All I say is people ate up the Obama bullshit just as quickly too. Howard mutherfuckin' Stern proved that one. He did a short segment where he attributed certain McCain aspects to Obama. When they where Obama's "traits" (for lack of a better word because I am tired), such as Sara Palin being his running mate, people approved whole-heartedly. Step back and take a look at the people that are on your side too. You'll find a lot more of them are complete ******* morons than you previously thought. And it will briefly upset as it did me.

 

Didn't catch the Stern thing - but I have to agree with you - it's all about perspective... Old saying, "Power perceived is power acheived."

You have enough believing you you can accomplish more than you can by yourself.

Guys like Beck are far more dangerous... he's like the modern day McCarthy but he controls something the crackpot Senator from Wisconsin only wished he had... a cable network show.

Beck will fall. Hopefully before it's too late.

 

You probably think that Beck is the most dangerous cable TV host in the history of this country? Because I dont remember any cable TV host being perceived as extremely dangerous.

I am not personally scared of anything he might do or say. I am definitely not worried about his opinions on policies since he is not a politician and will contribute nothing to legislative process.

But it makes sense that the liberals would focus so much attention on him. It creates an effctive distraction from those who actually will make critical decisions. Instead of debating Koh's positions, we are debating Beck's view of Koh. A much less productive conversation.

What is Beck likely to do that will make it "too late"?

 

Ted Nugent for the win!!

 

Beck the most dangerous in all history? That's giving the fool more credit than he deserves... lol...

My belief is that he's unaware of what he does. He's gifted in conveying feelings - his looks, demeanor, self effacing candor - all work well on television. But he's gone to a side now that sees extremes in corners and boogie-men under beds that simply do not exist. Could they? Possibly, but they don't.

But preying and "possibly" exposing such "what-ifs" as if they are going to happen, stirs fear in those that follow him.

My grandfather, my mother's father, and my dad, listen to Beck, Limbaugh and some local talk radio hosts - both completely dislike Savage (thank God). But my grandfather calls me nearly 2 to 3 times a week asking if what Beck says is true. At first I would look this **** up to see, my grandfather is a retired assistant DA and devote Republican (he didn't like Palin), but at 93 he can't connect the dots as sharply as he did when I was growing up. You couldn't lie to the man - he looked like Judge Wapner from the original People's Court.

Now he's just scared - though he's owned a gun - due to his Parkinson's we had it taken away over 10 yrs ago - he wants it back, thanks to guys like Beck.

I suppose that's why I'm angry here. My father, a retired plumber, at first took it with a grain of salt, but it took some serious convincing that Obama was not a muslim, due to Limbaugh's rants. But even Beck has my father now convinced there's going to be a war and my dad is asking me to advise him on what kind of gun he needs.

Then there's my younger brother and his wife - he's a Sys Admin for a small non-profit and she's an elementary teacher (she's also hispanic), and they are both caught up in the Beck fever...

They don't want a gun, but they feel the ***** going to hit the fan any moment - mostly thanks to Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh.

Yes, these men are not politicians, but they do influence opinion on a scale that most politicians could only dream - and Obama does. Now Beck's painting a decent man as some legal extremist liberal and it's causing more stir than it's worth.

 

Olberman challenges Hannity...

This is curious and I wonder if Hannity takes him up on this. If not then the he needs to STF

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540...21988#30377447

 

If he's not the most dangerous host in history, then I would like to know who could be considered more dangerous than him? Its a simple question.

The people who are truly trivilazing the torture debate are people like Obama and Olberman who are completely against waterboarding. You cant really get any more trivial than "it's wrong to waterboard and we should never do it." But I appreciate you posting the video since it displays the liberal attitudes which I oppose.

1) Olberman accuses Hannity of failing to recognize "the deadly seriousness of (waterboarding)." The fact is that Hannity recognizes the deadly seriousness of terrorism and is willing to use controversial techniques to fight it. Somehow, Olberman thinks that waterboarding is more serious than the threat of terrorism. He would prefer a land filled with terrorists and free of waterboarding over one free from terrorist because of waterboarding. Its not even a question for him. If waterboarding could somehow rid the world of terrorists, he would have to be opposed to the idea. No waterboarding for any reason because waterboarding is torture and torture cannot be justified for any reason. I resist such simple minded reasoning.

2) Olberman calls the waterboarded terrorist a "victim" and the CIA agent the "evil-doer." Appealing to the liberal tendency to see victims in every aspect of life. The terrorist is a victim of his own ignorance and brutality. Something that seems to have no relevance to Mr. Olberman. He does a good job of providing practically no context to the debate and makes it entirely about treating everyone the same independent of all other factors.

