AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

I've used no such argument that what we've done is worse. What I've said is that we prosecuted and executed Japanese solders for doing the same thing that we have done: Waterboarding.

Are you forgetting that prisoners in our facilities have died because of our "advanced methods?"

What about stripping prisoners naked and posing them in humiliating positions for troops amusement?

At what point do you acknowledge that we did not handle prisoners correctly?

No the rule of law must apply to everyone. My grandparents were in the camps and lost a lot because of it. Reparations for that executive order came 40 years too late and after many who sacrificed their lively hood and freedom had already passed away. The FDR administration should have had to answer to that. Absolutely. I care not that it was a democratic administration, nor that they did other good things. In some capacity, they should have been made an example of in their time as a message about what it means to take away innocent people's freedom.

Was the bombing of Japan with nuclear weapons a crime?

The left screams it is. Does that make it so? Many believe it was not.

Again, you are making assumptions that water boarding is torture based on the echo chamber you live in. (And please tell me if you believe the bombing of Japan was a crime; I'm curious.)

Many legal scholars say waterboarding is not torture. Yet you seem to dismiss these opinions while holding firm to your own.

Let's say this issue weaves its way through the court process, as you and others are demanding. If it comes before our Supreme Court and the justices there determine no 'torture' occurred by a 5-4 vote, would this satisfy you?

Or would you dismiss the rule of law because you don't agree with it?

They all fall under the category of torture (what the Japanese did). SURPRISE!

President Obama has argued that empathy is the basis of our democracy. It is because we care about others, he has argued, that we have principles like freedom and fairness, not just for ourselves but for everyone. I have found, in studies of largely unconscious political conceptual systems, that empathy is the basis of progressive political thought, and the basis for the very idea of social, not just individual, responsibility. Conservative political thought is otherwise structured, based on authority, discipline, and responsibility for oneself but not others. The major moral, social, and political divide in America centers around empathy.

The evidence reveals five major (interrelated) flaws in their characters: 1) xenophobia; 2) narcissism; 3) duplicity; 4) rejection of rational and intellectual discourse; and 5)lack of empathy (humanity).


This whole line of thought is flawed, because it paints with a very wide brush.
By saying that every conservative fits into this definition, you are refusing to recognize or admit that there are different types of conservatives, and that not all all conservatives think alike.
To say that all conservatives fit into this list, is the equilavent of painting all liberals with the same crazy brush.
Would you allow this and agree with the results?

Quote:

Conservative political thought is otherwise structured, based on authority, discipline, and responsibility for oneself but not others.

I again disagree.
I cant speak for other conservatives, and for Lakoff to say that he can speak for all conservatives is silly.

Let me take just 2 points made...

Quote:

lack of empathy (humanity).

To suggest that all conservatives think like this is simply ludicrous.
EVERY conservative I know has empathy for others, but we display it differently.
Tell me, is it more humane to give a man a fish to eat everyday, or to teach him to fish so he can support himself?

To liberals, its more humane to give him a fish every day, keeping him dependent on the govt for his food.
For conservatives (and again I am speaking ONLY about the ones I know), its more humane to teach him to fish so he can have some dignity and self respect, and it gets that person away from dependence on others.

Quote:

rejection of rational and intellectual discourse;

This is a pretty broad statement, even you must admit that.
The same thing could be said by conservatives about liberals, couldnt it.
It seems that both sides are prone to thinking the same thng about the other side.
If conservatives disagree with liberals, then liberals accuse conservatives of being irrational and illogical, or they call conservatives stupid.
And conservatives seem to do the same thing to liberals.
Yes, there are exceptions to the rule, but as a whole both sides are guilty of the same thing.

moves to discriminate against gays and lesbians (marriage should be between a man and a woman)

their attempts to overthrow Roe vs Wade (free choice vs government intrusion into private lives)

put a brake on stem cell research (our country lost ground in this important research)

increased the national debt (small government)

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Article II
Section 1.
…
The President shall …
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
…
Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Amendment X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Did water boarding cause injury? How about the playing of obnoxious music?

Where does 'abuse' become 'torture'?

My teacher in middle school wouldn't let students leave class and use the restroom. That was pretty abusive; should we prosecute her?

Obama ordered drone bombings where innocents in Afghanistan were killed; should he be prosecuted as a war criminal?

Killing innocent people is pretty abusive. At least it was to the left when Bush was authorizing the bombing.

Those on the left are inconsistent with their beliefs, and seem to have selective outrage.

Don't you think?

George Lakoff?

OK, there's a moderate who doesn't identify with the left...

You've come to the point, Deb, where you are now trying to change the subject we're discussing by quoting far left ideologues.

How about addressing my questions to you?

This is an example of the lack of empathy that plagues "conservative" thinkers. So long as they endeavor to minimize the harm inflicted upon other human beings, even though it is irrational to do so, they allow themselves to escape responsibility or accountability for illegal and immoral acts.

Waterboarding causes extreme physical and psychological harm to the victim. It suffocates a person to the point of near death or death. The cumulative effects of sleep deprivation, stress positions, physical abuse, repeated suffocations, and other forms of suffering inflicted upon human beings causes these victims to say whatever is demanded of them. These (illegal and immoral) torture techniques are designed to elicit false confessions from the victim.

This is another example of an attempt to minimize immoral conduct through the introduction of a straw man. Nevertheless, forced urine retention has adverse medical consequences. (Additionally, Lone Voice would be screaming outrage if his child was forced to retain his urine to the point that it backed up into his child's kidneys causing his kidneys to malfunction or if his child was forced to suffer the humiliation of wetting his pants in the classroom.)

In the context of a criminal prosecution, I wrote a motion and brief for a defendant who was forced to hold his urine until he wet his pants. The government actors then pretended to conduct a field urine test on the urine that seeped through the victim's pants and onto the floor in order to elicit a confession. Because the government actors violated the defendant's right to be free of unreasonable seizures, the court suppressed all the evidence against him and dismissed the charges. Indeed, if the victim of this unreasonable seizure chooses to press charges, those government actors can be held criminally liable for violating his civil rights under 18 U.S.C. Section 242.

You misconstrue the discussion about civilian casualties during a time of war as a "left vs. right" argument. Have you no empathy whatsoever for civilian casualties? Other than your desire to change the subject through the introduction of a straw man, we are not discussing the suffering of the civilian population. We are discussing the INTENTIONAL infliction of pain and suffering on government detainees.

Why is this a left vs. right issue? Are you stating you're on the "right" and that you have no empathy or outrage whatsoever about the suffering of the civilian population or the intentional infliction of abuse and torture upon government detainees?

I could also waste quite a bit of time here profiling the deficiencies of some progressives, but you wouldn't agree, so I'll refrain.

I have addressed your questions. You keep changing the subject in order to avoid the issue. The abuse and torture of prisoners is both illegal and immoral.

I have addressed your questions. You keep changing the subject in order to avoid the issue. The abuse and torture of prisoners is both illegal and immoral. If you have a valid argument against investigating allegations of illegal abuse and torture, please state it.

Awe, come on! Be a sport and tell us the "deficiencies of some progressives?" I'm not sure about other people, but as an Independent, I'm all ears.

What is more glaring is their ability to ignore both US and international laws against waterboarding which has been determined to be torture and illegal.

Post: # 3,634,836 •

It's against "our" laws which supercedes Geneva Convention laws.