• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Conservative radio host gets waterboarded, and lasts six seconds before.....

I think she is a brighter and more articulate person than she appeared. But, I had to laugh when even my hardcore conservative parents told me at Christmas, "We just don't think she's that smart."




I'm a huge McCain fan, I must confess.

I WAS a huge fan of McCain, but that was years ago. He changed, and for the worse.
 
Way to completely miss the f'ing point. :spin:

This is so bad, so completely horrifying--that if you AREN'T angry, there is something wrong with you.

If anything, the REPUBLICANS should be the angriest. I voted for a democrat for president for the first time, IN MY LIFE, in 2008.

I abhor what Bush has done to my party.

And yeah, I'm angry.

And see I look at it as our government did not even slightly injury anybody by waterboarding so the mass hysteria is bewildering. I've heard more hysterical screaming about waterboarding than techniques that actually have killed people accidentally! Totally irrational.

Anyway you can be angry, mad as hell even, but no more telling other posters to pull their head out of their ass. You gotz to be civil!
 
And see I look at it as our government did not even slightly injury anybody by waterboarding so the mass hysteria is bewildering. I've heard more hysterical screaming about waterboarding than techniques that actually have killed people accidentally! Totally irrational.

Actually, we did injure somebody. We injured US. I have no sympathy for terrorists. But, this country stands for something. And this episode has tarnished what people have died to protect. That's serious.
 
Actually, we did injure somebody. We injured US. I have no sympathy for terrorists. But, this country stands for something. And this episode has tarnished what people have died to protect. That's serious.

We waterboarded 3 enemy combatants. 3. The waterboarding did not physically harm them in any way. Left no mark on them. Your hysteria is completely unwarranted.
 
And see I look at it as our government did not even slightly injury anybody by waterboarding so the mass hysteria is bewildering.

Physically no, but psychologically yes.

Are you saying it is legal to torture someone psychologically just as long as there is no physical injuries?
 
We waterboarded 3 enemy combatants. 3. The waterboarding did not physically harm them in any way. Left no mark on them. Your hysteria is completely unwarranted.

1. Hysteria is a demeaning term that is utterly incompatible with a frank discussion of the issues. If you expect civility, then live up to it.

2. The claim that it did not harm them is clearly false in light of the descriptions of physical suffering from those who have experienced waterboarding. Did it cause permanent physical damage? Quite frankly, neither you, nor I, know. So, making this claim is simply absurd. It's beneath you, Talloulou.

3. This behavior is incompatible with who we are, as a nation. I don't care about damaging THE TERRORISTS. I care about damaging MY COUNTRY and our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

People did not willingly lay their lives down to protect and defend this country so we could adopt tactics of torturing for our convenience.

Further, by doing so, we have made the jobs of ALL OF OUR BRAVE MILITARY PERSONNEL far more difficult.

That's why we don't torture.
 
Last edited:
Physically no, but psychologically yes.

Are you saying it is legal to torture someone psychologically just as long as there is no physical injuries?

I do not believe you can torture a person and really call it torture when they suffer ZERO physical injury. If there is maiming or any injury involved then I'd join in on the hysteria.

But something that is done as a radio skit is simply not torture. We did not use salt water. We did not repeatedly punch them in the stomach or force them to bloat themselves on the water. It's nothing like what the Japanese did with their brand of water torture.

I don't get the outrage. We do NOT do torture to our own soldiers. Radio personalities do not volunteer for torture. Torture isn't something you wonder about in such a way,

"Hey man what do you think about that, is that torture?"

"I don't know man. Here you do it to me and we'll see."

"Ok."

"Wow, man that really did feel like torture. You tortured me."

****z and giggles.

Uh, no.

I do believe some of the things our military does that nobody is complaining loudly about should be considered off the table.

I'm against the cold cell hose treatment. It has killed. It is dangerous. It's pretty impossible to tell who might succumb to hypothermia and die. Thus it falls more accurately than waterboarding on the torture list in my opinion.

I'm on the fence with sleep deprivation as it does actually harm the body and I'm sure there's lots of physical altercation involved in "keeping someone awake," for days.

But the 3 guys who were watertortured? I could give a crap about that, really.
 
I dont generally like rap but that slim shady album is a bit catchy.

Speaking of RAP music; a woman friend made me laugh when she told me why she didn't like RAP music; she said, and I quote "there are only so many words that rhyme with whore or bitch."

