The torture would have been maybe YOUR family getting blown apart in the attack plans they were able to get from any one of the THREE high level terrorist individuals that,unfortunately, had to undergo less than a minute of the water treatment in order to give up the information which then was used to avert several attacks.
Had the information not been gotten and the attacks been carried out, you'd make the complaint that we were unable to stop them, finding a clip with which to revel in your grandiose delusion of superiority. Not to mention if your mother had been blown to bits in one of them. (Then you'd actually have a valid complaint.)

Undoubtedly the new 3.0 interface, and this Faceb...

The torture would have been maybe YOUR family getting blown apart in the attack plans they were able to get from any one of the THREE high level terrorist individuals that,unfortunately, had to undergo less than a minute of the water treatment in order to give up the information which then was used to avert several attacks.
Had the information not been gotten and the attacks been carried out, you'd make the complaint that we were unable to stop them, finding a clip with which to revel in your grandiose delusion of superiority. Not to mention if your mother had been blown to bits in one of them. (Then you'd actually have a valid complaint.)

Undoubtedly the new 3.0 interface, and this Facebook association will bring more favorable "poppers" to such an inane clip, as I don't imagine Facebook is filled with lots of logical thinkers. Worshippers of Hollywood imbeciles, teenagers who don't research the news, and Crooks & Liars readers will pour in here to swarm over your "who would Jesus Torture" type clips with pops galore as few of them know the facts any better than you do.

"Waterboarding will give you a confession, but it won't always get you
the truth," McCain said Tuesday as he campaigned for the Republican
presidential nomination in South Carolina. "I'm not going to condone a
practice that we used as the rationale for prosecuting the Japanese for
war crimes in World War II.

"I maintain my belief that it is harmful to America's national
security because it damages our image so badly and we lose the
ideological struggle, which is based on the moral high ground," said
McCain, an ex-Navy pilot who suffered permanent injuries from the
torture he suffered after being shot down over Hanoi in the 1960s.
"We're going to win this struggle aga...

read more»

"Waterboarding will give you a confession, but it won't always get you
the truth," McCain said Tuesday as he campaigned for the Republican
presidential nomination in South Carolina. "I'm not going to condone a
practice that we used as the rationale for prosecuting the Japanese for
war crimes in World War II.

"I maintain my belief that it is harmful to America's national
security because it damages our image so badly and we lose the
ideological struggle, which is based on the moral high ground," said
McCain, an ex-Navy pilot who suffered permanent injuries from the
torture he suffered after being shot down over Hanoi in the 1960s.
"We're going to win this struggle against radical Islamic extremism on
the ideological battlefield, and if we engage in torture, i.e.
waterboarding, we will lose more than we gain."

Davboz

Now convince me your in a better position to comment on torture then this man. Of course I don,t expect much more then the previous canned comment. Actually I don't expect a response at all. Now when you say family you also mean yourself I'm sure. Self-preservation, I'm ok with that, As Christians go it seems to be the driving force behide your and most other religions anyway. Believe or burn in hell. It's fine though, It's common for humans to babble incoherently when confronted with a question they have no intelligent, informed or morally justifiable response to.
Have a nice day and remember, Duck and Cover!

Oh yea, you never did answer the original question. What a shocker.

Self-preservation, I'm ok with that, As Christians go it seems to be the driving force behide your and most other religions anyway

I respect John McCain, however his opinion is simply that, funny a far-left guru quoting a Republican to win an argument, guess wonders will never cease.

If Christianity is your best argument over waterboarding let me say its weak as hell. You're naive to say the least, oh you beleive you'd never allow waterboarding, how high and mighty of you. Let's hope you never are faced with a life and death issue, but if so, you would see just how much morals fit into the situation.

I doubt before this became a political issue many would ha...

Self-preservation, I'm ok with that, As Christians go it seems to be the driving force behide your and most other religions anyway

I respect John McCain, however his opinion is simply that, funny a far-left guru quoting a Republican to win an argument, guess wonders will never cease.

If Christianity is your best argument over waterboarding let me say its weak as hell. You're naive to say the least, oh you beleive you'd never allow waterboarding, how high and mighty of you. Let's hope you never are faced with a life and death issue, but if so, you would see just how much morals fit into the situation.

I doubt before this became a political issue many would have minded the waterboarding of terrorists, some of your people in Congress didn't until it became politically correct to do so, it simply goes against the far lefts agenda at this time.

Typical Necon response
The entire lot are self-righteous, blathering hypocrites
those dumb ass documents like the CONSTITUTION and THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
Welcome to the new Christianity. Or is it The new BS

Typical response of a two-faced hypocrite who dares oppose anything Lord Geshizar has to say, I'd say you are an idiot on top of being a hypocrite, people either beleive your views or you label them right wing hypocrites, right. Real nice coming from a hypocrite pal.

You dismiss anyone's comments who dare disagree and say it's just "Typical Necon respones" and declare them blathering hypocrites. You refer to the Constitution and Bill of Rights as "d...

Typical Necon response
The entire lot are self-righteous, blathering hypocrites
those dumb ass documents like the CONSTITUTION and THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
Welcome to the new Christianity. Or is it The new BS

Typical response of a two-faced hypocrite who dares oppose anything Lord Geshizar has to say, I'd say you are an idiot on top of being a hypocrite, people either beleive your views or you label them right wing hypocrites, right. Real nice coming from a hypocrite pal.

You dismiss anyone's comments who dare disagree and say it's just "Typical Necon respones" and declare them blathering hypocrites. You refer to the Constitution and Bill of Rights as "dumb-ass documents" well that speaks well of your ignorant rantings. You far-left morons preach love of those two documents when it suits your needs or agenda and then shit on it when it does not, hypocracy at it's finest, you're actually nothing more than a pathetic far left lunatic.

My response is all the BS you speak of spills straight from your own mouth and those of your cronnies who are nothing but hate mongers anyway. So have a nice day there you loones.

Ok, I see what your doing here, your trying to excuse torture by equating it with imprisonment or death, which you know are not the same. Talk about playing rhetorical games. The fact that you merely repeat the same thing over, and over and over is designed to obfuscate, knowing full well torture is wrong, only serves to intimidate the innocent and extract false confessions and generally doesn't work. In fact, it is revealing that you use the framework of "punishment" as if somehow anyone would be deserving of torture and that if we merely rationalize that only the "bad guys" are getting tortured then its ok.

Very well then....

Is it right to kill an innocent man?

Or is it right to inc...

Ok, I see what your doing here, your trying to excuse torture by equating it with imprisonment or death, which you know are not the same. Talk about playing rhetorical games. The fact that you merely repeat the same thing over, and over and over is designed to obfuscate, knowing full well torture is wrong, only serves to intimidate the innocent and extract false confessions and generally doesn't work. In fact, it is revealing that you use the framework of "punishment" as if somehow anyone would be deserving of torture and that if we merely rationalize that only the "bad guys" are getting tortured then its ok.

