Is Amnesty International an "absurd" group of American Haters?

[Palefire]

Well said Opebo. I'm proud of you and a little surprised; excellent.

Mr. Ford - I'm glad you follow my posts, but it would appear that you are not doing it very well. I'm a very socially liberal kind of guy, but you are mistaking strong beliefs for something other than what it is. Strong beliefs do not equal partisanship. As I see it partisanship is just an excuse for failing to think. If you could get past the stupid us vs. them mentality maybe you could get down to talking about the heart of the issues. If you did that I’m sure you would be quite an interesting person to converse with. Of all the fine young Republicans posting on this site, that I have encountered, you seem the brightest - and as such I hope you can get past some of that foolishness.

[A18]

Partisanship is the natural result of thinking. I suppose that's why you're an independent.

Opebo, by no one has made the charge, we're not talking in any legal venue, just the accusation itself.

[Jake]

Terrorists, just like murderers, rapists, etc, have no rights, and for any who may not be terrorists, tough luck. War is hell.

So, you would prefer to have no legal rights.

I'd prefer not to go to a terrorist supporting nation and run around with people fighting Americans.

[Palefire]

Partisanship is the natural result of thinking.

As I noted - Mr. Ford is the brighter of the the fine young Republicans, thanks for helping making my point - I figured you would.

[A18]

Being an arrogant prick is not helping your case. Of course, your arguments are piss poor, as always, so I guess this is what you have to resort to.

[Palefire]

Being an arrogant prick is not helping your case. Of course, your arguments are piss poor, as always, so I guess this is what you have to resort to.

LOL, reduced to name calling again A18. I really don't expect any more from you, but for some silly reason I keep on hoping.

[A18]

When your posts contain absolutely no substance, and just insult someone, as yours did:

Partisanship is the natural result of thinking.

As I noted - Mr. Ford is the brighter of the the fine young Republicans, thanks for helping making my point - I figured you would.

And then you turn around and moan when you get equal treatment, well, that's a pretty good indication you're a troll. Go back to Democratic Underground.

[Palefire]

When your posts contain absolutely no substance, and just insult someone, as yours did:

Partisanship is the natural result of thinking.

As I noted - Mr. Ford is the brighter of the the fine young Republicans, thanks for helping making my point - I figured you would.

And then you turn around and moan when you get equal treatment, well, that's a pretty good indication you're a troll. Go back to Democratic Underground.

Coming from you, that's amusing - to say the least. I'm sure that everybody who you have called a moron, a dimwit, a bird brain, etc. heart is going out to you right about now. IS that violins I hear in the back ground?

Now really, the topic is Amnesty International, not you or me. That I have some belief that Mr. Ford has potential has nothing to do with you.

[The Duke]

Well said Opebo. I'm proud of you and a little surprised; excellent.

Mr. Ford - I'm glad you follow my posts, but it would appear that you are not doing it very well. I'm a very socially liberal kind of guy, but you are mistaking strong beliefs for something other than what it is. Strong beliefs do not equal partisanship. As I see it partisanship is just an excuse for failing to think. If you could get past the stupid us vs. them mentality maybe you could get down to talking about the heart of the issues. If you did that I’m sure you would be quite an interesting person to converse with. Of all the fine young Republicans posting on this site, that I have encountered, you seem the brightest - and as such I hope you can get past some of that foolishness.

A few moments ago, I made a post in jfern's new thread that probably disabuses everyone of any notion that I'm a partisan.  I appreciate the comments about my intelligence, but still think you should have a red avatar.

I will repeat this again, since apparently people didn't see it the first six times.  Amnesty International, and for that matter no independent organization, believes the detainees at Gitmo are innocent of the charge of being a terrorist.  I repeat, no one, not even Amnesty, has challenged the status of the enemy combatants there.

The charge of 'being a terrorist' has never been made, as there is no court. It is also a misrepresentation or double standard, as both sides are either soldiers or terrorists.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If no third party is given access, there is nothing whatever to prevent torture. It is reasonable to presume that where there is secrecy, there is abuse. Why not let us monitor? Transparency is essentially to any sort of legal rights or democratic government.

