Posted on 01/12/2009 6:05:12 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
I wonder if any of the liberals aboard the nine plane loads of people would agree.
I know two people who refused to vote for McCain because he “backed torture”. OK - their premise is wrong, but anyway.
I posed this question to them: “If it meant the country not getting nuked, do you have a problem dunking a terrrorists head in a pool of water?” Their response was “Yes - the US must be above that.”
My answer: “Above what, if we’re blown off the planet?”
We are screwed - big time.
They would if it was THEIR lives. If there is one thing that you can count on it is the selfishness of a liberal.
As someone who experienced "waterboarding" while training as a young aviator, I can say that it is not torture. It is coersion, an its very persuasive. But in the end, you are unharmed.
Some might try to call in mental torture. I dont believe mental torture is an equivalent to physical torture. If it were, most married couples could claim they were victems of mental torture. And if they have kids... :)
Stalinists like comrade citizen Obama believe in torture, as it’s performed by their allies against people like us.
Chrystia Freeland... US managing editor of the Financial Times...and Pat Buchanan wouldn't lift one finger to defend Israel.
Yep. That’s the ugly truth about Liberals (or one of them anyway). If it was personal, they would rip the terrorist apart piece by piece with great relish. It’s only in the abstract that they hold any real principles, never in real life.
You’re right - Chrystia Freeland and her friends fly private jets - they could care less about people in commercial jets.
ROFL!! Well said!
Yes, expect this to change when B.O. gets sworn in.
Wasn’t that great? That was the very first thing that popped in my mind when I saw this article.
I wish more people would politely tell Senators to FOAD during hearings, especially oil execs. But I guess nobody wants a one way ticket to the Graybar Hotel.
There are days I’d waterboard my own children for 3 minutes of quiet.
Reminds me of Petah Jennings and Dan Rather discussing whether or not to help the enemy (believe this was during the Vietnam War). That show was quite famous IIRC.
In times of conflict it is often necessary to treat people how they treat others.
Here is the question to ask these reality challenged morons and you would get a resounding YES.
“Would you waterboard Cheney or Bush for 3 mins to get them to confess to the hair-brain charges from the goofy left?”
Actually, with the inexplicable popularity of so-called "reality TV", this has potentially lucrative possibilities, perhaps even "pay per view"... /g
Just wait until the day comes when someone has to be waterboarded to save her own children. Then let’s see the answer.
Buchanan's failure to pose his question that way is precisely why I have such contempt for our so-called "professional journalists".
The left plays by Alinsky's rules: "Fix the issue - PERSONALIZE it". They don't hesitate to make their arguments personal, yet "our side" is too stupid to fight them by turning this back on them.
The framing of arguments in philosophically abstract terms is meaningless to these people and and only serves to allow them enough semantic wiggle-room and ambiguity to evade dealing with the reality of the issue.
Nine planeloads of abstract people means no more to these types than nine hundred planeloads. They operate under the logic of another one of their heroes, "Papa Joe" Stalin, who said "The death of one man is a tragedy - the death of a million is merely a statistic".
These people can only be fought effectively by making your counter-arguments specific and personal. They must be "Dukakised", as Bernie Shaw did to Michael Dukakis during his Presidential debate. Buchanan should have skipped the theoretical approach and asked this woman directly if her child or parent or husband, etc. were on the plane would she agree to waterboarding.
The beauty of that approach is that no matter which way she answered SHE would be the loser. If she said yes, she'd have exposed herself as a hypocrite. If she still said no, she'd have demonstrated to the viewing audience that she was some sort of cold inhuman freak who was more interested in some abstract ideology than in saving the lives of her own loved ones.
As long as "our side" persists in believing that these people can be persuaded by rational argument we are going to continue losing. When they appear on a television program they aren't the slightest bit interested in having a real discussion - they are there to imprint their message on the viewing audience.
If the other panelists or interviewers attempt to discuss theoretical ideas, the leftists simply ignore them and go right back to repeating their talking points because they know that repetition and getting the last word is far more effective than merely explaining ideas. They go on these shows to reach the audience, while our side stupidly persists in trying to reach them.
There are days I’d waterboard my own children for 3 minutes of quiet.
And those same bastards would torture their own grandmother just to get re-elected.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.