:rofl
 
Wanted to vote for McCain, but his off the cuff selection of Palin scared the bejeezus out of me. I like her, but in no way was she qualified to be VP. Maybe in 8 to 12 years...

I am always amazed by this when the Democrat Candidate who is now President had FEWER qualifications than those of Palin who was merely the VP candidate. But what stuns me more is the notion that an intellectual midget like Biden is a better Veep.

Even Obama knew he didn't have the experience but his vast EGO, ambition and arrogance got the better of him:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2encXLmPDo]YouTube - Obama Admits; I Should Not Run For President In 2008[/ame]
 
Actually, we did injure somebody. We injured US. I have no sympathy for terrorists. But, this country stands for something. And this episode has tarnished what people have died to protect. That's serious.

Wait, let me put your comments in context; "because you say so."

Carry on.
 
We waterboarded 3 enemy combatants. 3. The waterboarding did not physically harm them in any way. Left no mark on them. Your hysteria is completely unwarranted.

Correction; "their emotion filled hysteria based on the hyper partisan political purpose intended to impugn the previous administration for the mere fact that they disagreed with their political views and continue to pretend that 9-11 never happened."

:2wave:
 
Physically no, but psychologically yes.

Are you saying it is legal to torture someone psychologically just as long as there is no physical injuries?

Read the UN definition of what constitutes torture; SEVERE physical or mental pain.

Now with this, even the emotional hysterics in the New York Times screeching about one individual having this technique conducted a total of 183 times suggests that there is NOTHING severe about it.

This is not hard to figure out; that is unless you are filled with emotional hysterics and attempting to impugn politicians you merely disagree with using hyperbole, outrageous semantics, lies and distortions for purely hyper partisan political purposes; which in your case I would submit is definitely in the affirmative here.
 
1. Hysteria is a demeaning term that is utterly incompatible with a frank discussion of the issues. If you expect civility, then live up to it.
If hysteria is the wrong word it's only because much of the hysteria has died down now - in the media. But folks do seem hysterical over this issue -to me.

Did it cause permanent physical damage? Quite frankly, neither you, nor I, know. So, making this claim is simply absurd. It's beneath you, Talloulou.
Actually we do know that waterboarding by the CIA never
caused even injury let alone permanent physical damage. "I hated it and have nightmares," is not physical damage. At this point we don't even know if the 1,2,3 people who experienced this at the hands of the CIA even have nightmares over it. Given who they are, I don't much care if they do.
 
I care about damaging MY COUNTRY and our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

No you don't; that is a lie based on your emotional hysterics about the previous administration somehow conducting illegal torture on those poor pathetic terrorists.

If you gave a damn about this country or the men and women who are still putting their lives at risk, you would denounce this OBVIOUS political posturing by the Democrats who are merely using this issue to promote their partisan agenda.

People did not willingly lay their lives down to protect and defend this country so we could adopt tactics of torturing for our convenience.

First off, your assertion; "so we could adopt tactics of torturing for our convenience," is outright false and intended to inflame rather than have a coherent debate. Where did ANYONE "adopt tactics of torturing for our convenience?" What a patently asinine and farcical assertion.

Soldiers aren't laying down their lives to support that asinine partisan political hackery we are seeing from the Democrats using their deaths to promote and support their Liberal agenda.

They are LAYING down their lives because Democrats AND Republican politicians voted to send them into harms way. Afterwards, the Democrats decided they were against their VOTE before they were FOR it and now use the troop’s deaths and this fabricated torture issue for purely partisan political purposes.

Further, by doing so, we have made the jobs of ALL OF OUR BRAVE MILITARY PERSONNEL far more difficult.

What a farcical and un-provable assertion which mirrors the asinine comments of Obama. The REAL thing that makes their jobs harder is the farcical asinine claim that the United States condones wanton torture of its detainees.

The despicable and incomprehensible bullschit that constitutes the Democrat Party hyperbole on this issue is definitely putting our troops at further risk and does NOTHING, I repeat ZERO, ZILCH, NADA to make this nation stronger or safer or make our troops job easier. In FACT, it does the EXACT opposite.

The only thing more uninformed than your farcical rhetoric is the notion that this debate is merely an effort to become more open, honest and transparent. Damn, I need my freaking hip waders in this forum anymore!

That's why we don't torture.

The notion that “WE” torture is about as asinine as the assertion that Gitmo has served as a recruitment tool for Al Qaeda.

It’s about as asinine as Nancy Pelosi’s desperate assertions that the CIA lied to Congress and misled her and it was all Bush’s fault. It would be hysterical if it weren’t so damned stupid and dangerous.