Very well then....

Is it right to kill an innocent man?

Or is it right to incarcerate the wrong person?

And what acts (if any) would justify soiling one hands by purposely inflict pain on others?

Of course if you answer my questions with the same two questions then I know you joined the Willhelm school of nonsensical rhetoric (I know a contradiction in terms, but then The Willhelm's self delusions as powerful enough to make day into night and wrong into right). In which case there is really no reason to belabor the point.

So the floor is yours.....surprise me!

You sound eerily similar to someone else I know on CM.

You too?
I thought I was being over imaginative. Who can beat a ladies
intuition? I was waiting for the trade mark mistakes but they were not
as obvious.

Are you sure? Don't they all sound the same, singing
from the one swiftboat hymn sheet? Like switching from McCain, who did,
to Clinton, who didn't, as diversion but ignoring AWOL Bush, the
coward. Then repeated comments to confuse with a stream of meaningless
guff. Logic is as useful to these headless chickens as balls on a
virgin maid.

Why aren't the Clip Father's looking into this Righty? I mean, come on. Just like the time someone...

You sound eerily similar to someone else I know on CM.

You too?
I thought I was being over imaginative. Who can beat a ladies
intuition? I was waiting for the trade mark mistakes but they were not
as obvious.

Are you sure? Don't they all sound the same, singing
from the one swiftboat hymn sheet? Like switching from McCain, who did,
to Clinton, who didn't, as diversion but ignoring AWOL Bush, the
coward. Then repeated comments to confuse with a stream of meaningless
guff. Logic is as useful to these headless chickens as balls on a
virgin maid.

Why aren't the Clip Father's looking into this Righty? I mean, come on. Just like the time someone posted comments that had to be removed on my clip then a certain someone was on it like stink on s***. I find that odd.
Just like I find it odd that someone has time to do all this clipping while holding down a full-time job and raising a young family. Been there and done that and I know what that is like. I've just starting working again recently part-time and I've found that I haven't been able to clip as much even though my work hours give me a lot of freedom. But both my girls are grown and my husband helps me out a lot at the home, so that helps.
I also find it odd that someone would claim to be financially independent in their late 30's. Short of an inheritance or winning the lottery, I doubt that is true. I also doubt that someone is such a self proclaimed "expert" on everything. My guess is that person is a telemarketer at best and there is nothing wrong with that, but there is plenty wrong with what's going on here.

Just a general observation:

"You don't have a right to an opinion. You have the right to an INFORMED opinion." - Harlan Ellison.

Arguing with either Jesus or John McCain on the issue of torture is just plain freaking hiliarious. It's not just stupid, it's magificantly stupid, gloriously, conspiciously and transparently stupid. It's the sort of stupid that makes both real christians and real conservatives try and tip-toe away from you so that they won't be accidentally associated with such stupidity.

That's a really serious issue in this current climate of debate, by the by.

Just say you like the idea of torturing people. It's a perfectly reasonable kink. It's called "sadism," and if y...

Just a general observation:

"You don't have a right to an opinion. You have the right to an INFORMED opinion." - Harlan Ellison.

Arguing with either Jesus or John McCain on the issue of torture is just plain freaking hiliarious. It's not just stupid, it's magificantly stupid, gloriously, conspiciously and transparently stupid. It's the sort of stupid that makes both real christians and real conservatives try and tip-toe away from you so that they won't be accidentally associated with such stupidity.

That's a really serious issue in this current climate of debate, by the by.

Just say you like the idea of torturing people. It's a perfectly reasonable kink. It's called "sadism," and if you are ethical about it and go to the right places, a skilled sadist will find many eager masochists to play with. Hell, there are people who will stand in line for the chance to be waterboarded. As horrible as it is, nonetheless. (And no, it makes no sense to me, either, I just know it to be true.)

When you project personal desires, sexual or otherwise, onto questions of foreign policy, not only does one earn much very bad karma, but it doesn't bring any noticeable payoff.

On the other hand, a visit to The Vault (565 West 23rd Street, Manhattan Phone: (212) 255-6758 ) is inexpensive and rewarding. Really, I think more Conservatives need to be introduced to the concept of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe%2C_sane_and_consensual">Safe, Sane and Consensual.</a>

"You don't have a right to an opinion. You have the right to an INFORMED opinion." - Harlan Ellison.
Arguing
with either Jesus or John McCain on the issue of torture is just plain
freaking hiliarious. It's not just stupid, it's magificantly stupid,
gloriously, conspiciously and transparently stupid. It's the sort of
stupid that makes both real christians and real conservatives try and
tip-toe away from you so that they won't be accidentally associated
with such stupidity.
That's a really serious issue in this current climate of debate, by the by.
Just
say you like the idea of torturing people. It's a perfectly reasonable
kink. It's called "sadism," and if you are ethical about it and ...

"You don't have a right to an opinion. You have the right to an INFORMED opinion." - Harlan Ellison.
Arguing
with either Jesus or John McCain on the issue of torture is just plain
freaking hiliarious. It's not just stupid, it's magificantly stupid,
gloriously, conspiciously and transparently stupid. It's the sort of
stupid that makes both real christians and real conservatives try and
tip-toe away from you so that they won't be accidentally associated
with such stupidity.
That's a really serious issue in this current climate of debate, by the by.
Just
say you like the idea of torturing people. It's a perfectly reasonable
kink. It's called "sadism," and if you are ethical about it and go to
the right places, a skilled sadist will find many eager masochists to
play with. Hell, there are people who will stand in line for the chance
to be waterboarded. As horrible as it is, nonetheless. (And no, it
makes no sense to me, either, I just know it to be true.)
When
you project personal desires, sexual or otherwise, onto questions of
foreign policy, not only does one earn much very bad karma, but it
doesn't bring any noticeable payoff.
On the other hand, a visit
to The Vault (565 West 23rd Street, Manhattan Phone: (212) 255-6758 )
is inexpensive and rewarding. Really, I think more Conservatives need
to be introduced to the concept of <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe%2C_sane_and_consensual">Safe,
Sane and Consensual.</a>

So, I'm curious:

Who would Jesus Imprison?
Who would Jesus Kill?

I can't believe that such a load of dingo's kidney's can arise from so true a statement? Of course we would torture if it saved American lives in the war. I'm saying this as a veteran myself and as the father of an Iraqi war veteran. But do we support torture as a rule of thumb?
Of course not- The idea that we can conduct ourselves as civilized humans in a war where the enemy targets civilians with bomb toting women and children who are happy to blow themselves up for Allah and the Screaming Sheik of the week? It's not possible to be civilized in such an environment. It's the saddest part of the war, and it's not PC to say it,but there it is. Jesus has nothing to do with it-
I'll be brief, ...

