Do what?? The only way he can get online is at the house? How about the library or State office??? I know, might be to much for us to ask. Exxon, Microsoft etc, is the reason some guys don’t have internet??? LOL
If it does maybe it shouldn’t. Let employers make difficult choices as well. Not that I recommend that, but you can’t have it both ways.
Here’s a suggestion… go to Somalia. No government there to bother you.
Well there are lots of things funded by the government which I don’t agree with yet I have to abide by your decisions? This is a democracy. If the majority want something that’s the way it is. I put up with it iin either direction because I am not so terribly worried about it.
Well, if Bush said he will never order torture, I guess it must be true. Just like when Clinton said “I never had sex with that woman.” Here is the link to the ACTUAL memo produced to defend torture in 2002. news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/doj/bybee80102ltr.html Strange that a President who opposes torture would put his Justice Department to work to state why “enemy combatants” did not enjoy the protection of the Geneva Convention’s prohibitions on torture.
I appreciate your concern for myself and my family. Your position is not in conformity with Catholic teaching on torture.
Of course it is possible. That is not the question here.:banghead:
Didn’t answer my question, what would YOU have the President tell the guys holding some jihadist with vital info on the safety of not only YOUR family but thousands of others?
We do seem to be mixing threads, don’t we. It is like CAF intoxication. Anyway, I am leaving my mind open as to what party to support. I don’t find either one as some godsend to save the country.
So we are entitled to use tactics that we forbid others to use? That ain’t right.
In regards to your question about what I would do, I cannot answer that with certitude. I hope and pray that I would follow the teaching of my Church. However, I know that I would be impacted by fear, hatred, and concern for my life, the life of my family, and the lives of thousands of others. That would definitely tempt me to engage in the inherently evil act of torture.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regarding what the Church says about torture, here is a reference from the Cathechism:
Hi BamaRider,
Again, if Frank’s premise is true, the Catholic President should not authorize it. He would be sinning if he did.
A memo he repudiated.
And followed up by saying he would never order torture. The signing statement was designed to preserve presidential powers . He believed Congress was usurping the authority of the executive department Hhe make it perfectly clear why he was doing this. and specifically said he would never order torture .
Since as has been shown Bush specifically stated he would never order torture your scenario falls on the face of it.
Have you ever given consideration to the very high probability that…um… looks around to see if any one is around and whispers he’s lying?
Could be but the question was whether people who voted for Bush were supporting torture. Since he claimed unequivocably he did not support torture the answer is no. .
Sorry, but you are living in a fantasy world of make-believe. You are like those Democrats who grilled Justice Roberts and his nomination and said they were only interested in “legal precedent.” Anyone with half a brain was convinced that they were really interested in Roberts’ position on abortion. I didn’t believe those Democrats when they made that statement, nor do I believe our President when he says he opposes torture. Actions speak far louder than words. I think it is naive to wholly and uncritically accept a public statement made by the President against torture, when that same President claims that the provisions of the Geneva Convention regarding torture do not apply to enemy noncombatants and that he does not have to observe the ban on torture if it is “in the interest of national security.” You are going to incredible lengths to preserve your logic that anyone who votes for a pro-abortion candidate is voting to support abortion, unconditionally accepting anything that the President says as the unquestionable truth.
I will take this rant as an admission you torture analogy was wrong.
Kindly explain what constitutes a “rant.” Sure, my explanation may lack the intellectual sophistication of your response of “You’re wrong–thanks for playing,” but that hardly makes it a “rant.” If you refuse to look at reality, so be it? Did you believe those Democrats who said they were only interested in “precedent” during the Roberts hearings because that’s what they said? I surely hope not. Would you have believed Hitler when he said the only Jews dying were those who starved because the Allies bombed the railroad lines bringing food to the camps? Would him making this statement have justified a vote for Hitler because he wasn’t a pro-genocide leader? Again, I hope not. If you are willing to ignore the plain reality that most thinking people can see, then reason isn’t going to appeal to you. We have photos of torture. We have eyewitness testimony of torture. We have a Vice President downplaying torture. We have a President who says that Geneva Convention prohibitions on torture do not apply to those people because he has labeled them “enemy combatants.” But none of that matters to you. Why? Because the President said he was opposed to torture. In your world, actions mean nothing. Only words mean anything. Or perhaps you are being willfully ignorant because to look at facts would render your assertions toothless.
The Presidentspecically said he has never ordered torture and never will. You say he’s lying. Given that there really is not much use carrying on this discussion anymore.