We're back to your same old argument.  You will need some evidencethat there is torture before you expect people to believe you.  When you say that any place where there is no evidence of torture, the lack of evidence is itself evidence is not very serious.

[Palefire]

A few moments ago, I made a post in jfern's new thread that probably disabuses everyone of any notion that I'm a partisan.  I appreciate the comments about my intelligence, but still think you should have a red avatar.

We're back to your same old argument.  You will need some evidencethat there is torture before you expect people to believe you.  When you say that any place where there is no evidence of torture, the lack of evidence is itself evidence is not very serious.

Well, I'm sure there is some Democrat some where that is happy you are trying to recruit for them. I'll still have to pass, seeing them control all three branches of government wouldn't thrill me, though I'll admit gladly that I'm much closer to them (in their present form) than I am to the Republicans (in their present form). I think you'll get what I'm saying after you've seen a number of more election cycles and watched the 2 parties shift their positions some more. In the mean time, I'll stay on my own side and work for the causes that I care about - if one of the 2 corrupt parties is working closer to my goals than the other, so be it.

As for evidence - there are the pictures from Iraq and the military reports from Afghanistan (that include beating a prisoner to death). That seems compelling enough to want to know more about what is happening; and not receive the information from the people that are accused. From Vietnam to the present both Democrats and Republicans have not built up a great track record about being forth coming with mistakes made and questionable tactics being used in military conflicts. When I look at that less than stellar track record in combination with the evidence that has been produced - I have to say that I want to know more about what is being done in the name of my fellow citizens and myself and I'm failing to understand why others, such as yourself, seem to want to not know.

[A18]

When your posts contain absolutely no substance, and just insult someone, as yours did:

Partisanship is the natural result of thinking.

As I noted - Mr. Ford is the brighter of the the fine young Republicans, thanks for helping making my point - I figured you would.

And then you turn around and moan when you get equal treatment, well, that's a pretty good indication you're a troll. Go back to Democratic Underground.

Coming from you, that's amusing - to say the least. I'm sure that everybody who you have called a moron, a dimwit, a bird brain, etc. heart is going out to you right about now. IS that violins I hear in the back ground?

Now really, the topic is Amnesty International, not you or me. That I have some belief that Mr. Ford has potential has nothing to do with you.

I'm sorry. Does this post contain a point, or is it your usual BS? I have yet to call anyone any of those things. We were talking about partisans.

If you have actual positions on issues, you know what side to take. Taking sides is not a replacement for thinking, but a result?

Have many election cycles you've seen is not relevant. You're a partisan hack, as seen from the fact that you only squabble with Republicans.

[Palefire]

So you still want to talk about me? Amusing - have fun with that. Maybe when you grow up a little I'll find you to be less amusing and more interesting. Until then.........LOL.

I took a quick look at your last 15 posts - in them you refer to one person as an idiot, another as a dope, and tell another to f**k off - and that's just the last 15 posts you've made. LOL.

[A18]

When I argue over issues, I occasionally call people what they are. For example, you're a ing idiot and a useless piece of sh**t. The point is that I actually argue the issue, something you seem incapable of.

When you just post idiotic gibberish, it's kind of hard to debate a point.

[Palefire]

LOL - that last post says quite a bit about you.

It would seem that I'm one of your favorite topics, but really, I don't think that's why Dave created this board. Give it a rest A18. While listening to you can be amusing, your little tantrum is just embarrassing.

[A18]

I'm sorry, am I supposed to care or something? You're still not arguing the point.

[Palefire]

I'm sorry, am I supposed to care or something? You're still not arguing the point.

If you want to argue a point with me (and that assumes that I wish to argue one with an immature little boy - which I don't), the topic here is Amnesty International. If you want to throw little tantrums - it's hardly reasonable to assume that people will respond to you by speaking about the topic (which, again, is Amnesty International).

