What hard-working American citizen has ever been tortured? Who is it that wants to torture them?

Bush has the power to declare anyone a terrorist. ANYONE. If I get 300 of my friends to point the finger at you and claim that you have information they might find useful, you think your lawyer can save you then?

Granted, it *probably* won't happen to any white, christian, native-born, english speaking US citizen; but the possibility exists. Minorities are another story. It happened to a Canadian citizen, and many people are being held at Guantanamo with no hope of even going to trial. It's not a far stretch to say it might happen.

Actually, a simple google search shows it HAS happened:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/9503
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005...akist11005.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Crbz2JhMA3s
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/oc...masr-o10.shtml
http://www.new-labour.com/tortured.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/13/in...t/13habib.html
http://www.antiwar.com/ips/fisher.php?articleid=4472
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/greenwald1.html


The problem is that there is no oversight, no accountability in determining who is and who is not a terrorist. Bush can claim that "God spoke to him" and that would be sufficient. In fact, he really needs no reason at all. There is nothing really stopping the average police officer or army soldier from declaring someone a "terrorist."
Also, there is no justice for the accused. I can't believe I even need to explain this to people... geez come on, grow a brain.

__________________

No one is being tortured in Guantanamo. The Red Cross is there overseeing all the prisoners, making sure they all have their prayer mats and three square nutritious meals. You need to step away from the left-wing hate blogs. They've got you crazy paranoid.

Keep your assumptions off of me, I don't visit any blogs. My opinions are based on objective research and are subject to change as I learn.

Who the heck said anyone was being tortured at Guantanamo (actually one of the links previously provided touches on this)? That wasn't even what I was talking about; but since you brought it up, I can post some references regarding that issue as well.

You obviously COMPLETELY MISSED the main idea. Go back and re-read or develop some reading comprehension skills or don't bother me. You didn't even look at any of those links did you? Either do some serious research or run off and put your head back in the sand. Don't bother me unless you have something constructive and logical to add.

HOLY *BLEEP* and a simple google search again reveals that, TADAAAAA, there IS torture going on at Guantanamo:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo...981955,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3706050.stm
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010205A.shtml
http://prisonplanet.tv/articles/nove...enlyadmits.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0823-03.htm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...=1766&ito=1490
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...edName=topNews
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...5/s1643379.htm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071212...t_071212085259

The idiocy is getting to me

__________________

Danger. Will Robinson!

See, this, exactly this, is the fallacy that's involved in the "moral" model of politics.

If your political "model" is based on morality, then what's gonna happen, is you're gonna see "morality" in other peoples' politics too.

So, this here, would be a perfect example.

If I choose to "assert myself" politically, because of something specific in the contract, and "other people" think I'm doing it for "moral reasons", then what's gonna happen is, they're gonna see my actions, and "look for" some kind of moral reason for it.

And the reality, Glitch, that I keep trying to tell you and show you and make you open your eyes to see, is that there's no morality there.

My political model, has nothing to do with morality.

So, if you're seeing "morality" in it, or "moralism", then you have the wrong model.

Then you, are not understanding, the correct reasons, for my actions.

It's exactly the same thing, as the example of the "I abstain" vote, that we raised somewhere else. If you're looking at that from a "moral" perspective, then you're probably going to "see" a gutless coward to doesn't stand up for his principles. But if you're looking at it from a "contract" perspective, you're gonna realize that the contract requires a federal politician to say, "I have no opinion on this issue", and therefore, "I abstain" is the [U}correct[/u] vote.

So, see what I'm saying?

If your political model is based in "morality", you're gonna see one thing, while if you're political model is based in "the contract", you're gonna see something entirely different.

Okay?

So, the important thing here, is to be flexible with your models.

When you "see" a piece of behavior, you can't just look at it from the "moral" perspective, especially when it doesn't make sense that way.

You see, if someone's an engineer and is trying to adjust the parameters for an equation, according to an "engineering goal", and some other person is sitting there "not understanding" what the engineer is trying to do, then it's very likely that said "other person" is going to go into some very dark places in his mind. Typical "inter-personal" things you might hear in that case would be, "hey, what are you doing? Are you drunk or something?", or "hey, that's friggin' crazy, are you insane?"

See? The act is not being 'Understood", because the model is wrong.

'Kay?

Glitch, please - listen to me very carefully now:

My political model, is not based in morality.

So, if you're seeing "morality" in it, you have the wrong model for what I'm doing.

'Kay?

And if your model, is leading you to point the finger, and make accusations at me that are completely erroneous, then that makes you a dangerous person, politically. Then that makes you a risk, according to the examples I just showed you.

This is also why George W Bush is so freakin' dangerous politically, 'cause he insists on restricting the scope of his model space, for no reason.

If you're gonna say to me that "morality is all there is to it", I'm gonna come back and tell you that morality is just a tiny piece of politics, and if you're seeing "morality" everywhere, you have the wrong model.

'Kay?

I mean, I'm not trying to be a pompous jerk here, I'm trying to explain something very important to you.

It's the "Dalmatian" thing - the "perceptual model" thing. That's what you're dealing with here. You have a perceptual model that is less than useful, which has somehow gained traction and ascendancy in your model space.

Your model, which is based in "morality", only explains a very tiny subset of a very small part of some peoples' political behavior, and it is not an appropriate model to be applied for "everyone".

All that's gonna do, is, it's gonna make you "see" things that aren't there.

And this, what you said just now, is a perfect case in point!

Yep, I hear that. I totally understand that sentiment.

Unfortunately, it's non-operational.

You know, "I", am like you. I see tne Neo-Con fallacy "all too clearly", and I'd like to wipe every last one of those clueless idiots right off the face of the planet. I mean, I consider them to be dangerous, right?