I can't believe that such a load of dingo's kidney's can arise from so true a statement? Of course we would torture if it saved American lives in the war. I'm saying this as a veteran myself and as the father of an Iraqi war veteran. But do we support torture as a rule of thumb?
Of course not- The idea that we can conduct ourselves as civilized humans in a war where the enemy targets civilians with bomb toting women and children who are happy to blow themselves up for Allah and the Screaming Sheik of the week? It's not possible to be civilized in such an environment. It's the saddest part of the war, and it's not PC to say it,but there it is. Jesus has nothing to do with it-
I'll be brief, If working a guy over can save my boy's life and the lives of other young men and women then screw the guy- he's as boned as a guy can be in a war of terror- but to continue treating this individual as though he has more to offer even a week after his capture is wrong all over the place- Get what you need out of the guy, then put him in a camp and let him sit out the war. We don't have to maintain a level of torture to any of these fellow human beings- let's not forget that they are indeed fellow human beings right? Besides these guys are pretty sketchey in the first place in the psychological department you know-
It's entirely possible in many cases that the promise of a trip to America and a good meal will get as much info as a beating or water boarding will. So be real- it sucks, but it must be to save our lives, I know it's true, so I can't ignore it and call on Jesus to "make it go away" thats not how I believe he works. " If it really is us or them, then I pick us!"

Geshizar, you are so right in principle that it pains me to make the comment I made- People like you, are why people like me put our lives on the line to defend you from tyranny. I don't believe for a second that this war is a matter of "Iraqi's are gunna get us" That's just what George tells us. But we're in it now- and this is how it goes in war. Truly my heart breaks at the truth of it, but to deny it, to "play fair" like the noble Knights of Camelot will only get our soldiers killed. From the bottom of my heart I'm sorry that you and others like you have to belong to such a terrible double standard, that you call it home, but the truth is as I have laid out- ugly and wrong and full of ha...

Geshizar, you are so right in principle that it pains me to make the comment I made- People like you, are why people like me put our lives on the line to defend you from tyranny. I don't believe for a second that this war is a matter of "Iraqi's are gunna get us" That's just what George tells us. But we're in it now- and this is how it goes in war. Truly my heart breaks at the truth of it, but to deny it, to "play fair" like the noble Knights of Camelot will only get our soldiers killed. From the bottom of my heart I'm sorry that you and others like you have to belong to such a terrible double standard, that you call it home, but the truth is as I have laid out- ugly and wrong and full of hatred.
May the God that you pray to grant you peace and long life, you truly deserve both- especially if this moral outrage is the price. - a soldier

If torture is all about saving lives then it is safe to assume it should be applied to saving all lives, not just soldiers. An example would be drugs. 15000-17000 drug related deaths in the just in the US every year from overdose. This doesn't include violet deaths of people related to drug activity. We could easily stop the flow by first grabbing all the dealers, a little water boarding and they give up the next guy in the chain and so on and so forth. In the end we have stopped the drug flow, gotten rid of all the bad guys and saved lives. We could apply this policy to any situation that may save lives why only in wartime? after all a life is a life.
Questions what happens when...

If torture is all about saving lives then it is safe to assume it should be applied to saving all lives, not just soldiers. An example would be drugs. 15000-17000 drug related deaths in the just in the US every year from overdose. This doesn't include violet deaths of people related to drug activity. We could easily stop the flow by first grabbing all the dealers, a little water boarding and they give up the next guy in the chain and so on and so forth. In the end we have stopped the drug flow, gotten rid of all the bad guys and saved lives. We could apply this policy to any situation that may save lives why only in wartime? after all a life is a life.
Questions what happens when we torture an innocent person. Do his kids grow up hating the US enough to strap a bomb themselves?
If these people are such fanatics what makes you think they will give up good info and if they are willing to blow themselves to little pieces what makes you think water boarding, which they know will not kill them, is going to have any effect.
Do you think that the fact that the US is torturing people improves the situation for our troops or makes them more vulnerable, and not just from terrorist.
Powell has spoken strongly against this proposal, so has John McCain, John Warner and Lindsey Grahm, all republican senators on the Armed Services Committee.
Powell's letter to McCain:
"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk."

Lets not listen to any of these people. For example what would Powell know about war, how dare he speak out against torture, he must be terribly misguided. What, you don't think Powell gives a damn, about our troops in Iraq? Or maybe you don't believe he knows enough about war to make an intelligent comment. Yea its only an opinion, but then everyone of Bushes advisor's is merely giving an opinion so who's opinion do we follow.
Heres my opinion, how about we follow the opinion which conforms with everything this country is suppose to stand for, everything that our soldiers have died for throughout our history. Lets not soil the constitution and remove the honorable standards that mak...

Lets not listen to any of these people. For example what would Powell know about war, how dare he speak out against torture, he must be terribly misguided. What, you don't think Powell gives a damn, about our troops in Iraq? Or maybe you don't believe he knows enough about war to make an intelligent comment. Yea its only an opinion, but then everyone of Bushes advisor's is merely giving an opinion so who's opinion do we follow.
Heres my opinion, how about we follow the opinion which conforms with everything this country is suppose to stand for, everything that our soldiers have died for throughout our history. Lets not soil the constitution and remove the honorable standards that make America a proud nation.
To sum all of this up (It's late and my roof is leaking) People who are for 'enhanced interrogation" (Nice term) love to paint it as an issue of achieving vital intell, and the only thing standing in there way is some sort of abstract philosophical concept. What they choose to ignore is that torture is a doubled-edged sword.
By the admission of some of our own troops,the people tortured don't even have the information we want, they are tortured simply in order to find out whether they have information. And later, some of those people make it home, and they tell their children what was done to them, and they are filled with justifiable ( you notice I said justifiable) hate for us.

And years later, one of their kids strap on a bomb to his chest and runs into one of our malls, and detonates it.

And then some hawkish people stand up and proclaim, "See? They are irrational religious zealots. We have to do something about this. And it starts all over again.

Jesus was brought before Pontias Pilate under blasphemy and the false accusation that he was inciting the people to riot against the Romans. Pontias Brought Jesus before the tribunal, they pronounced him innocent.

Upon finding him innocent Pontias Pilate tried to reason with the Jewish religious leaders to let him go. They refused.

It was customary at that time during the passover for the Romans to pardon a Jewish prisoner as a token of goodwill. Pontias gave the people a choice between Barabas, a murderer, and Jesus. The religious leaders convinced the people to choose Barabas.

Pontias again pleaded with the religious leaders that Jesus had done no wrong and did not deserve death. The r...

Jesus was brought before Pontias Pilate under blasphemy and the false accusation that he was inciting the people to riot against the Romans. Pontias Brought Jesus before the tribunal, they pronounced him innocent.

Upon finding him innocent Pontias Pilate tried to reason with the Jewish religious leaders to let him go. They refused.

It was customary at that time during the passover for the Romans to pardon a Jewish prisoner as a token of goodwill. Pontias gave the people a choice between Barabas, a murderer, and Jesus. The religious leaders convinced the people to choose Barabas.

