Lefty

I'm happy they're actually making them pay for their trailers. It'll help pay down the new national debt. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Not trying to make any political point with this...just thought the photo caption was too funny. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Ditto. Colmes was actually very witty...something Hannity lacks big time. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Don't get me wrong--I would have done the same in his position. Got a kick out of the photo caption, though, so I felt compelled to post this. Clicky. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

I think the term High Inquisitor is what they prefer. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Not quite the way I see it, but I don't know how else to explain what I've already said. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

I understand what you mean. Which is why the connotation of a word can't be ignored. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Look at my quote again. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

I didn't say it, your definition did. Of course. My point though is that the word can be completely misued because of its connotation. For instance, the National Socialist party has somehow become an entity of the right, even though it is politically left wing. Pfft. You know that wasn't my point. I wouldn't call you an extremist, but you're not a moderate either. It would be foolish to simply label you an extremist because you disagree with me. THAT is my point. The term is overused and misused by people who simply disagree with each other. In your opinion, is there anything between moderate and extreme? Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

I know people dislike Wikipedia, but it's a good place to start your search. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremist I don't think this is too far off the mark; With that in mind, I don't believe it's too far fetched to call Olbermann or Hannity or Limbaugh all extremists. Certainly, they aren't centrists. By that...I mean am gay EDIT: Goddamn manager...that'll teach me not to leave a minimized forum window around here. OK, on to the real post. By that definition we're all extremists because I don't think our views all line up with the exact center. I highlighted the areas where the Wikipedia definition fails. The connotation, not the definition, of the word "extremist" is why I take issue with people using it all the time. It is used almost exclusively to discredit, not to describe. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

I know it's not a perfect definition. However, if either of you can come up with a better definition that fits the connotation of the word and can't apply to every left and right wing viewpoint, I'd like to hear it. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Wow, I make a claim about the word extremist being used in an intellectually lazy fashion and that's the definition you post. Didn't even bother to go to the root word "extreme". Connotation and context are extremely important when dealing with political discourse. A simple dictionary definition just won't do. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

An extremist would be someone who advocates or uses violence to support their cause. On the left: Al Gore = not extreme. People who hammer spikes into tress so loggers get injured = extreme. On the right: Rush Limbaugh = not extreme. Abortion clinic bombers = extreme. People nowadays don't reserve the word for the real nut jobs. They throw it around as a cheap attempt to discredit the other side without putting any mental effort into their own arguments. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Think Rush Limbaugh without the sense of humor and with more Christianity thrown in. Of course, Rush Limbaugh isn't an extremist, either. The word "extreme" has lost all meaning because it gets attached to any description of the side that disagrees with the speaker--especially on these forums. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Unless the government gets involved, even non-retail businesses rely on consumers for their profits. I agree we can't directly change the leadership of a company as non-stockholders, but that is as it should be. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

I have to disagree with this point. When we decide to spend our money on whatever a corporation is peddling are we not, in essence, voting for them with our dollars? Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Fine, fine. I'll just delete my posting of the same article so we can contain the discussion to one thread. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Hannity is annoying and preachy, but not an extremist. That word gets used a little too often by both sides. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

I love the smell of napalm in the morning. Instead of beginning with the assumption that the people questioned are terrorists, start with the assumption that you don't really know. For some people, that's a difficult first assumption to make, especially if race and/or religion is involved. If you can get there, then it's much easier to remember that torturing someone into a confession doesn't prove anything other than people don't like to be tortured. I'll tell you whatever I think you want to hear if you're torturing me. Or I'll just make something up if I think it'll make you stop. I've never said to go straight to waterboarding. I've also never said that's the only technique we can use. If it doesn't work, don't use it. If it works, use it. Leave it up to the professionals who know more about this business than any of us to decide that. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Sure it is. Whenever you're ready to make that argument, go ahead. EDIT: Ah, had to go back a page but I see you did make that argument. My bad. Anyway, the moral high ground is all well and good for civilized folks, but sometimes even that has to go. I wish things were otherwise, but it's a rough world out there. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Yup. Whatever works. In a case where waterboarding works, use it. In a case where something more "humane" works better, use it. It's naiive to think the government isn't using the "whatever works" criteria in these situations...whether or not they tell the public about it. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

OK, I believe him. Doesn't refute my points. *shrug* I don't know why people think that about SERE training. Of course Mr. Holder's statement was contradictory. That's why I used it. He and the current powers-that-be are the ones stirring all this up. With all the tap dancing and double-talk they're displaying, it makes me think the whole issue is more political than anything. Yes. I'm glad you're not the one who has to make the tough calls, then. But why not? You present evidence that waterboarding doesn't work, but that whole aspect of the debate is meaningless to you according to your above answer. I'd like to hear the real objections. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

?? They're the ones who did it! These weren't amateurs performing the waterboarding. Why would they deny themselves the satisfaction of their sweet, sweet revenge? We all know that's the only motive for any interrogation methods besides a friendly chat. I changed the wording of my post a while ago. In any case, the Bill of Rights does NOT exist to protect the rights of nationally unaffiliated enemy combatants. What if that officer was actually trying to kill your brother who was peacefully complying with the officer's commands? So do I. I wouldn't limit them to harsh language, either. Out of curiosity, if waterboarding were proven to work would you still oppose it so strongly? Incidentally, Eric Holder himself said the following when asked about how the waterboarding of our troops is not torture: "we’re doing something for training purposes to try to equip them with the tools to, perhaps, resist torture techniques that might be used on them. There is not the intent to do that which is defined as torture — which is to inflict serious bodily or mental harm. It’s for training. It’s different." What if, hypothetically, the CIA interrogators were not characters straight out of the Spanish Inquisition and really only wanted to gain information and not cause serious bodily or mental harm? Would it still be so offensive? Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Such as it is. I'd like the think the professional interrogators you cited in your other post know better than to succumb to Dark Age blood lust. Tomato/tomahto in this case. Fair enough. However, if we want to bring the Constitution into this, it has to be mentioned that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the type of people we were waterboarding. None of this really refutes my original point. Regardless of how our society decides to define torture, if we as individuals are ever faced with a real, dire scenario where either a scumbag or innocent people (especially, say, family members) get hurt, we'd cross the "torture" line like we were wearing ACME rocket shoes. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Now hold on a second. If you say the motivation to waterboard is vengeance, then I would say it accomplishes its goal very well. It must make the torturers feel better since they keep doing it. I bet you back when the Constitution was written their definition of torture was very different, and probably wouldn't have included something as relatively harmless as waterboarding. Only our definitions of the word "torture" have change, and I'm saying it will continue to change. Regarding the prison assertion, you're right. I'd sing like a bird because my motivations and convictions are different than a die-hard terrorist bent on killing Americans. No, provided the public doesn't have to endure the thought of such "horrible" things being done to protect them. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin