The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Waterboarding Used 266 Times on 2 Suspects

Frankly, I'm a conservative who believes had we fought this war divorced from politics and political expediency we'd have been out by now.

It doesn't do any good to tell that to the petulant children - they don't want to hear it. All they know is anti-war and hate Bush.
 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Atricle 5:
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

On 10 December 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the full text of which appears in the following pages. Following this historic act, the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."

One subscriber: The USA.

No reason to discuss.
 
And I'd rather be a petulant child than a self-righteous prick.

But you are, Blanche, you are self-righteous. Look up the definition. No, I'll save you the trouble:

self–righ·teous
Pronunciation: \-ˈrī-chəs\
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1680
: convinced of one's own righteousness especially in contrast with the actions and beliefs of others : narrow-mindedly moralistic
— self–righ·teous·ly adverb
— self–righ·teous·ness noun
 
But you are, Blanche, you are self-righteous. Look up the definition. No, I'll save you the trouble:

self–righ·teous
Pronunciation: -ˈrī-chəs
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1680
: convinced of one's own righteousness especially in contrast with the actions and beliefs of others : narrow-mindedly moralistic
— self–righ·teous·ly adverb
— self–righ·teous·ness noun

LOL. I must say you do help to pass the time.
 
LOL. I must say you do help to pass the time.

What is really cause for amusement is the frequency with which people on the extreme left accuse others, often derisively, of behavior which they, themselves, regularly exhibit.

His accusing me of being self-righteous is a classic example.
 
What is really cause for amusement is the frequency with which people on the extreme left accuse others, often derisively, of behavior which they, themselves, regularly exhibit.

His accusing me of being self-righteous is a classic example.

But Henry you are self righteous, and frequently pompous to boot. It doesn't mean no one loves you.
 
Umm...I didn't say "quick exit." I simply said sooner. Had we NOT listened to Rumsfeld and gone in heavy handed there likely would have been less insurgency. That's my point.

THAT.....is a good point. I didn't realize that the 'politics' you were referring to was the politics of the selling of the war by the Bush administration. Had they done what was necessary, and followed your suggestion, its quite possible we never would have invaded Iraq.

Which, I suppose, is why they choose the course they did.
 
Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with Al Quaeda or 9/11.
Thank you.

That's not entirely true.

On several occasions, military officials in Iraq rented training facilities to an organization which has been shown to have been Al Qaeda. Since Saddam was president, it was his responsibility. :rolleyes:

When your country is at war, being publicly and loudly anti-war is a very bad thing indeed.

Let's see.

England was at war back in the mid 1770s. Quite a number of members of parliament were publicly, loudly opposed to that war.

Was that a bad thing?

Germany, back in the early-middle decades of the twentieth century, was at war with Poland, after seizing various countries including Austria by military force. Many, including Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran pastor, were publicly vocal against that war.

Was that a bad thing?


Your statement is the lowest sort of blind foolishness, a piece of what marches happily into totalitarianism.

Umm...I didn't say "quick exit." I simply said sooner. Had we NOT listened to Rumsfeld and gone in heavy handed there likely would have been less insurgency. That's my point.

Rumsfeld should have been sent in first.

You've got a point, but in fact, if Rumsfeld had allowed the full gaming of the war, instead of just up till the fall of Baghdad, we wouldn't have gone at all, because in every instance that it was gamed, civil strife and insurgency arose -- except when a troop total such as Colin Powell had stated was necessary was assumed for the Americans, on the order of 300,000. The whole argument presented to the President was based on the fall of Baghdad being the end of things, a time when we were still being greeted mainly as liberators. Rumsfeld, Cheney, and others knew that to be a lie; others who called them on it were dismissed.
 
England was at war back in the mid 1770s. Quite a number of members of parliament were publicly, loudly opposed to that war.

Was that a bad thing?

.

In the mid 1770s there were no television cameras to carry dissent around the world and encourage the other side to carry on their struggle.

A different era calls for a different paradigm.

It's really quite simple - when the country is at war, public protests give aid and comfort to the enemy. This is particularly true when it comes from members of the government.

In the era of 24/7 around the world news coverage, considerable restraint is called for.

Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is one of the definitions of treason.
 
lol!

Besides that, what are these horrible things that the Republicans are supposed to be doing??

I have no idea. As far as I can tell, the Republicans are so disorganized that I seriously doubt if they could organize much of anything.
 
In the mid 1770s there were no television cameras to carry dissent around the world and encourage the other side to carry on their struggle.

A different era calls for a different paradigm.

It's really quite simple - when the country is at war, public protests give aid and comfort to the enemy. This is particularly true when it comes from members of the government.

In the era of 24/7 around the world news coverage, considerable restraint is called for.

Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is one of the definitions of treason.

That is arrogance incarnate.

You want us to blindly follow our governments, say that it's OK for them to go to war, when it is NEVER OK to go to war. As Kuli said, that is a piece of what marches happily into totalitarianism.

I also have to point out you forgot to include his reference to Germany, where there WERE cameras, and there WERE reporters talking about that.

You seriously think that terrorists are watching our every move, assuming that because we protest war that we're weak?? Your starting to make me think that you are controlled by paranoia.
 
You seriously think that terrorists are watching our every move, assuming that because we protest war that we're weak?? .

Do you seriously think they don't have satellite television in the middle east and Afghanistan? Get real.

The mindset of the middle East and, for that matter, the orientals is such that the fact that public protests are allowed to take place is viewed as a sign of weakness.
 
Back
Top