Pontias again pleaded with the religious leaders that Jesus had done no wrong and did not deserve death. The religious leaders threaten to accuse Pontias of trying to over throw the Roman Emperor, if he did not meet their demands.

Pontias turned him over to the religious leaders, saying let his innocent blood be on your hands, I wash my hands of this.

Sorry I can't remember the source.

Imagine that a known terrorist has planted a large bomb in the heart of a nearby city. The man now sits in your custody. As to the bombs location, he will say nothing except that the site was chosen to produce the maximum loss of life. [...] If a ticking bomb doesn't move you, picture your seven-year-old daughter being slowly asphyxiated in a warehouse five minutes away, while the man in your custody holds the keys to her release. If your daughter won't tip the scales, then add the daughters of every couple for a thousand miles [...] Clearly, the consequences of one man's uncooperativeness can be made so grave, and his malevolence and culpability so tran...

Sorry I can't remember the source.

Imagine that a known terrorist has planted a large bomb in the heart of a nearby city. The man now sits in your custody. As to the bombs location, he will say nothing except that the site was chosen to produce the maximum loss of life. [...] If a ticking bomb doesn't move you, picture your seven-year-old daughter being slowly asphyxiated in a warehouse five minutes away, while the man in your custody holds the keys to her release. If your daughter won't tip the scales, then add the daughters of every couple for a thousand miles [...] Clearly, the consequences of one man's uncooperativeness can be made so grave, and his malevolence and culpability so transparent, as to stir even the most self-hating moral relativist from his dogmatic slumbers.

I naively thought this line of argument had been discredited long ago, but okay, as long as we're proposing hypotheticals: the same man holds the key to the same warehouse, full of hundreds of thousands of daughters including your own. However, he is impervious to pain and there is no way to force him to save the girls. He will give up the keys on one condition: you must slowly torture to death everyone you have ever loved while he watches and laughs. Must every "self-hating moral relativist" embrace this outcome as well?

I presume there is some name for this line of argument: one person proposes a principle that should be adhered to, and the other concocts the most extreme hypothetical possible intended to force the other person to admit the principle does not always hold. This chink in the armor now established, the argument shifts to debating where the line is rather than whether the principle is appropriate. It's effective and I'm not always above using it myself, but I'm going to argue for the principle even knowing that this kind of hypothetical can put a philosophical gun to my head about its universality

It appears that such restraint in the use of torture cannot be reconciled with the willingness to wage war in the first place. What, after all, is "collateral damage" but the inadvertent torture of innocent men, women, and children? Whenever we consent to drop bombs, we do so with the knowledge that some number of children will be blinded, disemboweled, paralyzed, orphaned, and killed by them. [...] It seems obvious that the misapplication of torture should be far less troubling to us than collateral damage; there are, after all, no infants interned at Guatanamo Bay, just rather scrofulous young men, many of whom were caught in the very act of trying to kill our soldiers. [...] The ethical d...

It appears that such restraint in the use of torture cannot be reconciled with the willingness to wage war in the first place. What, after all, is "collateral damage" but the inadvertent torture of innocent men, women, and children? Whenever we consent to drop bombs, we do so with the knowledge that some number of children will be blinded, disemboweled, paralyzed, orphaned, and killed by them. [...] It seems obvious that the misapplication of torture should be far less troubling to us than collateral damage; there are, after all, no infants interned at Guatanamo Bay, just rather scrofulous young men, many of whom were caught in the very act of trying to kill our soldiers. [...] The ethical divide that seems to be opening up here suggests that those who are willing to drop bombs might want to abduct the nearest and dearest of suspected terrorists and torture them as well [...] Admittedly this would be a ghastly result to have reached by logical argument, and we will want to find some way of escaping it.

It is a ghastly result indeed but I fail to understand this claim of equivalence. Ethics is more about intent than result (though people do have some ethical responsibility for their results regardless of their intent, especially when they should have known better.) The good guys work hard to minimize collateral damage because they understand that innocents should not be made to suffer more than necessary. Collateral damage may be foreseeable much of the time but that does not make it preventable when you're fighting a conflict that has been thrust upon you. Torture is always preventable except in the fantasy world of well-constructed hypotheticals.

@Geshizar

Your repeated comment is getting old,
Jesus would not object to a just imprisonment.
Jesus would not kill. period.

---

Who would Jesus torture?

Everyone who doesn't believe in him as their personal lord and savior. And he'll do so for the rest of eternity.

It doesn't matter how much good you've done or how good you've been. If you don't believe he is your eternal master, he will see to it that you'll burn in hell forever.

Isn't hell a prison of eternal torment?

So, yes, Jesus WOULD kill AND torture. Now...
---

Back to reality:

dirish's comments were right on target. He's not trying to apply an absolute to a relative. It is not always practical.

W...

@Geshizar

Your repeated comment is getting old,
Jesus would not object to a just imprisonment.
Jesus would not kill. period.

---

Who would Jesus torture?

Everyone who doesn't believe in him as their personal lord and savior. And he'll do so for the rest of eternity.

It doesn't matter how much good you've done or how good you've been. If you don't believe he is your eternal master, he will see to it that you'll burn in hell forever.

Isn't hell a prison of eternal torment?

So, yes, Jesus WOULD kill AND torture. Now...
---

Back to reality:

dirish's comments were right on target. He's not trying to apply an absolute to a relative. It is not always practical.

When someone is purposely trying to do harm to innocent people, that someone has effectively forfeited their right to be treated humanely. FHAU!

The ticking time bomb situation calls for expedient and effective action against a person who has knowingly and purposely given up his/her rights to being treated humanely.

He can reestablish those rights by singing like a bird, or he can test his resolve to be an as_hole.

This situation is very different from that of a prisoner who's been there for months and being tortured for hell of it.

In that case, it's the torturer who's the as_hole. Such inhumanness is simply not necessary and is therefore evil and wrong.

(Besides, like in Guantanamo, these people have had no trails. Our system of justice is to assume innocence until proven otherwise. If they're guilty, why haven't they been given trails? Until we do - give them trails - are we not torturing the innocent?)

What would Jesus Do?

A valid question to ask one self when facing an ethical dilemma
assuming of course that you hold some ideology and/or religion that respects
him and his teachings.

However, the answer to the question does not necessarily mean it is the correct
answer for one's own particular situation. For example, even in self-defense
Jesus would not kill another (I assume based on my limited base of knowledge).

So, would Jesus kill? No. Does that answer in itself make it wrong to kill? Not
necessarily. Does it make you a hypocrite to kill or support it? Not necessarily.

Would Jesus "torture"? No (although I take your point Aces). Does
that answer in itself make...

What would Jesus Do?

A valid question to ask one self when facing an ethical dilemma
assuming of course that you hold some ideology and/or religion that respects
him and his teachings.

However, the answer to the question does not necessarily mean it is the correct
answer for one's own particular situation. For example, even in self-defense
Jesus would not kill another (I assume based on my limited base of knowledge).