Carry on.

P.S. If I sound angry on this issue and your obvious BS, I am. Nothing can infuriate me more than when someone who thinks this asinine argument about torture is actually GOOD for our troops or this nation.
 
Last edited:
Correction; "their emotion filled hysteria based on the hyper partisan political purpose intended to impugn the previous administration for the mere fact that they disagreed with their political views and continue to pretend that 9-11 never happened."

:2wave:

Actually, it has nothing to do with that. The subject of this thread is about how a Conservative was waterboarded and changed his mind on waterboarding as a result. Mancow, who was a Bush lover, not a Bush hater, is not a Liberal. Mancow is the subject of this thread.

So tell me, why do YOU believe that a Conservative changed his mind on waterboarding, once he himself experienced it?
 
Last edited:
Actually, it has nothing to do with that. The subject of this thread is about how a Conservative was waterboarded and changed his mind on waterboarding as a result. Mancow is not a Liberal. Mancow is the subject of this thread.

Once again, it is patently OBVIOUS what this debate about; your desperate assertions to the contrary are merely entertainment at best.

So tell me, why do YOU believe that a Conservative changed his mind on waterboarding, once he himself experienced it?

Would it have been less relevant if a Liberal had done this? Tell me something, why is the fact that he is “Conservative” even a relevant talking point for you?

Answer that question, and you will see the light and reality of my comments regarding the partisan political nature of this debate.

Now, a better question to ask yourself, which you won't of course, is did this technique cause the "CONSERVATIVE" irreparable harm? Did it cause SEVERE physical and mental harm per the definition of what constitutes torture?

No it OBVIOUSLY did not; it merely scared the CRAP out of a radio show person who had no clue what he was about to endure and proved why we subject our own troops to these methods as a preparation to what they may expect. Unfortunately, the techniques used by our enemies are so obviously severe that we cannot possibly prepare our troops for them without causing severe permanent physical damage, permanent mental harm or basically killing them.

Any other desperate arguments you care to make regarding this asinine debate which is basically an attempt by Liberal Democrats to impugn the previous administration for purely hyper partisan political purposes?
 
Last edited:
Once again, it is patently OBVIOUS what this debate about; your desperate assertions to the contrary are merely entertainment at best.



Would it have been less relevant if a Liberal had done this? Tell me something, why is the fact that he is “Conservative” even a relevant talking point for you?

Answer that question, and you will see the light and reality of my comments regarding the partisan political nature of this debate.

Now, a better question to ask yourself, which you won't of course, is did this technique cause the "CONSERVATIVE" irreparable harm? Did it cause SEVERE physical and mental harm per the definition of what constitutes torture?

No it OBVIOUSLY did not; it merely scared the CRAP out of a radio show person who had no clue what he was about to endure and proved why we subject our own troops to these methods as a preparation to what they may expect. Unfortunately, the techniques used by our enemies are so obviously severe that we cannot possibly prepare our troops for them without causing severe permanent physical damage, permanent mental harm or basically killing them.

Any other desperate arguments you care to make regarding this asinine debate which is basically an attempt by Liberal Democrats to impugn the previous administration for purely hyper partisan political purposes?

People have been trying to keep you on topic throughout the thread despite your attempts to derail it. Thus far you are the only one who has tried to tie it to the Bush Administration. If you want to debate about that then you should probably start a thread relating to that. This thread is about Mancow getting water boarded.
 
Once again, it is patently OBVIOUS what this debate about; your desperate assertions to the contrary are merely entertainment at best.



Would it have been less relevant if a Liberal had done this? Tell me something, why is the fact that he is “Conservative” even a relevant talking point for you?

Answer that question, and you will see the light and reality of my comments regarding the partisan political nature of this debate.

Now, a better question to ask yourself, which you won't of course, is did this technique cause the "CONSERVATIVE" irreparable harm? Did it cause SEVERE physical and mental harm per the definition of what constitutes torture?

No it OBVIOUSLY did not; it merely scared the CRAP out of a radio show person who had no clue what he was about to endure and proved why we subject our own troops to these methods as a preparation to what they may expect. Unfortunately, the techniques used by our enemies are so obviously severe that we cannot possibly prepare our troops for them without causing severe permanent physical damage, permanent mental harm or basically killing them.

Any other desperate arguments you care to make regarding this asinine debate which is basically an attempt by Liberal Democrats to impugn the previous administration for purely hyper partisan political purposes?

