Liberalism and Human rights
WaveCameCrashin
Posts: 2,929
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525563,00.html
I know most of you despise this man but give it a read cos I would like to get some feedback on this especially from liberals.
Respectfully
C.
I know most of you despise this man but give it a read cos I would like to get some feedback on this especially from liberals.
Respectfully
C.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I do believe, even the prisoners at Guantanamo, have all had access to the red cross and none have admitted to being waterboared, except those 3. at least that I have heard. I also think the US take records of all its actions, even waterboarding.
there really isn't much benefit to waterboarding low level people anyway. its the people at the top that have the info.
We know the terrorists are horrible, dispicable people. Having said that, the SECOND we torture anyone, we have no right to condemn those people that do, including when they do it to American soldiers, period.
Regarding Tiller... Abortion is most certainly a controversal issue, having said that, Tiller was innocent according to the law. What he did was completly legal, and he WAS a hero because he was doing something so dangerous (death threats) for the women that needed it. And then he was murdered in cold blood at church.
If this guy was Christian (the murderer of Tiller) does 'Thou shal not kill' mean anything to him?
But when a liberal cause is shown to be brutal, left-wing reaction is quite something else. Investigators in Kansas have presented strong evidence that late-term abortion doctor, George Tiller, who was murdered by a domestic terrorist, destroyed viable fetuses for trivial reasons.
===========
Stop right there. Here we go with the T word again. If there is one thing that Fox and CNN can agree on, it's that EVERYONE is a potential threat. Bill is half right that the liberal stations are covering the wrong news. The other half is that FOX is equally guilty. How about the whole mainstream media start covering the fact that we've been completely played by Al Queda? The attacks on 9/11 were bad enough-- but all those pricks did is flick the first domino in a long string of them. We didn't stop it, we've let the rest of them fall. Since then, we've completely wreaked havoc on the Constitution, destroyed the economy, expanded the definition of "terrorist" to include anyone that breathes, created non-stop fear and panic perpetuated by these jerks in the media, killed or injured thousands of American soldiers, and tens-to-hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civillians and soldiers.
There's your news, Billy.
I dont know but I personally think If more have been water borted they the detainees the ones that have been released would have come forward .
If not them I would think if they were lying someone would have said something by now. But this thread isn't about waterborting . I just wanted to point out the examples of hipocracy with some liberals or what I believe is
I have yet to see one of these detainees interviewed. I wouldn't even know how a member of the press could interview them-- it's not like the reporters can wait outside of Gitmo with a camera and a microphone, and be fluent in Arabic (or have a translator). Even if they were tortured, why admit it? Any chance that leaking such info could lead you back into the torture chamber? Actually, if I were to ever torture someone, I'd probably threaten to torture them worse if they ever squealed about it. That should be enough motivation to keep things silent.
Hypocritical liberals? Of course! Just like hypocritcal conservatives. The point I'm making is, when it comes to the media: The left wing calls out the right wing on some bullshit. The right wing calls out the left wing on some bullshit. It's the same fuckin bird that dwells on nothing but bullshit.
Actually Nat Geo did a Doc. on Gitmo about a month ago and they Interviewed several ex detainees who were recently freed from Gitmo and I don't recall them saying anything about being waterboarded.
It's a really good Doc Im sure you can find it on their web site.
I'll checka checka check it out. Thanks.
If Tiller believed in a God I'm sure he is answering for what he has done, regardless of any laws made.
I love America because we are supposed to be above that. Yeah, often times we are not. I love the ideal of what America should be and can be. Employing tactics used by the former Soviet Union and Viet Cong soldiers to our milirary airmen is not a part of what I believe America should be. When we doe that... we sell ourselves off due to fear.
Hail, Hail!!!
2. He said we're not a "torture nation" because we only waterboarded 3 people and they were terrorists. Assuming it's true that we've only waterboarded 3 people, they were all terrorists, and we have never engaged in any other kind of turture - how many people do you have to torture to be a "torture nation"? What is a "torture nation" if not a nation that tortures? We are a nation. We tortured. Therefore....
3. He said Tiller killed viable fetuses for no good reason.
A. He was found innocent of this charge.
B. Who made O'Reilly the judge of what constitutes a good reason?
C. The argument that fetuses are not people - and therefore not comparable to terrorists, who are people - has yet to be discredited.
You bring up some viable points...
Using Bill's logic.. 'We ONLY waterboarded 3 people'... I guess Bill can say a serial murderer isn't really a serial murderer if he only murders 3 people, right? Okay.. to keep the 'waterboarding isn't murder because there were doctors to makes sure they didn't die' people at bay... so, a serial rapist isn't a really serial rapist if he only rapes 3 women. Still too harsh to compare waterboarding to rape? Okay... he only rapes 3 prostitutes, how's that? Still too harsh? How about a child molester who only molested 3 children?