So, would Jesus kill? No. Does that answer in itself make it wrong to kill? Not
necessarily. Does it make you a hypocrite to kill or support it? Not necessarily.

Would Jesus "torture"? No (although I take your point Aces). Does
that answer in itself make it wrong to "torture" (such a subjective
word, hence the quotes). Not necessarily. Does it make you a hypocrite (the
attempted point to this clip) to "torture" or support it? Not necessarily.

That said, it never hurts to ask the question and use the answer as a factor in
coming to a decision.

Thank you, BD, for clarifying your rhetorical question. I like answering rhetorical questions, I'm perverse that way.

However, a repeated "Who would Jesus Kill, Who would Jesus Imprison" was really too telegraphic to provide much of a lead in.

I'm going to point you to something I just wrote as an explanation of my own basis for making ethical judgements - with this one assertion you may find of interest:

All of these various ethical philosophies state that it is the outcome of an action that matters, rather than the choice of a particular action, or the inherent virtue or lack in the person....

Thank you, BD, for clarifying your rhetorical question. I like answering rhetorical questions, I'm perverse that way.

However, a repeated "Who would Jesus Kill, Who would Jesus Imprison" was really too telegraphic to provide much of a lead in.

I'm going to point you to something I just wrote as an explanation of my own basis for making ethical judgements - with this one assertion you may find of interest:

All of these various ethical philosophies state that it is the outcome of an action that matters, rather than the choice of a particular action, or the inherent virtue or lack in the person. I would argue further that consequences - the observable outcome of a particular choice - is all that we have to objectively determine how "good" or "bad" a particular set of assumptions and choices were.*

If you wish a Christian summation of that - there is the parable of the fig tree, which is as succinct a summation of this principle as can be imagined. According to the parable, it matters not at all whether the fig tree is beautiful or ugly - if it's fruit is bitter and useless, it should be cut down, because it's wasting both space, cultivation efforts and nutrients to produce nothing of value.

Christ Himself was arguably a Utilitarian ethicist.

Our image of Jesus shapes our answer to the question.

A good observation, and the answer is completely subjective. Either way, it assumes the person answering the question knows the difference between right and wrong, and opts for right (doing what Jesus would do).

So what is right? Hurting the one, to save the many? Is that not what Jesus did?

graphictruth alludes to it, but moral correctness is not absolute! In fact there's no such thing an absolute moral (though there are things we absolutely would not do because of our own sense of morality).

I just popped a clip on the Saudi (king?) that "pardoned" [get that] PARDONED a rape victim from getting 90 lashes...

Our image of Jesus shapes our answer to the question.

A good observation, and the answer is completely subjective. Either way, it assumes the person answering the question knows the difference between right and wrong, and opts for right (doing what Jesus would do).

So what is right? Hurting the one, to save the many? Is that not what Jesus did?

graphictruth alludes to it, but moral correctness is not absolute! In fact there's no such thing an absolute moral (though there are things we absolutely would not do because of our own sense of morality).

I just popped a clip on the Saudi (king?) that "pardoned" [get that] PARDONED a rape victim from getting 90 lashes for being alone in presence of other men. Why was she in their presence? She was being raped!

But Sharia law stated she was to get 90 lashes for her crime of "being in their presence alone". This complete lack of justice is their moral law applied as an absolute!

Is it justice to cane the rape victim?

The point is, morality is in fact relative. It's the JUSTICE that ultimately determines the degree to which an application is right or wrong. And that too is subjective.

@graphictruth

So what is right? Hurting the one, to save the many? Is that not what Jesus did?

In the words of Wikipedia, [citation needed]. If that underline was intended to be a link (and it should be,) it ain't workin'.

The theory behind the sacrifice, is to PAY for something else. Value for value.

Jesus supposedly "sacrificed" his life (hurting the one) to "save" the many.

It's in that sense that I meant "Isn't that what Jesus did?" Would you sacrifice yourself to save many others? (It depends greatly on your moral character and personal bravery, wouldn't it?)

Such moral character and personal bravery is the belief believers hold as Jesus.
...

@graphictruth

So what is right? Hurting the one, to save the many? Is that not what Jesus did?

In the words of Wikipedia, [citation needed]. If that underline was intended to be a link (and it should be,) it ain't workin'.

The theory behind the sacrifice, is to PAY for something else. Value for value.

Jesus supposedly "sacrificed" his life (hurting the one) to "save" the many.

It's in that sense that I meant "Isn't that what Jesus did?" Would you sacrifice yourself to save many others? (It depends greatly on your moral character and personal bravery, wouldn't it?)

Such moral character and personal bravery is the belief believers hold as Jesus.

So the other question is: would Jesus torture the one to save the many?

And the answer is "yes". He subjected himself (the one) to save the many. And...

The existence of hell (if you believe any of this) is the torture of "many". Again. Torture is clearly very relative and NOT absolute.

If torture was inherently wrong (sinful, evil, etc..) then both god and Jesus would be guilty of sin. Whose invention was hell, anyway?

The simple point is that there is no such thing as absolute morality. Even the gods sin their share of immorality.

Long story short. If you would never, ever, torture another human being, regardless...

It is because your moral standards are higher than that of a god.

(Note: It doesn't necessarily make you right, nor practical, nor just; just moral.)

Aces, I believe that you have just come up with a topper for the "Repugnant Conclusion" of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repugnant_conclusion">Mere Addition Paradox.</a> (Been doing my homework)

Who's invention was hell? Likely it comes from oral tradition, predating even the oldest books - every precursor religion I know of mentions an afterlife. Only when religion gets organized do we find conditions being placed on getting there, and/or where you go based on priestly intervention. Nice racket, that.

WASP Christian Hell is a form of psychological intimidation intended to terrify and subdue a tithe-paying population.

I am not yet arguing the point you raised - in case you we...

Aces, I believe that you have just come up with a topper for the "Repugnant Conclusion" of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repugnant_conclusion">Mere Addition Paradox.</a> (Been doing my homework)

Who's invention was hell? Likely it comes from oral tradition, predating even the oldest books - every precursor religion I know of mentions an afterlife. Only when religion gets organized do we find conditions being placed on getting there, and/or where you go based on priestly intervention. Nice racket, that.

WASP Christian Hell is a form of psychological intimidation intended to terrify and subdue a tithe-paying population.

I am not yet arguing the point you raised - in case you were about to object. What I am arguing is that the formulation of the point is dependent on cultural Christian assumptions.

Whatever your intents or assumptions in doing so, you have created a classical "reducto ad absurdum," a logical conclusion based on commonly assumed truths that is seemingly both logically inevitable and logically absurd, based on the same set of assumptions.

I cannot say I would never hurt or harm another human being. But I can say that I would never do it with the intent of terrorizing a population, or with any certainty of gaining useful information.

First: because it's unethical to the extent that it will taint any ethical objective I might have.

Second: whether I torture or not, even a trained interrogator can only discern the truth about fifty percent of the time.

There are techniques to get around this and the FBI uses every single one that works reliably and doesn't leave valuable agents with galloping PTSD.

