WWRPD?

WHAT WOULD RON PAUL DO!!!!!!?????!!!!

-- Eris23

He wouldn't vote for war funding, unlike the principled Democrats.

lol@you, how about What Would Barack Obama Do? WWBOD? Or how about What Would the Establihsment Democrats Do? WWTEDD?

That's all easy of course, Obama will continue to do what Bush did, and the Democrats will continue to do what they did under Bush.

Do you really want to go there?

no, it's not.

In an answer to all commenters who tried to wise her up, she replied:

So again, instead of using loaded language -- and the word "torture" is loaded -- I advocate that NPR describe interrogation techniques in detail. Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com said that by describing waterboarding as I did, I made it "pleasant-sounding" and "clinical," which baffles me.

To me, the word "waterboarding" alone sounds like what you might do at an amusement park. But if you describe it as tying someone to a board, pouring water down his mouth and nose to create a sense of drowning-- anyone would understand how terrifying that can be.

But no matter how many distinguished groups -- the International Red Cross, the U.N. High Commissioners -- say waterboarding is torture, there are responsible people who say it is not. Former President Bush, former Vice President Cheney, their staff and their supporters obviously believed that waterboarding terrorism suspects was necessary to protect the nation's security.

One can disagree strongly with those beliefs and their actions. But they are due some respect for their views, which are shared by a portion of the American public. So, it is not an open-and-shut case that everyone believes waterboarding to be torture. Many in NPR's audience obviously believe it is, but others do not.

The main argument of my column was that NPR should describe waterboarding rather than use coded language to characterize it. Another alternative is to quote responsible officials who have described it as torture, for example President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder.

There are plenty of commentators, pundits and cable news shows who give opinions rather than facts. As a news consumer, I prefer to get the facts and then decide what I think.

I admit that a linguist gave me pause when he said that if an American journalist were captured in Iran and slammed against a wall repeatedly, or waterboarded or had his fingernails pulled out, many American journalists would say that the Iranian government had tortured the correspondent.

But if I heard a report saying a reporter was tortured, without any details, my first question would be: What do you mean by tortured? Describe exactly what happened so I can decide how to characterize it.

She can't grasp that Cheney and fellow criminals were using euphemism wording to avoid being charged with torture and the law clearly says waterboarding is torture. That responsible people like Bush and Cheney believed waterboarding was necessary is totally irrelevant to refusing to use the correct word torture. She also apparently believes it is responsible journalism to propagate propaganda instead of the truth. So many so called “journalists” like her hide behind objective journlism and not taking sides, when such an approach is impossible even if the reporter truly tried to do it. All her life experiences and prejudices enter into every decision she makes when she starts to think and write.

Your Voices Have Been Heard (see sig)

http://www.npr.org/ombudsman/2009/06/torture_round_two.html

I know voting for Ron Paul is not as principled as voting for the Flawless, Intelligent Debater Barack Obama because Obama is perceived as being a black guy.

Baby steps and all.

You always remind me of a kid just given a big slice of chocolate cake--a few minutes of whirling spastic childish glee, then the crashing tantrum.

Wall Street Journal, Wednesday, July 1, 2009, page A12:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124640687950076679.html

Mr. Franken now goes to the Senate having effectively stolen an election.

- - WSJ

__________

* * * * *

Power Line:
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/06/023933.php

But the election wasn't "stolen;" not during the post-election phase, anyway. Elections are a human institution, and as such are imperfect. The process in Minnesota is pretty good, but when an election is basically a tie, minor imperfections loom large.

[...] Lobbyists are in unprecedented demand in the age of Obama, and no one is more qualified for that work than Coleman. He could, for the first time in his life, make some serious money. Whatever he chooses to do, we wish Norm and his family happiness and success.

- - Scott W. Johnson is a Minneapolis attorney.

__________

I do not see that at all, and neither do the dead.(*)

However, let us stipulate that point for the sake of discussion for one tiny moment. If Afghanistan was a "better place", were in the Constitution do you find authority to tax the working people for America to go abroad to find monsters to slay?

--------

(*) Note that I would rather be free in hell as a slave in heaven, so that does color things a bit. The Afghani as slave to American policy is not exactly being "better off" now is it?

And you remind me of a bitter, angry, condescending little man and ultimately a failure when it comes to what really matters in life, who tries to patch up the holes by focusing on his big smart brain and riding on others' coattails, which is funny because it's true.

I hope Obama reads this article--along with Bush, Cheney--and of course all those shmucks at NPR (National Propaganda Radio) who refuse to use the word 'torture' in their news reports to describe how all these people DIED from, as NPR calls it, "enhanced interrogation techniques".

Yeah, right NPR: "enhanced interrogation techniques"--that leave the person DEAD.

That sounds just like ondelette's multitrillion dollar authoritarian plan to destroy the economy and save the planet, for our own good of course.

Ondelette, how do you know? Are you a mind reader? Or is it that any "expert" would agree with your assessment?

Many, many "experts" that I have read, and I read foreign policy all the time, simply disagree with you. I tell you what, why don't you have an argument with Justin Raimondo over at antiwar.com and I'll watch him respond to "you are ignorant if you disagree". That will make my summer. When will you be starting?