Once more you talk around the Q and bring up your Liberal bogey men. This is about a CONSERVATIVE who is against waterboarding, not a Liberal. And while I am at pinning you down on a question you have consistently refused to answer, let me make an excellent CONSERVATIVE case against waterboarding by providing you an essay by CONSERVATIVE blogger Jim Minzi, which gives the reasons why we should not waterboard anyone:

The essay is here.

I can also bring up other Conservatives who are against waterboarding, which I am prepared to do. However, in light of the evidence I have brought up so far, which not only proves your dishonesty in refusing to answer the question, but also proves your dishonesty in attempting to deflect the question...........

I will ask you the question again:

What is your take on Conservatives who are against waterboarding? More specifically, why did a Conservative change his mind after being waterboarded?
 
Last edited:
Not all Conservative talk show hosts are big sissies like Sean Hannity. Controversial Conservative host Erich Mancow is one of them. Unlike Hannity, he followed through on his pledge to be waterboarded, and the result? He lasted 6 seconds, and now believes that waterboarding IS torture.

Mancow has my respect, not only for practicing what he preaches, but also for honestly admitting that he was wrong. Too bad Hannity is not the same way. It seems that Mancow has more honesty in his little finger than Hannity has in his whole body.

I want to see what the hyperpartisans are going to say now. Are they going to accept this, or has Mancow just now magically become a Liberal jihadist who hates America?

Article is here.

What was he expecting to happen? Its a technique used to extract information by placing the subject under duress. Was he expecting to be immune or macho enough to withstand it. What a moron.

Personally I'm not against waterboarding as torture because there exist scenarios that its permittable, though rare. What I'm against is such acts conducted without due process of the law.
 
Last edited:
If hysteria is the wrong word it's only because much of the hysteria has died down now - in the media. But folks do seem hysterical over this issue -to me.

I find the lack of reaction from some far more disturbing.

Actually we do know that waterboarding by the CIA never
caused even injury let alone permanent physical damage. "I hated it and have nightmares," is not physical damage. At this point we don't even know if the 1,2,3 people who experienced this at the hands of the CIA even have nightmares over it. Given who they are, I don't much care if they do.

It's not about who THEY are. It's about who WE are.

One of my favorite conservatives (Ronald Reagan) believed that waterboarding was torture. That's why the practice was prosecuted by federal DOJ, ON HIS WATCH.

That's good enough for me.

Forgive me if your opinions on the subject hold far less weight than those of Reagan.
 
Last edited:
If hysteria is the wrong word it's only because much of the hysteria has died down now - in the media. But folks do seem hysterical over this issue -to me.

Many of us against this issue do so from a moral standpoint. We disagree with torture or whatever euphemism you want to use to describe it because we think it is wrong, that it goes against what we feel our country should stand for. This is hardly hysterical, but if it makes you feel better to dismiss those who disagree with you on a moral issue as "hysterical", I guess that is fine...

Talloulou said:
Actually we do know that waterboarding by the CIA never
caused even injury let alone permanent physical damage. "I hated it and have nightmares," is not physical damage. At this point we don't even know if the 1,2,3 people who experienced this at the hands of the CIA even have nightmares over it. Given who they are, I don't much care if they do.

I don't think you are going to find much if any sympathy for the terrorists among those against torture. I know you won't find any from me. It is also irrelevant to why I am against torture. I am against torture because it is wrong to do that to any one to my mind.
 
What is your take on Conservatives who are against waterboarding? More specifically, why did a Conservative change his mind after being waterboarded?

I'd like to know if Truth Detector can answer a simple question:

If waterboarding is Okay, why did the department of justice, under Ronald Reagan, prosecute it as a crime?

Here's another one:

If waterboarding is okay, does Truth Detector support U.S. police departments using it to gain confessions from suspects?
 
I'd like to know if Truth Detector can answer a simple question:

If waterboarding is Okay, why did the department of justice, under Ronald Reagan, prosecute it as a crime?

Here's another one:

If waterboarding is okay, does Truth Detector support U.S. police departments using it to gain confessions from suspects?

Actually, I was holding that one back. I am holding back a lot of other ammo too. TD has painted himself into a corner, and I am going to hold his feet to the fire now. :mrgreen:
 
Actually, I was holding that one back. I am holding back a lot of other ammo too. TD has painted himself into a corner, and I am going to hold his feet to the fire now. :mrgreen:

:grabbing the popcorn and settling in to watch the fun:
 
Back
Top Bottom