Torture, as described by the FBI as what they saw at Gitmo - is intended to break a person, and put them in a state where they will do, say, even sincerely believe anything you want - and anything they THINK you want.

It's a soul-destroying thing, in a poetically accurate sense. For everyone in the room.

dl211 said:

I doubt before this became a political issue many would have minded the waterboarding of terrorists, some of your people in Congress didn't until it became politically correct to do so, it simply goes against the far lefts agenda at this time.

You know, I have met very few people in my life that I would say to be genuinely evil. And I'm not going to go that far based on one paragraph.

But I'd say that in being able to even formulate that idea, much say it out loud in public with every apperarance of feeling that it's a perfectly reasonable and truthful thing to say, you have revealied that, if not completely dead, your soul must be suffering from the equivalant ...

dl211 said:

I doubt before this became a political issue many would have minded the waterboarding of terrorists, some of your people in Congress didn't until it became politically correct to do so, it simply goes against the far lefts agenda at this time.

You know, I have met very few people in my life that I would say to be genuinely evil. And I'm not going to go that far based on one paragraph.

But I'd say that in being able to even formulate that idea, much say it out loud in public with every apperarance of feeling that it's a perfectly reasonable and truthful thing to say, you have revealied that, if not completely dead, your soul must be suffering from the equivalant of a sucking chest wound.

That, sir, is a vile statement, the sort of statement that reveals a contempt for and disbelief any motivations other than the purely selfish and tactical. It discounts the possiblity that there might be any principle beyond personal advantage. In other words, it reveals both what you believe for yourself, and the supperating evil you assume lurks beneath every other smile and warm greeting.

It's people like you that have made republicanism "repugnant." Not it's essential values that you still prate when convenient - Hell, you'd be a liberal yourself if you thougth that would put you on the "winning" side, the side to suck up to and become a parasite upon.

No, sir, you have no values, no truth in you and cannot believe that there is any point to all of this thing we call life beyond power. And sadly, you probably equate "power" with "the ability to f**k with people and get away with it."

At the moment, my personal feeling is that a sack of fertilizer has more to contribute to society. An honest sack of bull crap is still better company than you.

And sadly, you probably equate "power" with "the ability to f**k with people and get away with it."

So true, this is why all forms of torture should be banned. It is an evil, soul destroying thing.

We must march in the street to shut down immediately the torture centers aka prisons. They serve no purpose but to punish, humiliate, and destroy the soul of those put in them, hell in these places NO QUESTIONS are even asked. You are just put in one to SUFFER! IT IS SICK! People go in one person and come out someone else, HOW CAN ANYONE support such treatment of human beings. They are HUMAN, even if they did rape a 5 year old girl then killed her, not Trash, HUMAN!

They are just...

And sadly, you probably equate "power" with "the ability to f**k with people and get away with it."

So true, this is why all forms of torture should be banned. It is an evil, soul destroying thing.

We must march in the street to shut down immediately the torture centers aka prisons. They serve no purpose but to punish, humiliate, and destroy the soul of those put in them, hell in these places NO QUESTIONS are even asked. You are just put in one to SUFFER! IT IS SICK! People go in one person and come out someone else, HOW CAN ANYONE support such treatment of human beings. They are HUMAN, even if they did rape a 5 year old girl then killed her, not Trash, HUMAN!

They are just built to satisfy the sick lust for control of a human being. The weakest in society are the ones who do this. It gives them a sense of power.

Anyone who supports such places are EVIL! And what if an innocent person were ever put in one of these torture centers, he will be destroyed!

Under NO circumstances should we allow such places to EXIST. We need to RALLY PEOPLE.

SHUT DOWN THE TORTURE CENTERS, SHUT DOWN THE PRISIONS!

Hell, you'd be a liberal yourself if you thougth that would put you on
the "winning" side, the side to suck up to and become a parasite upon.

In this community that IS the winning side. By about 9 to 1. The extreme type which ammounts to less than 10% in the real world. The complete polar reversal of these elements is pretty typical in web communities. Even those that started out somewhat balanced like this one. Most are just chat-rooms of mostly liberal-to extreme leftists ranging from the dangerous to the harmless.You know it's too late when the cliques are firmly entrenched and you see a lot of things like,"heh,heh".
It's time to stifle the gag reflex cause ...

Hell, you'd be a liberal yourself if you thougth that would put you on
the "winning" side, the side to suck up to and become a parasite upon.

In this community that IS the winning side. By about 9 to 1. The extreme type which ammounts to less than 10% in the real world. The complete polar reversal of these elements is pretty typical in web communities. Even those that started out somewhat balanced like this one. Most are just chat-rooms of mostly liberal-to extreme leftists ranging from the dangerous to the harmless.You know it's too late when the cliques are firmly entrenched and you see a lot of things like,"heh,heh".
It's time to stifle the gag reflex cause the time for giving and sharing knowlege and ideas honestly has devolved into what sounds correct and what keeps you acceptable.
Sucking up and being a parasite.
Projecting much? ?

@graphictruth

I am not yet arguing the point you raised - in case you were about to object. What I am arguing is that the formulation of the point is dependent on cultural Christian assumptions.

Absolutely. I have to use certain assumptions (like Jesus actually existed, the existence of a hell, and so forth) in order for the flow of the conversation to make sense for those who use the Jesus meme as a point of reference.

This is why every so often I insert the caveat "if you believe any of this", and so forth.

The actual hell (Gehenna), as best I can tell, was a dumping pit where they burned their garbage outside of Jerusalem. The bodies of dead criminals were often ...

@graphictruth

I am not yet arguing the point you raised - in case you were about to object. What I am arguing is that the formulation of the point is dependent on cultural Christian assumptions.

Absolutely. I have to use certain assumptions (like Jesus actually existed, the existence of a hell, and so forth) in order for the flow of the conversation to make sense for those who use the Jesus meme as a point of reference.

This is why every so often I insert the caveat "if you believe any of this", and so forth.

The actual hell (Gehenna), as best I can tell, was a dumping pit where they burned their garbage outside of Jerusalem. The bodies of dead criminals were often dumped there too as a final show of disrespect -- thus being cast into hell and burned to oblivion (sheol/hades).

So, yes, this conversation is entirely dependent on Christian cultural assumptions that may or may not be true. We are in fact all pretending, (some of us for the moment) that it's true, for the sake of discussion bounds.

In other words, suppose Jesus did exist...who would he torture?

To attempt to support the existence of Jesus, god, or hell or heaven is outside the scope of this conversation thread. But all morals are subjective, so we can speculate.

And here, we're speculating what Jesus would do.

Speculation!

Great satirical take on "graphicuntruth"'s laughable tirade, there. The shallowness of these minds is such that they cannot fathom what may be counter-intuitive at the outsest, anything that has any unfortunate element of negativity towards any human life for whatever reason.
Unfortunately there are "bad" things that have to happen to "bad" (behaving) people in order to insure goodness, a better life for the rest of us. This can be a deeply complicated concept for those who only perceive what affects them emotionally. So in their view, people who support the need for tolerating such treatment - interrogation,prison,etc.,etc. - are "evil, their intentions are evil", and the original criminal ...

