The Republicans have shown it’s effective to speak only in black and white, but no matter how much I hate the current administration I still see in grey (admittedly that is sometimes an inability to get off the fence about an issue, but not in this case).

Expanding on what you (and Graham in his Red Sox fan whine above) are saying I think most people in the US are used to us being the #1 perfecto nation, and don’t want to believe history’s atrocities could ever reach these coasts. This leads to apathy, inaction, and a denial about how far down that slippery slope we might be.

And I was, of course, being sarcastic. If I ever decide that the appearance of detached blase-ness is more important than my basic humanity, don’t bother putting anything at all on my gravestone; dump me in the ground and leave me to my shame.

Steve, thought you might like this read if you haven’t already read it:
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html

Also, Bravo Tom.

Oh, and Tom for the win.

They will instead write, “Bush is Pol Pot!” or “Gitmo is the new Dachau!” and lower the level of debate to intellectually sloppy slogan-ism; the liberal equivalent of shouting buzzwords like, “flip-flop” or “cut and run” instead of substantive arguments.

Pres. Bush Sr. and Clinton are here today and a group of protesters just walked by and one of the retards was yelling, “Get out of the Matrix and join us!”

I want that dude out of my party, is all I’m saying. Nader can have him back.

The shrill liberals DO suck and drag the party down. Do you think the strength of their arguments really pulls anyone on the fence towards the Democrats? Our gold standard should be built on the model of guys like Albert Camus writing, “Defense of Intelligence” in the underground newspaper, “Combat.” The blog world is a perfect modern day equivalent as long as we shake off those who aren’t even really Democrats, but anarchists who are too stupid to know that they’re anarchists.

Does anyone but me see the difference?

Me. But you knew that, even if everyone else needs to play, “But I’m not one of those shrill liberals like that Michael Moore!”

I do think that probably an innocent may get tortured, and that’s why I am against torture. I do think it unlikely that innocent would sing like Beyonce if one of those camps without the need to be cooercive, but that is a different story. I wasn’t make a point that since it won’t be rampant in the united states it is tolerable, I was making the point that if you are going to get your panties in a bunch get them in a bunch about something that is plausable. Considering that this was primarily designed for the CIA was allowed to do, and the plethra of laws and guidlines on what intelligence agencies can actually do on domestic peoples (trust me its a lot, I get training on it 2 times a year), there is little chance that domestically, people are going to be rounded up and coercively interrogated.

My feeling is that torture really needs to be limited to that of actual physical harm. It is definition that easy to understand, and easy to follow. Once we get in things that are pyschological and emotional, as damaging as it may be, we start opening up the absurd claims of cruel and unusual punishment becuase of second hand smoke in the jail cell, or that being interrogated by a woman denegrated a muslims honor so badly that amounts to torture. I don’t feel like indulging terrorists with those kind of rights, when these people would love to cut off my head since I happen to be an idolotor…..

Here is what I am saying:
The US is using techniques that the Khmer Rouge used and I find this appalling. Torture is bad bad bad and we shouldn’t be doing it! The longer we let this go on, the worse it is going to get.

Does anyone but me see the difference?