Yep, torture is now legal in America!
 

Well happy days. So Bush got in trouble for torturing people on American soil? Who cares! We'll just pass a law that says it's okay and get on with it, shall we.

I can't be bothered to re-post the entire topic I found, since I want to go to bed to be quite honest. But if you look here:

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=46308

Basicaly, the new law will enable Bush to randomly select people, throw them in jail without having to give a reason and torture them completely legaly. And, this can be done to absolutely everyone stepping onto American soil. So... don't pick your nose when you go visit America...

For the love of everything that is holy! Kill this man, someone! Please! :fuzemb:

Yikes! Next time I cross the border, i'll be careful not to fart or anything...

As a pseudo liberventionist, I'm outraged. Conservatism should be about small government, civil rights, and economic freedom. Not Big Brother, Father Knows Best, and unfair market practices. We're supposed to be fighting Islamofascists, not becoming fascists ourselves.

Well, from what I can tell (if this is real) is just a bill, not to be confused with a law. It's a proposal for a law, but no legislation has happened yet, so no reason to freak out at the moment because it's not a law. But there is every reason to be appalled that someone is capable of creating such a bill.

That said, it's all pretty disturbing and scary, of course, if it's real. But does anyone doubt that the government is bothered by illegally torturing whom they please? The sad truth is there's little difference between there being a law and there not being a law in favor of this atrocity.

And as a fellow pseudo liberventionist, I am also suitably outraged by such a proposal against basic human rights.

What's a pseudo liberventionist? Oh, you can always pick us out - we sit alone in the dark, musty corners at parties.

Definition: Someone who has politics similar, but not exactly similar to those of non isolationist libertarians. For instance, I am largely libertarian except for my stances on antitrust laws, abortion, drugs, and the fact I am a neotraditionalist Catholic. I am also in favour of the War on Terror, and thus interventionist.

Congratulations, Patrick, on applying a label to yourself. I hope it helps you understand yourself better.

Oops, that would be the tiredness having kicked in :P. My bad, but still. It,s crazy!

IMO, it doesn't suprise me. I didn't really pay much attention to this because it's yet another corrupt attrocity by the Bush administration. It's like how they went to Iraq, killed loads of people and got many of their own men killed in the name of oil - There wouldn't be a 'War on Terror' if they stopped pissing people off. Bush is an oil-barren, not a president.

Call me simplistic and naive, but that pretty much sums up what I think without going into complex details. . .

It seems to grant them the power to seize anybody in the world at any tinme and hold them without trial indefinitely. This is a law forced onto the whole world, granting the American government an inordinate amount of power. Something has gone very wrong with the seat of power in the USA.

This is just the Grand Old Torture Party trying to blow smoke up everybody's ass. The Enabling Act of 2006 will be struck down by the Supreme Court or repealed following a loss of the House or Senate. The bill was rushed through before Congress would adjourn, and its just a desperate ploy to immunize the White House and torturers from being in a world of shit for violating the Geneva Conventions, which the Supreme Court has ruled applies to "unlawful enemy combatants". Much like that bill, that designation has no legal force, and many torturers and their bosses could be facing charges of treason and charges akin to treason. These are death penalty offenses. This is more for the benefit of the Kool Aid drinkers and the talking heads who can say it has "legal authority".
Sorry for the long post, but this pisses me off completely.

On a further note, even if this bill would have been stalled out through cloture rules or fillibustered do you think the Bush White would have given a damn? They didn't listen to the Supreme Court who says they'd listen to the legislative branch that they own? Some have said the bill was not opposed because if it was effectively opposed but the President said "Screw it, we're going to keep on torturing" who could stop him? It would expose America as a dictatorship and half of America and the rest of the world would go completely apeshit.

Well that was an ass thing to say.

People get so paranoid with labels sometimes. Really now, sometimes labels are justified simply because saying a word is so much easier than explaining your beliefs in paragraphical form. It's for convenience's sake.

Of course, that obviously didn't work out here because Pat still had to go back and explain everything, but still. He actually could believe in everything embodying a interventionist whatever, and if that's the case, then what's the harm in calling himself one?

Oh, I forgot that the Supreme Court is 5-4 Republican, and one Justice is very old and could die any year now, before a Democrat becomes president.
GOP in charge of all three branches of the government. Only two things would be worse for Democrats, armed revolution leading to "martial law" and a cancellation of the 08 elections or a "tactical" nuke strike on Iran. Though any sort of military action against Iran will damage America immensely.

I hope Bush dies of a stroke, cancer, or something else as deserving of this missing link between man and complete ****ing moron.

He's not the lin, he IS the complete f*cking moron.
If this was real, surely it'd be on some official site or on the news, it's such a big thing?
Couldn't Bush cheat the system and do something similar anyway?
Regardless, I don't wanna go to America now: for all I care, I might get arrested and used for gay anal s*x against my will by him.
If he tried that, I'd b*oody...*chainsaw revving noises*

Because the way he says it makes him sound like an arse.

EDIT; Sorry. I thought it was about the "Islamofascist" thing, not my tone.