Great satirical take on "graphicuntruth"'s laughable tirade, there. The shallowness of these minds is such that they cannot fathom what may be counter-intuitive at the outsest, anything that has any unfortunate element of negativity towards any human life for whatever reason.
Unfortunately there are "bad" things that have to happen to "bad" (behaving) people in order to insure goodness, a better life for the rest of us. This can be a deeply complicated concept for those who only perceive what affects them emotionally. So in their view, people who support the need for tolerating such treatment - interrogation,prison,etc.,etc. - are "evil, their intentions are evil", and the original criminal is excused or forgotten. Now ~ and here's the giveaway - their response to the ones they see as the REAL evil ones is filled with the most creative level of hatred and putrid invective as to expose the inner well from which draw upon these sick expressions. The great "Revealing" here is that there is a deep well of hatred, bigotry, and potential for abuse that cries for outlet. An outlet they find as soon as they are confronted with honest views at variance with their own by one who is not engaging in cutsey-cutsey chat, stroking their ego, or otherwise artificially elevating the clique-based on-line "relationship" with them. They feel justified in making them the target and projection is the word of the day ~ every day. They are feeling,unleashing, and are frustrated by the nastiness, the angry resentment and sick dysfunction they feel in their own hearts and cannot express in the PHONY ties they create only to feel powerful enough to attack their targets.

I want to get back to the original point that Geshizar made-
You believe that a thing must apply all across the board-
torture for example is something that if we condone in one light, must be condoned for (drug addicts or dealers? ) all-
It's not that easy, I wish it were-
My opinion in this matter is that of a parent, and as a veteran, I know the real deal about the ugliness of war- albeit I'm a Grenada era veteran, I knew some of the folks that we're talking about. They are not like other people- they are trained weapons. It's a deeply disturbing fact of war-and I'm right in what I said- But you are too. What we have here is a different set of priorities. I served not only because it's tr...

I want to get back to the original point that Geshizar made-
You believe that a thing must apply all across the board-
torture for example is something that if we condone in one light, must be condoned for (drug addicts or dealers? ) all-
It's not that easy, I wish it were-
My opinion in this matter is that of a parent, and as a veteran, I know the real deal about the ugliness of war- albeit I'm a Grenada era veteran, I knew some of the folks that we're talking about. They are not like other people- they are trained weapons. It's a deeply disturbing fact of war-and I'm right in what I said- But you are too. What we have here is a different set of priorities. I served not only because it's tradition for my family, but because people like you should be free to argue the peaceful tryst that you do. We might have a chance of letting ego and prideful thought go and enlightened though prevail- But this is a dangerous world and if we didn't have trained weapons like the men in the CIA, I really believe that our wives would have to wear towels on their heads and the freedom of thought that you so liberally espouse to today would be beaten out of you in favor of some one else's dogma. Death would be the only other option for you. I think the only good thing that can be said about the use of torture by our soldiers is that "it is limited to the battlefield" and not used in the country that all of us here profess to love. I want the world that you see to be a reality- but it cannot be so, as long as men have guns and clubs and others that would make people like you submit to their will-
I would never insult you for your beliefs, in fact I support them in theory, But be a soldier and then see if you think it's at all possible to have the world that you see with the men that still exist- and who's only desire is to rule you. There's no easy answer but be assured that name calling and hate mongering is for the low and ignorant- If the world was as you would like it, you would hav

It is ironic to see that, when called out on the basis of essential morals, those here who are most moralistic become apologists for the most amoral, expedient and downright evil behavior there is. They are, in the name of protecting "their way of life," perfectly willing to take as much life as it takes.

Well, ok, let's play by those rules, shall we? What happens then? I'll tell you what. torture and terror aimed at our soldiers and civilians there - and if not over here, the only reason for it not happening will be due to logistics.

@BD: Yes, I do object to our current prison system. And I am unembarrassed to agree with your attempt at satire.

Prisons and correction facilities are need...

It is ironic to see that, when called out on the basis of essential morals, those here who are most moralistic become apologists for the most amoral, expedient and downright evil behavior there is. They are, in the name of protecting "their way of life," perfectly willing to take as much life as it takes.

Well, ok, let's play by those rules, shall we? What happens then? I'll tell you what. torture and terror aimed at our soldiers and civilians there - and if not over here, the only reason for it not happening will be due to logistics.

@BD: Yes, I do object to our current prison system. And I am unembarrassed to agree with your attempt at satire.

Prisons and correction facilities are needful institutions, and many nations have them. What we have is rather different, facilities which, as for-profit enterprises - create hardened felons out of non-violent offenders. They achieve the exact, precise opposite of what a correctional system should.

Of course, since you appear to think of rule by fear as a good thing, I doubt you quite grasp the point.

@daveboz

In this community that IS the winning side. By about 9 to 1.
The extreme type which ammounts to less than 10% in the real world. The
complete polar reversal of these elements is pretty typical in web
communities. Even those that started out somewhat balanced like this
one. Most are just chat-rooms of mostly liberal-to extreme leftists
ranging from the dangerous to the harmless.You know it's too late when
the cliques are firmly entrenched and you see a lot of things like,"heh,heh".

Well, Dave, that's concequential of the medium. You see, in order to function successfully within this medium - whatever one's natural political beliefs and feelings about hum...

@daveboz

In this community that IS the winning side. By about 9 to 1.
The extreme type which ammounts to less than 10% in the real world. The
complete polar reversal of these elements is pretty typical in web
communities. Even those that started out somewhat balanced like this
one. Most are just chat-rooms of mostly liberal-to extreme leftists
ranging from the dangerous to the harmless.You know it's too late when
the cliques are firmly entrenched and you see a lot of things like,"heh,heh".

Well, Dave, that's concequential of the medium. You see, in order to function successfully within this medium - whatever one's natural political beliefs and feelings about human nature - you first have to be literate. Not just able to read a newspaper literate, but actually capable of reading and processing large amounts of information.

One must then be able to come to a logical and defensible conclusion via steps that can be shown and defended along the way.

It is a fact - a lamentable fact, but a fact - that our current education system is intended to produce this ability in about ten percent of it's graduates, while intentionally suppressing the facility for critical thought in the rest. It was designed to do that around the turn of the last century to meet the demand for unthinking, reflexively obediant factory workers conditioned to tolerate repetitive tasks.

Now, of the ten percent, the best and the brightest are skimmed off in various ways - either to private scools, or in "college track" programs, and they learn critical thinking and apply it to everything around them. So, they become resistant to emotional persuasion, they learn to reference primary sources, they are required to defend their conclusions, and if they happen to be trained in Forensic speech (as most potential lawyers and political leaders are,) they learn to consider both sides of an arguement to the depth where they can argue the merits of either side, equally well.

