Penis Cheney

Let me give the classic example...if someone were to break into your home and threaten your family, would you restrain yourself from doing ANYTHING to save your family from someone who's about to seriously hurt or kill the people you care about?

:laugh:

According to a few of the ppl who replied I think they'd try to see if they'd go to McDonald's with them for lunch for something.

It's almost as if people enjoy being pissed on.

It happens here in Canada aswell. People are stupid.

But Keith & FQ have restored a Canadian's faith in America.
 
But Keith & FQ have restored a Canadian's faith in America.

Aww haha *hugs*

And really in response to the whole "If someone directly threatened you, what would YOU do?"

Well PERSONALLY I'd attempt to dissolve the situation nonviolently. However if push came to shove, i'd use force. However that is basic instinct to protect yourself. That is why most of us are not leaders of the US. It's their job to look past instinctive response and do what's right for BOTH parties. Yes even the bad guys have rights too. "An eye for an eye makes me whole world blind".
 
Yeah but it's one trying to protect your family from one guy, it a whole other thing to try to force information out of people you think might be involved and attack the guy's neighbor because you think he has plans for you too without any proof.
 
Let me give the classic example...if someone were to break into your home and threaten your family, would you restrain yourself from doing ANYTHING to save your family from someone who's about to seriously hurt or kill the people you care about?

How do you get someone to support torture? Why, offer up horror scenario's that drive the other side to irrational fear.

According to a few of the ppl who replied I think they'd try to see if they'd go to McDonald's with them for lunch for something.

It's almost as if people enjoy being pissed on.

It happens here in Canada aswell. People are stupid.

People are rational. Why is it just because you wouldn't kill a person that means you'd wine and dine them?
 
Let me give the classic example...if someone were to break into your home and threaten your family, would you restrain yourself from doing ANYTHING to save your family from someone who's about to seriously hurt or kill the people you care about?

And here's the right answer... "it depends." Is my house being invaded by a 6 year old homeless boy that's unarmed while I and seven of my other friends are wearing fully body armor and equipped with automatic weapons?

There's never an absolute answer. It all depends. At least that how a responsible leader should approach given situations.
 
People are rational. Why is it just because you wouldn't kill a person that means you'd wine and dine them?

You clearly have not had a family member killed by a terrorist. I'm willing to bet that anyone else whom is so open minded to having sympathy for killers also falls into that category.

Wine and Dining them is what is being done, that's what prison is aside from the ass fucking they do to eachother or so Bolt's Dads tell me.

But ya', I almost lost faith in the great USA until Keith & FQ jumped in with the replies they gave since I know they are both good peoples.
 
You clearly have not had a family member killed by a terrorist.
Oh really? You clearly don't know me very well. Thanks for that.
Wine and Dining them is what is being done, that's what prison is aside from the ass fucking they do to eachother.
Does the name Gitmo ring a bell? Didn't think so, like you said you don't follow world events.

But ya', I almost lost faith in the great USA until Keith & FQ jumped in with the replies they gave since I know they are both good peoples.
Are you implying i'm not a good person because I don't support torture? Ya know, there was this GOP debate before the election. Everyone was given some stupid ass Hollywood scenario and was forced to answer "would you torture such and such to prevent this from happening?" Everyone of course answered yes, or ducked out of answering the question. Except for John McCain. You know the difference between them and McCain? He was a prisoner of war in Vietnam for over 5 years. He may have sold out during his election and not deserved to be president, but he sure as hell knows what he's talking about when it comes to torture:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNf6ubjdYmc"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNf6ubjdYmc[/ame]
 
Are you implying i'm not a good person because I don't support torture? Ya know, there was this GOP debate before the election. Everyone was given some stupid ass Hollywood scenario and was forced to answer "would you torture such and such to prevent this from happening?" Everyone of course answered yes, or ducked out of answering the question. Except for John McCain. You know the difference between them and McCain? He was a prisoner of war in Vietnam for over 5 years. He may have sold out during his election and not deserved to be president, but he sure as hell knows what he's talking about when it comes to torture:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNf6ubjdYmc

No I'm not saying that and if I implied it than I apologize. I'm just thinking you might be much too leaniant when it comes to murderer fucks who try to ambush the freedom you have. But that's just me.
 
The whole reason behind a debate like this proves why countries have to have a leader. We all will have differing opinions. Those opinions are shaped by our experiences and lives. No two people are going to have EXACTLY the same opinion. We can only attempt to trust that our leaders will do what is fundamentally right.

Every person in the world has rights. Even if it's the slimiest shithead in the world who DESERVE to die, he has the right not to. Should he have information about something that will harm America, and if we could not get the information through other means of investigation, then some forms or torture may have to be employed.

The problem with torture, as well as passing laws against a certain group (ex. my argument about Cheney's views of homosexuals' and women's rights), is that you are dealing with harming someone else's freedom and rights. Sometimes that is necessary; however, it should NEVER be the first option.

I do think in America we take a LOT of freedoms for granted. We should help to spread the positive thought of freedom. We can't do that by taking away others and causing harm when it is not necessary.

Sometimes foreign people you would think have an ill will may surprise you. Hell when I was living in China I was arrested (a story I don't usually tell). I was arrested for supposedly robbing this one store. The shop owner's only description was "She was white with blonde hair" (my hair was blonde at the time). And after all the horror stories about China, I expected the worst from them since hey, i'm white and i'm in a small town. What do they care if they wrongly charge me? They did yell at me a bit and verbally harassed me and berated me until I plead with them that I didn't do anything, I wasn't even near the store at the time it happened. The shop owner managed to track down a couple of customers who helped him give a better description. They looked into it and arrested the right woman and I was released with a heavy apology. Hell, they even paid for my taxi cab back to my house.

That's how it should be. They did your typical "ALRIGHT WHY'D YA DO IT WHITEY!" But they never touched me. Now I can only imagine what they did to the REAL culprit. But it's a fact of their method. They were wise to not touch me until they knew they had the right person and had what they needed. That's the kind of principles we need to employ; not to lay our hands on someone until it's a last resort.

Just my opinion, again, shaped by my life and my experiences. And yes, I've had friends tortured in Iraq. And you know what THEY'RE response was? "They were doing what they thought was right." Of course my friends were mad, but they were civilized enough to understand why they did it, and it didn't make them want to turn around and torture Iraqis. That's what separates us from some pond scum out there
 
I think he's just being more flexible to who the opponent might be, versus every prisoner of war being a potential nuke handler.

Bottom line for me is that I don't know the best answer... all I know is that torture should be far from the first line of options and if it ever comes to that.... don't make it public knowledge.
 

how to help support popgeeks, popgeeks, pop geeks

Latest News & Videos

Latest News

Back
Top