren't sufficient, maybe you'd you settle for the definition under U.S. Code., TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > § 2340:

§ 2340. Definitions

As used in this chapter?

• (1) ?torture? means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
  
  (2) ?severe mental pain or suffering? means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from?
  • 
    (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
    
    (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
    
    (C) the threat of imminent death; or
    
    (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
  (3) ?United States? means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

• 
  
  If you have your own private definition, please tell us what it is, or we have no way of knowing what you mean. For all we know, when you say you don't support torture, you could be referring to your least favorite flavor of lollipop.
  
  You said;
  
  

  No where have I stated that "waterboarding" as done by the CIA/govt to those couple terrorists was or was not "torture".

  
  Well... Is it? After all, that DOES seem to be the crux of the topic of this thread.
  
  You said:
  
  

  what Mancow experienced "was not waterboarding" like what the CIA/gov't did to the couple of terrorists," which you claim is ' is absolute FACT based on the FACT the guy had ZERO actually training in it."

  
  Please tell us why someone would require training beyond reading the descriptions and watching the videos that have been made public about waterboarding to perform an act that would be close enough to conclude for himself whether waterboarding is torture.
  
  Mancow said it is torture. If you dispute that, please support your position with something more substantial than an irrelevant dismissal of what he experienced because the guy pouring the water wasn't officially trained.
  
  When I asked you whether you agree that waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques" are TORTURE, you said:
  
  

  Not something I've stated and irrelevant to what I've posted regarding MANCOW.

  
  Of course, it's relevant to what you've posted regarding Mancow. The Bushwhackos... ummm... "performed" waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques" on numerous captured prisoners... err... detainees. If those acts do not constitute the crime of TORTURE, there would be no reason to discuss whether those who "performed" those acts were guilty of any crimes, and there would be no point to this thread.
  
  If you don't believe whether waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques" constitute TORTURE is germain to the discussion, you're avoiding the entire underlying significance of the discussion.
  
  If you DO believe waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques" constitute TORTURE, but you claim your understanding of the word, TORTURE is different from everyone else's, we have to know what you mean by the word, or you can post until the end of time, and others will read only gibberish.
  
  If you believe what Mancow experienced was NOT a sufficient approximation of waterboarding, we have to know why you believe that is so. The issue is Mancow's actual experience as witnessed by those viewed it on TV, not the credentials of the guy pouring the water.
  
  Finally, I'll pose another question for you based on § 2340A of the statute:
  
  

  § 2340A. Torture

  • (a) Offense.

  • ? Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
    
    (b)] Jurisdiction.? There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if?
    • 
      (1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
      
      (2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
    (c) Conspiracy.? A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

  
  Would you favor prosecuting George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and/or any others from the Bushwhacko administration under § 2340A IF (note the conditional) they are proven to have participated in ordering, authorizing, approving and/or condoning approving the use of TORTURE, in their official capacity of their office?
  
  Do you have the courage to define the terms you've so far avoided defining?
  
  Do you have the courage to take a declarative position about whether the Bushwhackos' "enhanced interrogation techniques" constitute TORTURE?
  
  If so, do you have the courage to take a declarative position about whether any of the Bushwhackos who can be proven in a court of law to have authorized, approved or condoned TORTURE in their official capacity should be prosecuted for those crimes?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Do you have the courage to take a declarative position about whether the Bushwhackos' "enhanced interrogation techniques" constitute TORTURE?

If so, do you have the courage to take a declarative position about whether any of the Bushwhackos who can be proven in a court of law to have authorized, approved or condoned TORTURE in their official capacity should be prosecuted for those crimes?

Do you have the courage to ask the same questions of those in the democrat party who got briefings and apparently were either complicit or too stupid to ask the same questions you do? :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Harvey

Do you have the courage to take a declarative position about whether the Bushwhackos' "enhanced interrogation techniques" constitute TORTURE?

If so, do you have the courage to take a declarative position about whether any of the Bushwhackos who can be proven in a court of law to have authorized, approved or condoned TORTURE in their official capacity should be prosecuted for those crimes?

Do you have the courage to ask the same questions of those in the democrat party who got briefings and apparently were either complicit or too stupid to ask the same questions you do? :laugh: :laugh:

1. Yes, he does. I think he'd be happy like I would to see wrongdoing Democrats nailed too.

David Rockefeller, Jane Harman and perhaps others deserve investigation - and accountability for their actions.

2. You misrepresent the history of the Democrats' role. The information given to Democrats, the role of the Democrats who had their hands tied, has been exaggerated.

Which isn't to say there wasn't some wrongdoing and some inadequate response.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: spittledip
I don't support torture, but I find it ironic that the same people who are against torture are for abortion.

Similar to the non-sequitur that most pro-lifers are pro-death penalty.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Harvey

Do you have the courage to take a declarative position about whether the Bushwhackos' "enhanced interrogation techniques" constitute TORTURE?

If so, do you have the courage to take a declarative position about whether any of the Bushwhackos who can be proven in a court of law to have authorized, approved or condoned TORTURE in their official capacity should be prosecuted for those crimes?

Do you have the courage to ask the same questions of those in the democrat party who got briefings and apparently were either complicit or too stupid to ask the same questions you do? :laugh: :laugh:

1. Yes, he does. I think he'd be happy like I would to see wrongdoing Democrats nailed too.

David Rockefeller, Jane Harman and perhaps others deserve investigation - and accountability for their actions.