The point being... torture is torture, murder is murder, rape is rape. The number doesn't matter.
And if you don't think waterboarding is torture... have someone waterboard your mother or father while you watch and get back to me on that.
And NO... I don't like those assholes they were interrogating. They are assholes and deserve the maximum our laws allow. But, in order to remain a civilized people... we don't get Medieval on their asses. We have talented law enforcement interrogators that can coax information from suspects. Use those people and those tactics and let us remain America.
Hail, Hail!!!
http://www.billoreilly.com/pg/jsp/billsfavorites/billscharities.jsp
Id say the man does alot for society. What do you think ?
And Dr. Tiller was not charged with performing late term abortions in which the fetus's were viable.
Kansas law prohibits aborting viable fetuses,UNLESS 2 doctors certify that continuing the pregnancy would cause the woman substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.
tiller went on trial in march of 09. He was charged with 19 misdemeanor's of allegedly consulting a 2nd physician in late term abortion cases who was truly not independent as required by Kansas state law.
on 3/27/09he was found not guilty of all charges
first thing that came to my mind as well. Bill donates 100% of the money he makes from his websites to charity. its in the millions.
I think that very much answers scb's question.
Well if he was aborting viable fetuses for trivial reasons, as Bill says he was (with no evidence and no conviction), why was he never charged with breaking this law?
how is that a serious question? what does Larry King's show contribute to society? how about Keith Olberman? Sean Hannity?
they all contribute equally..which is not much at all. just another guy on cable news talking current events.
As I already said, I don't watch O'Reilly and don't know anything about him - that's how it was a serious question. If you don't have a serious answer, then no need to respond. :roll: I don't watch Olberman or Hannity either, so your comparison is meaningless to me. I occassionally watch Larry King depending on the guest, and I'd say his show is valuable for its primary sources (e.g. if I want to know something about Eddie Vedder & he interviews Eddie Vedder, then King has provided more than just his own opinion about the topic in which I'm interested).
sorry, for someone who seems so informed about this or that, I would think knowing what news commentators, such as the ones mentioned, do for a living is common knowledge. because if you know that, then you should know what, if anything, they "contribute to society".
and my answer was a serious.
what about the millions of dollars he donates to a variety of charities?
What percentage of his shows this week has he spent talking about the horrendous care that our veterans are receiving? He has a national platform and surely could spend a segment or two of each show championing veterans rights. Unfortunately, it's much easier to throw some money at an organization slap them up on your website and then go right back to spewing hate(admittedly better for ratings and his bank account).
wow. first of all, how do you know its a small % ? secondly, regardless of what it is, its MILLIONS of dollars. he gives 100% of the money he makes from his website to charity. do you realize he doesn't have to do that? do you know of any other news analysts that do that?
and you wont give he credit for that. simply amazing. seriously guy, put your extreme bias and hatred to the side for a second and think about what you are saying.
do you watch his show every day? I catch it maybe a few times a month at best, so I really dont know. regardless if he talks about it on his show, he donates MILLIONS of dollars to veterans and families of those who lost someone in the war. wouldn't you rather have him do that, then simply talk about it on his show? I am dumbfounded by your logic....and sadden by the amount of hatred you have.
I don't have a TV, so I don't watch any of that stuff. If I knew what they contributed to society, I might be inclined to look up their shows online - but I still don't know that their shows contribute anything. Obviously knowledge of the personal opinions of random news commentators is not necessary for being informed about this or that.
Here's an interesting question: If someone's words and/or action have a negative effect on society but they contribute money to a positive cause, does that necessarily make them a good person or productive contributor to society? (I'm not saying O'Reilly's works and/or actions necessarily have a negative effect on society; it's just a general question to analyze the argument above.)
And it goes on...and on... :roll:
I thought you watched Larry King?
news analysts dont have a "negative effect" on society. among all the ones mentioned, each have a very strong following. those people probably believe the new analysts have a very positive effect on society. of course they all have their critics too but so what.
thats all irrelevant. O'Reilly or whoever wouldn't give millions to charities if they were overall negative people. which makes thats person argument ridiculous. he/she is completely disregarding the fact that O'Reiily gives millions of dollars to multiple charities simply because he/she doesn't agree with O'Reilly's stance on certain issues. thats absurd. disagree all you want, bottom line is he gives a shit load of money when he doesnt have to at all. and on top of that, I believe he is the only news analyst that does that.