President Bush

[Rexer25]

To sum up my feelings about this administration:

The current executive branch of the United States of America condones, and may practice, torture.
George W. Bush deserves every bit of scorn and disdain he's getting, just for this fact.

I will not claim to support WHEN the Bush Administration thought torture was appropriate, but I will ask you- under NO circumstances is ANY form of "torture" appropriate?

I'm a realist, not an ideologue- I believe we cannot afford to have such an attitude such as yours become prevalent.

Of course- I would also have to know what you consider to be "torture".

I like to think I'm pragmatic. But I can't see ever accepting torture as a legitimate method of gathering information. The very idea of "The State", willfully inflicting physical pain or emotional trauma in order to glean information, should scare everyone. It is in direct contradiction to what the Founding Fathers believed about this country. It also diminishes our standing in the world. The U.S.A. is supposed to be a moral leader. We can't claim that, or accept other nations to accept it, if torture is an accepted part of our treatment of others.

Secondly, I would not trust information from a person being tortured. There is a high probability that they are telling you what you want to hear to end their misery. The interrogant may well be filled with false information, sacrificed by his leaders to mislead the interrogators.

Now, having said all that, there may be times where a large number of lives can be saved if information can be taken from a non-cooperative person. From what I've read and heard about interrogation, however, there are non-coercive methods that are usually more reliable. It should be our country's stance that we don't torture, and we don't send prisoners to other countries to be tortured, but if an individual believes he can get information from a source in order to save lives, he should do so, but be willing to face the consequences for his actions. I know, the last part is a radical idea.

[Timsterino]

Bush did not do what those who elected him wanted him to do.

Bush did not do what those who voted for Kerry wanted Kerry to do.

In the end he made no one happy.

I think Brad summed it up quite nicely.

[Jeemie]

To sum up my feelings about this administration:

The current executive branch of the United States of America condones, and may practice, torture.
George W. Bush deserves every bit of scorn and disdain he's getting, just for this fact.

I will not claim to support WHEN the Bush Administration thought torture was appropriate, but I will ask you- under NO circumstances is ANY form of "torture" appropriate?

I'm a realist, not an ideologue- I believe we cannot afford to have such an attitude such as yours become prevalent.

Of course- I would also have to know what you consider to be "torture".

I like to think I'm pragmatic. But I can't see ever accepting torture as a legitimate method of gathering information. The very idea of "The State", willfully inflicting physical pain or emotional trauma in order to glean information, should scare everyone. It is in direct contradiction to what the Founding Fathers believed about this country. It also diminishes our standing in the world. The U.S.A. is supposed to be a moral leader. We can't claim that, or accept other nations to accept it, if torture is an accepted part of our treatment of others.

Secondly, I would not trust information from a person being tortured. There is a high probability that they are telling you what you want to hear to end their misery. The interrogant may well be filled with false information, sacrificed by his leaders to mislead the interrogators.

Now, having said all that, there may be times where a large number of lives can be saved if information can be taken from a non-cooperative person. From what I've read and heard about interrogation, however, there are non-coercive methods that are usually more reliable. It should be our country's stance that we don't torture, and we don't send prisoners to other countries to be tortured, but if an individual believes he can get information from a source in order to save lives, he should do so, but be willing to face the consequences for his actions. I know, the last part is a radical idea.

OK- I can agree with such a stance.

[Rexer25]

I will not claim to support WHEN the Bush Administration thought torture was appropriate, but I will ask you- under NO circumstances is ANY form of "torture" appropriate?

I'm a realist, not an ideologue- I believe we cannot afford to have such an attitude such as yours become prevalent.

Of course- I would also have to know what you consider to be "torture".

I like to think I'm pragmatic. But I can't see ever accepting torture as a legitimate method of gathering information. The very idea of "The State", willfully inflicting physical pain or emotional trauma in order to glean information, should scare everyone. It is in direct contradiction to what the Founding Fathers believed about this country. It also diminishes our standing in the world. The U.S.A. is supposed to be a moral leader. We can't claim that, or accept other nations to accept it, if torture is an accepted part of our treatment of others.

Secondly, I would not trust information from a person being tortured. There is a high probability that they are telling you what you want to hear to end their misery. The interrogant may well be filled with false information, sacrificed by his leaders to mislead the interrogators.

Now, having said all that, there may be times where a large number of lives can be saved if information can be taken from a non-cooperative person. From what I've read and heard about interrogation, however, there are non-coercive methods that are usually more reliable. It should be our country's stance that we don't torture, and we don't send prisoners to other countries to be tortured, but if an individual believes he can get information from a source in order to save lives, he should do so, but be willing to face the consequences for his actions. I know, the last part is a radical idea.

OK- I can agree with such a stance.

Great - will you nominate me for an anti-torture position in the new administration?

[earendel]

But the level of vitriol is high on both sides of the aisle- else I wouldn't see posts (not on these boards) that Obama is a Marxist dictator on the make, and that his "civilian security force" will be today's equivalent of the jackbooted, brownshirt SA thugs as he takes all our money and our guns, and forces us to wear gray uniforms while living in abject poverty.

I am curious if any of the right wingers on the Bored feel just a little bit nervous at the prospect of President Obama using the Patriot Act and his "war powers" in general to go after those against whom he bears a grudge or perhaps those whose policies he disagrees with.

I've felt uneasy about the Patriot Act from the beginning, no matter who's in control of the White House. I seem to recall some people arguing that the Patriot Act was a two-edged sword and wondered what might happen under a Hillary presidency.

[dimmzy]

GETTING BACK TO THE REAL, ORIGINAL POST:

Sewage systems are good. They take rancid, toxic water and restore it so that we have safe water to drink and bathe in. Sewage plants do the dirty work that no one else wants to do and they do it cleanly and safely.

People in many parts of the world can't say the same thing. You cannot turn on a faucet in Mexico, Rwanda, India, even Thailand and drink.

He should be proud to have a sewage plant named after him and I would have been happy to write his speech. He could have turned the entire situation around ... just like Nancy with her "Second Hand Rose" speech.

--dimmzy, daughter of a sewage worker

[WheresFanny]

But saying that he's stupid or incompetent or naming a sewage plant after him shows an unhealthy lack of respect.

As opposed to saying that someone is evil or a murderer or applauding a dog metaphorically pissing on him?

Obama's voting record and ideas about the economy are socialist, he does condone the murder of babies just because their mothers decided to have them killed, and the dog was peeing on his campaign for President, not him. Now that he is the President-elect, I have changed avatars.

So, if you believe something to be true, then (following your logic) it's not an unhealthy lack of respect, it's okay?

Many people believe that Bush is stupid and incompetent, therefore (following your logic) it's it's not an unhealthy lack of respect, it's okay.

The sewage plant is not a person, it's a name on something being associated with organic waste. Your campaign sign is not a person, it's a name on something being associated with organic waste.

[Jeemie]

As opposed to saying that someone is evil or a murderer or applauding a dog metaphorically pissing on him?

Obama's voting record and ideas about the economy are socialist, he does condone the murder of babies just because their mothers decided to have them killed, and the dog was peeing on his campaign for President, not him. Now that he is the President-elect, I have changed avatars.

So, if you believe something to be true, then (following your logic) it's not an unhealthy lack of respect, it's okay?

Many people believe that Bush is stupid and incompetent, therefore (following your logic) it's it's not an unhealthy lack of respect, it's okay.

The sewage plant is not a person, it's a name on something being associated with organic waste. Your campaign sign is not a person, it's a name on something being associated with organic waste.

My brain just exploded from getting too much logic inputted into it.