2. You misrepresent the history of the Democrats' role.

Craig is right. If you'll search my posts, you'll see that I already have called for making the truth known about the involvement of anyone and everyone of either party in approving and/or condoning the horrendous crimes ordered committed by your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers and war criminals and prosecuting any and all of them who can be shown to have committed any crimes.

Now that I've replied, if you haven't already done so, will you agree to do the same?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Harvey

Do you have the courage to take a declarative position about whether the Bushwhackos' "enhanced interrogation techniques" constitute TORTURE?

If so, do you have the courage to take a declarative position about whether any of the Bushwhackos who can be proven in a court of law to have authorized, approved or condoned TORTURE in their official capacity should be prosecuted for those crimes?

Do you have the courage to ask the same questions of those in the democrat party who got briefings and apparently were either complicit or too stupid to ask the same questions you do? :laugh: :laugh:

1. Yes, he does. I think he'd be happy like I would to see wrongdoing Democrats nailed too.

David Rockefeller, Jane Harman and perhaps others deserve investigation - and accountability for their actions.

2. You misrepresent the history of the Democrats' role.

Craig is right. If you'll search my posts, you'll see that I already have called for making the truth known about the involvement of anyone and everyone of either party in approving and/or condoning the horrendous crimes ordered committed by your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers and war criminals and prosecuting any and all of them who can be shown to have committed any crimes.

Now that I've replied, if you haven't already done so, will you agree to do the same?

My opinion doesn't really matter. I don't have control of the house, senate, and presidency do I?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Q]My opinion doesn't really matter. I don't have control of the house, senate, and presidency do I?

Please go find a first-grade text on the theory of democracy and your role as a citizen (that touches on your vote, and informed public debate).

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: alchemize
Q]My opinion doesn't really matter. I don't have control of the house, senate, and presidency do I?

Please go find a first-grade text on the theory of democracy and your role as a citizen (that touches on your vote, and informed public debate).

It's probably more advanced than yours and Harveys. You know, the chunky-book, partisan hackery for pre-schoolers...

Page 1: DEMS GOOD! (picture of happy donkey)
Page 2: PUBS BAD! (picture of angry elephant)
Page 3: IF DEMS BAD, SEE PAGE 2! (picture of donkey whistling behind angry elephant)
Page 4: POST ON ATP&N (picture of various emoticons and bold random cursing)


What's to debate on? If you want to have a trial, go crazy, I've said it many times...let's get the three ring political circus really going.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Harvey

Craig is right. If you'll search my posts, you'll see that I already have called for making the truth known about the involvement of anyone and everyone of either party in approving and/or condoning the horrendous crimes ordered committed by your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers and war criminals and prosecuting any and all of them who can be shown to have committed any crimes.

Now that I've replied, if you haven't already done so, will you agree to do the same?

My opinion doesn't really matter. I don't have control of the house, senate, and presidency do I?

Your opinion does matter. When someone raises the crimes committed by your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers, if all you can do is to attempt to divert attention away from those crimes by asking if the other person is willing to call out Democrats for whatever crimes you believe they have committed, you've blown your credibility, and you damned near forfeit your right to comment, at all.

Either you support the words inscribed above the West Poritco of the U.S. Supreme Court, "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW," or you really are a partisan hack.

Here's your chance to man up and show us which you are.

And since you replied to my message to CAD about his ever-changing definition of some terms and his failure to define others, do you agree that he should have the courage to explain exactly what his words mean?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Time to state a simple truth, everyone who has been subjected to "waterboarding" Seer program or not(CIA approved method), call it torture.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: spittledip
I don't support torture, but I find it ironic that the same people who are against torture are for abortion.

And pro-life people are for Capital punishment?? Just think about it.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: davestar

Originally posted by: spittledip
I don't support torture, but I find it ironic that the same people who are against torture are for abortion.

i fail to see any connection.

Perhaps you should use Google to find an ultrasound video called Silent Scream...maybe you'll undestand the connection a little better then.

Doesn't that work the other way around too? If it's ironic to be pro-choice (nobody is "for abortion") yet oppose torture, doesn't the opposite also have to be true? How many torture supporting pro-lifers are out there?

 

[tk149]

I used to listen to Mancow almost everyday several years ago. From what I remember, he was more liberal than conservative, but he didn't really talk much about politics.

At the time, he was a shockjock. He tried to force his coworker to eat a shit sandwich. I'm not kidding. He started talking about stuff that was just way too gross for me. He clearly intentionally was trying to be shocking. That's when I quit listening. I doubt he's changed.

His first goal is ratings. What's one good way to get ratings?

Maybe he really couldn't last 6 seconds, but maybe he never wanted to. I'm just saying that he'll spin anything for maximum ratings.

Just an observation: There's a lot of the people in the rawstory.com comments that seem to think that waterboarding is wrong, and yet they wish that Hannity or Rush or Cheney would be subjected to the same treatment. Do they not see the inconsistency?

I think waterboarding is torture in the everyday sense of the word. I seem to recall a previous P&N thread discussing the Geneva Convention definition of torture, and that it was more narrow. Don't quite remember.