Unfortunately, if I do that, then I become "just like the Neo-Cons".

Because then, I'm being a moralist. And I don't want to do that.

See, in "my" eyes, this is exactly the pitfall of the Neo-Con "logic". This is one of the central pieces of "hypocrisy" in it.

'Cause I mean, here they are, spouting "democracy" out of one side of their mouths, but then when you look at the methods by which they want to "export" that to the rest of the world, they're entirely tyrannical.

And the only reason for that, is 'cause their political model is invalid- it's "internally self-contradictory".

See, here's the thing you gotta realize SX - these people, the "Neo-Con" mindset, is "different". I mean, this is the same thing I've been trying to explain to Glitch, just 'in reverse".

The kind of people who buy into the "Neo-Con" model, they don't respond well to having things "rubbed in their face". That kind of behavior, doesn't make sense to them. They don't understand "why" you're doing it. All they "see" in it, is hostility and risk and danger.

So, I mean, what's gonna happen if you try something like that, is they're gonna put up psychological "pickets" against you. And I mean, that's kinda what you're seeing in the political space, right? These guys have "pickets" in their mind, like, they're not gonna listen to "hard evidence", and they're gonna do things like 'attack the messenger" so they don't have to deal with the "actual evidence" - see? All these thing, they're just "pickets" - they come from psychology, not politics. The "political" piece, is just the "instantiation" of it.

So, my take on this is, what you gotta do, is present a "forward-looking" model to these people. You can't clobber 'em over the head with "what they did wrong in the past". That kinda "reference frame", isn't gonna create the results you want. What you wanna do, is open these peoples' eyes, right? And if they've got their heads buried in the sand, they ain't gonna be able to open their eyes too well, right?

So what you gotta do first, before you try to open their eyes, is make sure their heads' out of the sand. I mean, what I'm saying is, if you're trying to clobber someone over the head, you kinda gotta make sure their head's "visible". yes?

Yeah, I hear you. It's very frustrating.

But let's all just take a step back, and calm down for a sec, 'kay?

'Cause I mean, we all want the same thing, don't we?

A nice stable nation where we can raise our kiddies in peace?

I mean, you don't wanna be runnin' around the world startin' wars all over the place, do you? All that means is, the kiddies are gonna be in a hostile and unfriendly world, and I don't know about you, but that's not what I want for my kids and for their future.

My concept of politics, is based heavily on the concept of "stewardship".

This concept here, oughta serve as a bridge, bewteen the two "models" that I'm seeing, being played out here, on this issue we're talking about. Glitch, is using the "moral" model of politics, and SX and I, seem to be coming at this from the "contractual" angle.

So, I suggest, that the concept of stewardship, is where these two models meet.

That concept, has to do with "preserving the stability of the world for future generations". Or, perhaps, substitute the word "goodness" for the word "stability", if your metric is moral rather than operational.

See? Could this concept be a basis for discussion?

'Cause I mean, it seems to me, that we're really wasting our time here, arguing about the details of this. It seems to me, we should be "up at a higher level", in our discussion.

'Cause I mean, from both perspectives, the "point" of all this politics stuff, is to kinda keep the world in some kinda "stable orbit", instead of letting it spin all out of control (politically), 'cause I mean, when thatlatter thing happens there's chaos and anarchy, and I mean, we'd "all" (probably) agree that "that" would be pretty bad for the kiddies, right?

So, it seems to me, that we oughta be up at the level of "goals and policies", rather than down at the level of "implementation details". Because I mean, in a sane world, those latter pieces are supposed to "drop out of" the former pieces, right? One "causes" the other, not the other way around.

So, what I'm suggesting here, is that "we who have different models", which is, in this case, Glitch and SX, or Glitch and me, or maybe SS and me, or maybe Bronco and me - you know, "any two people who discover that they're using different political models" - what we really oughta be doing, is searching for some commonality in our models, right?

And I think, it seems to me, that said concept of political "stewardship" for future generations, is one such element of commonality.

What do you think?

I guess I took a hard-liner approach there because nothing else seems to work. These people clearly don't understand logic, or are purposely censoring themselves from knowledge, whether it be consciously or sub-consciously. So now you are telling me that that doesn't work either...

You know, it's getting really hard to have a civil discussion and find common ground when people KEEP BLOWIN' STUFF UP.

You're entirely right about arguing about details of course, but it's gettin' really hard when people choose to start a new topic whenever some news article comes out that hints at any glimmer of minute success.

FFS, I could copy and paste arguments against neocon logic in all these threads and never get a solid response that uses conventional logic.

Someone teach me how to communicate with these people, please. It seems like their minds are already made up and they literally will not take in any sensory input which may be contrast to their "beliefs" and "opinions."

__________________

That's the genius of the neocons.

the neocons can be traced back to the philosopher Strauss (and before...but the neocons are, roughly, Straussians). And the theory goes like this:

the "Wise men" lead; or, at least, are the advisors whispering into the leaders' ears.

The "Gentlemen" are the true believers. That is, the "wise men" are liars (for our own good, of course); but the "Gentlemen" really beleive what they're told.

they are educated, often sophisticated...but they're also, a bit contradictorily, monumental simpletons.

So, to them, it's the PREMISE that is of paramount concern. Eg. We are the Good Guys. We are Fighting Evil. Nothing is Our fault. and so on.

So it doesn't matter, not one bit, what evidence or information is supplied...not if it contradicts the premises, which are msotly quite masturbatory in nature.

these are pretty common human weaknesses...but they scale new heights of absurdity at times, as when they are ACTIVELY utilized by neocon intellectuals.

Stewardship. Interesting.

Recognition of the responsibility we owe to the future. As some wise dude once said, you don't own the land, you just borrow it from your children.

I think you're on to something there, Non.

Merry Christmas!