 

lol...

Ok, let me get this straight - the man makes a point and you're trying to disqualify it on which is the lesser of two evils?

The fact of the matter is that waterboarding is torture - people have been convicted - in our country - as lately as President Reagan's administration for torture using this "technique".

And Olberman is right. Even if the scum just killed 15 soldiers right in front of you - it's war and it's governed by the Geneva Convention articles if captured. If you kill him during the engagement, he's a statistic - a casuality of war - but once he's a POW regardless of declaration of intent - they are covered by that.

Every Judge Advocate of each branch of the armed forces have recently gone on record, well before all this came out and were then asked by the Bush administration about it, that using this "technique" will be in direct violation of article III of the Geneva Convention articles.

So what if Hannity has the cajones to do it - it doesn't matter. They are still protected and then Hannity will be the bad guy and the terrorist will indeed be the victim.

Just like domestic laws - as much as it may seem to be protecting the criminal - the rules of war are what they are. You can't go around declaring you're fighting the good fight and then do the crap like that.

Hell, mate, torture all you want if you want to rid the world of these scourge. While you're at it just nuke the place and be rid of them all...

But of course we won't. We should not stoop to that level. I can tell you from witnessing it, Hannity won't last more than 2 secs using the "technique" of waterboarding.

But what stops us? Our own code of ethics? The rules are down - we say we follow them and then we don't and then try to justify it as not being torture.

When we have presidents set in both civilian and military court decisions and convictions saying that it is indeed torture and punishable under law.

Torture cannot be justified for any reason. Even if the end may seem to justify the means. If you do it - you actions are punishable. No one is above the law. And if you think so, then you're living in a world where you've been watching too many movies.

It's a messed up situation - truly it is and every soldier, sailor, airman or marine can tell you that.

Tell that to those that served at Abu Ghraib and the people they fucked with. They are now serving time for their deeds.

 

So which cable TV host is more dangerous than Beck?


Read this carefully. Waterboarding has never been legally defined as torture in this country. I say this because Congress introduced a bill that would explicitly criminalize waterboarding and it did not pass. I repeat, never explicitly defined as torture. Anyone who says that it is torture is experssing their own interpretation of the international accords.

So I reject any argument that assumes that waterboarding is torture in a technical sense.

My reasons for accepting waterboarding as a possible resource have already been explained, and ignored. Let me put them in context yet again.

Critics insist that torture is never acceptable for any reasons. Their actions will no doubt be fully determined by the definition of torture. Torture is always defined with words such as severe or extreme which are completely relative degrees of assesment. In other words, torture is not clearly definable or necessarily the same to everyone. Therefore, even those who declare to be principled and high-minded are in fact forfeiting their free will to make decisions, in favor of defintion determined behavoir.

Here is a great example that will be completely ignored or marginalized as hypothetical when in fact their own position is also hypothetical....

Consider someone (Palindari) who says, "torture must not be used for any reason." A nuclear bomb is set to explode in New York City, powerful enough to kill millions of Americans and whipe the great city off the map. A prisoner with the codes to deactivate the bomb has a record of spilling his guts after 60 seconds of waterboarding. Palindari is completely helpless to save the city. He is obligated to let millions of Americans die. He cannot consider the specifics of the case or the consequences of his actions. He is bound by the dictionary and his own sense of righteousness.

 

lol... I like your "movie" scenerio...

We're talking real world here. These are not "what if" things. Let's tone it down and say this way...

You are a soldier captured and tortured for the information about the next carpet bombing of their camp. The perspective is the same. Maybe you know it and maybe you don't - but hey! according to your beliefs it's justifable to use "techniques" deemed outlawed.

You say waterboarding is not torture - or that it isn't defined as torture... hmmm...

Try these cases on for size...

Sheriff and a couple of his deputies waterboarded an inmate in custody - deputies got 5 yrs, the sheriff got 10.

http://www.truthout.org/042709J

In WWII the Japanese did this "technique" against our own soldiers. Ask them if it was ok.

Play whatever scenerio you like - it's wrong and punishable, as the Reagan administration proved.

Now lets step back a second.

All this goes back to this - using such "techniques" and mistreating captors doesn't help our troops. This crap only helps spur on the opposition. Like the Alamo or massacre at Malmady. It becomes a rallying cry for further bloodshed. You create martyrs and myths when there should be none.

You don't win an ideological war if you don't even hold yourself up to the very ideals you espouse to. And if you think that's not what this is all about, then you're more naive than I thought.