Ever watch Law and Order? Those types of interrogation techniques are very effective.

Relentless cross-examination, mixed with a little good cop/bad cop.

It works.

Speak for your’s self, clown.

Why don’t you allow comments on your blog? Be specific.

obamaismymessiah Says:

bently: Please tell me exactly what forms of interrogation you would not consider torture. Be specific.

You have yet to respond to any pleas for you to tell us exactly what “much, much further” means in your opening comment, and you have the gall to challenge another to clarify his remarks?

Sheesh.

cabbinbagger Says:
ralph the wonder llama Says:

It’s an assumption, sure. But I think it’s based on some pretty solid evidence.

Well, Ralph. So I don’t use what you deem to be the verbiage of the Republican Troll Manual, yet you declare that my posts are close enough, and that makes you the “know it all” in identifying Republican Trolls?

(sigh) I’m not sure why you need this explained to you, but here goes…

You sound like a troll, because you come here blaming Democrats for Bush’s war and defending McCain for his torture flip-flop. These are positions of most trolls, and expressed in much the same language as you used.

Your rhetorical question makes it sound like I think I’m the “know it all” in identifying Republican trolls — something i never claimed to be. Trolls are not difficult to spot, even the familiar “Concern Trolls” who show up expressing concern for the fate of liberal ideals. Most regulars can spot them with their first post. You seem to be another identifiable species — the cynical, “both parties suck equally” troll. We’ve seen that type, too.

By now, even you should be able to recognize that my “Style Manual” remark was a sarcastic comment on the uniformity of message that you folks employ, implying that few if any are capable of independent thought. I know, I know, if you have to explain a joke…

Born with a silver anchor in his mouth, he was admitted to Annapolis only on the basis of his pedigree. Even so, he disgraced his “My Dad is an Admiral, and so is my Granddad” by finishing near the bottom of his class by being a party animal goof-off.

He then got admitted to Aviation School when he didn’t have the grades (”My Dad is an Admiral”). He was more of a born swaggler than a born pilot. But he did love his scarf and leather jacket. Somehow, John learned to fly.

Anyone can get shot down and sent to a prison camp. No carping there. But John, by his own admission, talked like a wind-up potato head, even making propaganda films for the enemy. The real heros didn’t do anything like that.

John’s performance in the Navy was so bad that, despite being the son and grandson of Admirals, he was never going to get past Captain.

Now he’s claiming he knows how to win wars. What wars are he talking about?

John, if you weren’t married to a rich woman, you’d be selling insurance and hoping you could retire when you’re 75. There’s something pathetic about a 71 year old tough guy.

raynman Says:
He still didn’t answer, did he?

Nope. He didn’t.

July 28th, 2008 at 4:30 pm And he never will.

You certainly aren’t against tortured logic.

obamaismymessiah Says:
It’s not a straw man, Ralph. There have been many examples where TP has used headlines and stories to push the incorrect notion that the bill dealt only with waterboarding, and therefore, that McCain voted for waterboarding..

Oh, I see,. So when you wrote, “You and the writers/moderators at TP keep saying that the bill in question was a bill to ban waterboarding. Are you sticking with that — that the bill only dealt with waterboarding?” you weren’t referring to the thread in question or to any specific comments in it. Because I’m pretty sure that I never restricted the discussion to just waterboarding (and you did direct the remark to me) and the first sentence in the actual article specifically included other torture tactics, so that kind of dispels your argument against TP.

In other words, you accused me and the TP mods of saying that the bill only dealt with waterboarding even though neither I nor the TP mods said anything like that, and then you tried to build and argument against that position — a position you created and inaccurately attributed to us.

That is what’s known as a straw man.

That’s not my blog. It’s just a link.

And such a nice respectful link. It’s obvious you are committed to real dialog.

Yes, it banned TORTURE in many forms… why are you and McCain pro-TORTURE?

hey there, obamaistheantichrist how come you don’t allow comments on your blog?

Maybe because his blog is just a storefront for shirts and buttons?

That is not all the Army Field Manual bans.

The Army Field Manual? Hell, it was prolly written by a bunch o’ dang pussy libruls and commies!

obamaismymessiah Says:
Ralph, ralph, ralph. You and the writers/moderators at TP keep saying that the bill in question was a bill to ban waterboarding. Are you sticking with that — that the bill only dealt with waterboarding? Or do you now admit that it would have banned more methods of interrogation than waterboarding?

Wow. That is one skimpy straw man, pal.

Didn’t you just criticize Bozo for not reading the link you pasted?

And here you post a question that shows you didn’t even read the article you’re responding to?

First sentence, under the headline at the top of this page:

In February, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) voted against a bill banning the CIA from waterboarding and using other torture tactics in their interrogations.

Still wanna go with that straw man? Or do you wanna find some more straw and maybe fill out the chest, give him some legs instead of those floppy empty Wal-mart jeans you got there?

Unfortunately, many of you, including TP moderators have forgotten the “We debate” part of the above mission statement. Rather than debate, they delete, censure and ban. That is not debate.

Like so many neocon trolls, you repeatedly claim to be interested in “debate” and yet only post snide comments devoid of content, or the occasional cut & paste job, or links to articles you probably haven’t even read, without actually making any cogent arguments in favor of your viewpoint.

Your very screen name pretty much defines how serious you are about “debate”.

Indeed it does. such as how many people should be present at an interrogation and what rank they should be and where and when they should be conducted and how many donuts are considered reasonable for the maintenance of interrogator morale…

1-7

These persons are protected by the Geneva Cpnventions for the Protection of War Victims August 12th 1949 as they relate to captured wounded and sick enemy personnel…” and so on