[A18]

Don't like debating points? Don't respond to me by posting sh**t.

I'm responding to what you said in this topic about partisanship. And you again go ahead and get personal, because you're a stupid piece of sh**t. You can't argue a point, all you do is post "LOL!!!111 I A<M 133t!!!" Well, I'm sorry, tard, but posting total sh**t is not the same as not arguing with someone.

If you don't want to argue with me, you won't respond to me. You do want to argue with me, you just don't want to argue the substance of your point. This is like trying to argue politics with a three year old girl, and having her tell you how grown up she is instead. Don't argue me, or do. If you do, post a point. If you don't, you'll shut up.

Now, again, the point is partisanship. Now, if you have opinions on an issue, in a republic such as ours, you have to pick the side that's closest to you if you want to get results. That's why the vast majority of people - yes, people that think - vote for one of the vote parties.

[Palefire]

Partisanship is the natural result of thinking. I suppose that's why you're an independent.

Somehow I didn't take that as an invitation to debate. I wonder why? Maybe you should start a new tread kid, and you and and some of your foul mouthed little buddies can have a good old time.

[A18]

When you insult everyone in a party, and start a thread by lying about what someone said, you might get a snide remark or two. That's not the point: it seems a pretty clear connection that partisanship is brought about by thinking.

I'll start a new 'tread,' as you wish.

[Citizen James]

Being an arrogant prick is not helping your case. Of course, your arguments are piss poor, as always, so I guess this is what you have to resort to.

For some reason, this made me chuckle.

How might you respond if someone said this to you?

(hey, if the shoe fits...)

[A18]

I make points that can be debated. The insults are just an add-on for fun, except of course when you come to total dimwits like Prickfire who can't even follow a discussion.

[Citizen James]

I make points that can be debated. The insults are just an add-on for fun, except of course when you come to total dimwits like Prickfire who can't even follow a discussion.

Now, let's rephrase that:

I make points that can be debated. The insults are just an add-on for fun, except of course when you come to total dimwits like Philip who can't even follow a discussion

Do you even realize how many of your insults apply equally to you?

[A18]

Most insults can be applied to anyone. Not that they always logically apply to such person. You're entitled to your opinion, but I do make points. Prickfire does not.

If you are capable of it, go back to the topic on the Constitution and debate the several paragraphs I responded to your braindead assumptions with.

[opebo]

We're back to your same old argument.  You will need some evidencethat there is torture before you expect people to believe you.  When you say that any place where there is no evidence of torture, the lack of evidence is itself evidence is not very serious.

Evidence is impossible in a closed system.  There is no third party looking on, only the individual and the State - his torturer - in the dungeon. 

Sure maybe someday if and when the State is defeated as in Nazi Germany the bodies will be dug up, but until and unless that happens, the individual loses, and is tortured.

[2952-0-0]

I believe it was the report that was labeled absurd, not human rights. Actually, I know so, because I watched the press conference—but thanks for lying, as you typically do. Or are you just confused?

I further believe that this is a group that relies on the words of former detainees as some kind of objective source of information.

That brilliant, objective report - you know, based on what former detainees trained to lie about this stuff had to say - accused America of torture.

"Guantanamo has become the gulag of our time," was their conclusion.

That's a joke, their report was a joke, and if they're not jokes, then they're having a great time laughing at their report right about now.

By the way, please learn how to spell Amnesty.

Don't be a hypocrite. I bet 20 years ago if people escaped Soviet Gulags you'd believe every word of their testimony. Of course Guantanamo abuses human rights.

Why should animal terrorists recieve human "rights" even if their is such a thing as human "rights"?

How do you know that they are terrorists? You haven't even charged them.

Ok, they were captured in combat..fighting US troops. Obviously they are thugs, murderers or terrorists. I don't understand why liberals can't make simple calculations in their heads.

...and if the North Vietnamese tortured American POWs this way and threw Bibles in toilets you would be...