Fascism doesn't have the first thing to do with Islam for starters. Secondly, fascism is a corporatist thing. Where is the corporatist influence in Islamofascism? Where's the push for an increase in population? I know its really catchy and a real perjorative to say. The average person hears "Islam" and they flip out, "Fascism" and they flip out. Its two great slags that slag great together, but it isn't all that accurate. If you could call the movement, a small part of the terrorist movement to be sure, to take over the world and forcibly create a world dominated by Islam I'd call it something like "militant conservative Islam".
Whatever.

I guess the only advice that I could possibly offer to Patrick is this...... You're smart. We know you're smart. You may not need to prove it in every sentence you ever write. Take a page from my book. I write 99 percent nonsense and then throw in the one intelligent post every now and then. Takes them there peoples by surprise.

I'd also like to say that the phrase Christofascist, while harmful to the delicate sensibilities of many Christians in America and elsewhere, is a hell of a lot more accurate than Islamofascism.
Finally, insults like Bushitler are tongue-in-cheek for the most part and deliberately over the top for a purpose. Its the secret handshake of the "moonbat" left. Its a good way of finding where people lie politically almost immediately. I never really like Bushitler that much. I'm a fan of the insult Der Chimpenfuhrer though.:D

Predicatives are handy when they modify a specific aspect of someone rather than the person as a whole, e.g. “my diet is vegan”. That aspect doesn’t have to be stated, of course, because it’s obvious that when you say “I am a postman” that it purely refers to one’s occupation. In this instance, it is obvious that Patrick means to refer purely to his political beliefs.

Unfortunately, beliefs are not a discrete aspect of someone. A person can only have one diet, and a few occupations at most. There are an inordinate number of things to have beliefs about. While there are observable trends in an individual’s values, applying a term to encompass them all is generally counter productive, because you then have to list the anomalies (unless of course you’re conforming to a label instead of applying one). The tendancy, of course, is to conform, or else why would there be labels. I’m not exactly accusing Patrick of this, because he has successfully listed (a few) of the anomalies.

To wit: It’s not the case that Patrick is outraged because he’s a liberventionist, it’s that being outraged is part of what makes the term liberventionist applicable to his political beliefs.

Liberventionist? Now you're just making shit up.
Edit: So, you're a Libertarian that believes in military intervention, contrary to major Libertarian beliefs and policies for about what, 80 or 90 years?
Pot-smoking corporate cocksucking warmonger.

I wasn't calling you an arse for your political views, I'm calling you an arse for your overly pompous demeanour.

RELEVANT: I am genuinely outraged by such a proposal! etc etc... The idea is obviously wrong...

Wait, you're not even a "liberventionist"? You're a "pseudo liberventionist". What does that even mean Pat? You're against war until you're for it?
Labels are good, but only when they illuminate rather than obfuscate. Yes, I was both physically AND mentally masturbating for that last sentence. I'm just that good.

Listen, first off, I'd like to apologize sincerely if I appeared pompous. That was not my intent. Social skills are just not my forte. I also don't want to appear a show off, and apologize for that too.

Secondly, only some forms of fascism are corporate. While Pinochet was undoubtedbly a fiscal conservative, Hitler was an out and out leftist. Do you know what Nazi stands for? "National Socialist (emphasis added) German Workers (more emphasis) Party". Not to mention the wide scale nationalization that took place under Hitler, his general socialistic dislike for what he saw as the Jewish upper class.

But on a lighter note, I congratulate you figuring out I was one of those using the term "moonbat". I mean that sincerely, and not as an insult to your intelligence.

EDIT: Also, thanks for the advice OANST. I only generally try to show my intelligence in Off Topic, as generally a strong weapon in a debate is to get people to know that you know what you're talking about. I only do it here and whenever politics get involved, but not elsewhere.

Just messing with your head a bit, Patrick.
One of the more interesting new posters around here.

Oh, sorry. Sarcasm is hard to pick up on the net unless its noted by something like this "/sarcasm" or is made obvious by the wording. Anyway, I don't have any problem with Libs, just the ones that go completely against basic Liberal beliefs by aligning themselves with Islam. Sure, I might disagree with them over issues like the environment or abortion, but they are entitled to their opinions. Its just Chamberlainian dhimmis that I can't tolerate.

EDIT: Not saying you are one, just expressing my POV. Also, you're correct, Islam is technically not directly connected to fascism. The only thing is the anti semitism, the rather cosy relations between the Islamic world and the Nazi one, and the fact they are both types of totalitarianism. Other than that, they are quite different.

Fair enough, and I do see the point that you're making, but I still think that there was absolutely no problem in him calling himself what he did.

If he simply made up a new term to call himself, fine. It's not something I would do, but if it helps him keep his beliefs straight, I see no problem with it. If he is using a more widely accepted term (which I'm still not quite sure if he is, seeing as no one here is really familiar with the term "psuedo-liberventionist") to label himself with, fine as well. Assuming his audience is familiar with the term (and how would Pat know in the first place?), then he would still save time listing a few anomalies instead of listing all of his beliefs out at once.

Just like The Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Remember: names lie.