->

...continued

Now, the people in this position are, sometimes subtly, sometimes
overtly advised that it's best to leave the Unwashed Masses unconfused
with the facts. That sounds elietist, and it is - but it also points ot
the fact that those who are not trained to manipulate facts to derive
accurate conclusions will indeed be confused and disturbed by them.

To handle those folks, training in Rhetoric - the art of emotional
persuasion - is taught. You might be more familiar with the term
"propaganda." The concepts are not quite interchangable, but the aim
of both is to influence you based on your emotional reactions to
certain symbols and ideas you have been strongly conditioned to acce...

...continued

Now, the people in this position are, sometimes subtly, sometimes
overtly advised that it's best to leave the Unwashed Masses unconfused
with the facts. That sounds elietist, and it is - but it also points ot
the fact that those who are not trained to manipulate facts to derive
accurate conclusions will indeed be confused and disturbed by them.

To handle those folks, training in Rhetoric - the art of emotional
persuasion - is taught. You might be more familiar with the term
"propaganda." The concepts are not quite interchangable, but the aim
of both is to influence you based on your emotional reactions to
certain symbols and ideas you have been strongly conditioned to accept
unquestioningly.

Meanwhile, potential leaders - in those ivy shrouded, Liberal Arts
colleges - are quite deliberately stripped of those comforting
illusions, to be shown the wires and levers of power. That is really
what 'liberal arts' traditionally was, the art of rulership.

And, in the Old World Order, you do not want a lot of rulers, much less
a great number of people equipped to rule their own affairs.


But - and this is the really interesting point - all of that changed, completely, roughly in the year 2000.

That's when the web really started to do business - and that changed everything. And neither they, nor, obviously you, have realized yet what that means.

It's now possible - as it was in Jefferson's time - to educate oneself, if one has learned how to learn, to glean information, evaluate and compare sources, track down data, etc.

Of course, that isn't taught in most schools, either. But it means that the whole top ten percent of the population - not merely the rich and the lucky - but the whole of it, has access to the intellectual and informational resources that were not accessable to 98 percent of the world's population just a decade ago.

But some do better at that than others, and of those who do not, I'm afraid there is a bias toward reflexive

Are you sure? Don't they all sound the same, singing from the one swiftboat hymn sheet? Like switching from McCain, who did, to Clinton, who didn't, as diversion but ignoring AWOL Bush, the coward. Then repeated comments to confuse with a stream of meaningless guff. Logic is as useful to these headless chickens as balls on a virgin maid.

Some trick. I'm quoting myself, with a purpose. Bush-hugger#1 says in the next comment...

Who would Jesus Imprison?
Who would Jesus Kill?

HE REPEATS THESE SAME PHRASES 10 TIMES.
YES, 10 TIMES
This is Swiftboating at its very worst!

I've detailed recently how to deal with these attention seeking retrogr[b]...

Are you sure? Don't they all sound the same, singing from the one swiftboat hymn sheet? Like switching from McCain, who did, to Clinton, who didn't, as diversion but ignoring AWOL Bush, the coward. Then repeated comments to confuse with a stream of meaningless guff. Logic is as useful to these headless chickens as balls on a virgin maid.

Some trick. I'm quoting myself, with a purpose. Bush-hugger#1 says in the next comment...

Who would Jesus Imprison?
Who would Jesus Kill?

HE REPEATS THESE SAME PHRASES 10 TIMES.
YES, 10 TIMES
This is Swiftboating at its very worst!

I've detailed recently how to deal with these attention seeking retrograde bush-huggers but the entire clip has disappeared. I'd be very happy to get my inputs emailed back to me.

When a fool asks a foolish question where he repeatedly misuses the name of Jesus, now for the ELEVENTH time, then it passes from foolish stupidity to total DISRESPECT. Could a genuine Christian continue this DISRESPECT no matter how badly the fool required attention?

*imitates the whiny righthand*
Stop swiftboating me, you, you, you SWIFTBOATER! *snivvle snivvle, whine whine*
*stop imitating the whiny righthand*

----

Also, you are not one to talk about disrespect:

"Yes, Christian Zionist are the lowest form of life." - righthand

"[i]As for 'POPPED', do we have to know when he's about in this fashion.
Popping doesn't require a comment from the number one [b]...

When a fool asks a foolish question where he repeatedly misuses the name of Jesus, now for the ELEVENTH time, then it passes from foolish stupidity to total DISRESPECT. Could a genuine Christian continue this DISRESPECT no matter how badly the fool required attention?

*imitates the whiny righthand*
Stop swiftboating me, you, you, you SWIFTBOATER! *snivvle snivvle, whine whine*
*stop imitating the whiny righthand*

----

Also, you are not one to talk about disrespect:

"Yes, Christian Zionist are the lowest form of life." - righthand

"As for 'POPPED', do we have to know when he's about in this fashion.
Popping doesn't require a comment from the number one asslicker on
ChipMarks." - righthand

"I suppose when we see the learning capacity of some here on ClipMarks, then it's easier to understand this continuous ineptitude and inability to learn.
I
can see how this blind stupidly may help in believing in a god, but why
apply exactly the same blind conviction in an obvious mistake-ridden
twat." - righthand

"Oh, the stupidity of this question and any one who would put it forward as a logical argument." - righthand

" When a fool asks a foolish question, only a fool would consider answering the fool. particularly a bush-hugging fool." - righthand

" these attention seeking retrograde bush-huggers" - righthand

"Bush-hugger#1 says in the next comment." - righthand

When a fool asks a foolish question where he repeatedly misuses the name of Jesus, now for the ELEVENTH time, then it passes from foolish stupidity to total DISRESPECT. Could a genuine Christian continue this DISRESPECT no matter how badly the fool required attention?

This is the FULL quote and not a part of it. Your popping the WW1 photos had earned you a New Year's dispensation. And now? Well, if you are a Christian Zionist then I'm truly sorry for you as riding two horses simultaneously is impossible - unless you think a practising Christian Muslim is also possible.

May I wish you a happy and peaceful New Year? Peace may not be high on the agenda of your leader but it's v...

When a fool asks a foolish question where he repeatedly misuses the name of Jesus, now for the ELEVENTH time, then it passes from foolish stupidity to total DISRESPECT. Could a genuine Christian continue this DISRESPECT no matter how badly the fool required attention?

This is the FULL quote and not a part of it. Your popping the WW1 photos had earned you a New Year's dispensation. And now? Well, if you are a Christian Zionist then I'm truly sorry for you as riding two horses simultaneously is impossible - unless you think a practising Christian Muslim is also possible.

May I wish you a happy and peaceful New Year? Peace may not be high on the agenda of your leader but it's very high on mine, so my wish is genuine. As for happy, well you may need to do a little work on that yourself. Again, I wish you a happy and peaceful New Year.

And the answer is -
Who wouldn't you Imprison?
Who wouldn't you Kill?