Cowboy Blob's Saloon and Shootin Gallery

I'm not a real Cowboy, but I play one in the movies.

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Don't Remember Who I Got This From....


  • At 2:36 PM, Blogger Jay.Mac said…

    I think it sums up the double standard/lack of coherent thought pretty well.
    Odd that liberals supported Schiavo being starved to death but they worry about how terrorists- who would like nothing more than to destroy the world that liberals inhabit- are being treated in Gitmo; God forbid that one of them might be exposed to "big American breasts". The world sure seems pretty screwed up sometimes.
    I just can't comprehend why there is such a passionate crusade for the right to kill babies in the womb- and even if you use the argument of viability that's still what we're talking about in a lot of cases. Is it so that people don't have to face the consequences of their own actions? Don't they want to have to face the awesome responsibility of pasrenthood?

  • At 5:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    To jay.mac;
    I have to say, the concept that a "conservative" being able to say "it's just a clump of cells", then tell me that an embryo is "a life, and we must respect it" as we would an adult, disgusts me.
    Spare me the "liberal double-standard" rhetoric; this comic pointedly displays a curiously similiar trait in conservatives.

    And, for the record, I don't believe you'll find many liberals upset about breast exposure. We are concerned with much less important stuff, like, say, starvation, physical abuse, torture.
    And, if you'll recall, it was one of your boys (Ashcroft) who covered the breast, not a liberal.

    Why is it so difficult to accept a basio premise; we can not, as a nation, expect our people, when captured, military or otherwise, to be treated with dignity and respect, yet not extend those exact same courtesies to those in our custody.
    It matters not why these people are imprisoned in Gitmo; the majority of them have yet to be even charged with a crime, much less convicted, so you can't justify it with a "they're terrorists. They tried to kill thousands of Americans. Why should I care what happens to them?"
    I am certain Daniel Pearl was already convicted in the minds of those who cut off his head. Doesn't make it right for them, shouldn't make it right for us. Especially since we have a justice system that, while not perfect, is a far cry better than what was provided to the late Mr. Pearl.

    Alas, I am certain I will not convince you that you are wrong, and that is not my intention. But don't cry fowl when it's just foul.

    Lastly; most liberals weren't supporting starving Terri Schiavo to death as much as they were supporting a man being able to maintain the right to do as he feels is necessary, the right his wife gave him. Conservatives love to talk about "activist judges" and "legislating from the bench"; Governors, Senators, Representatives (inherent in that title even) are supposed to represent the people. The people showed they supported Michael Schiavo, and felt the government should stay the fuck out. Where was that representation? It wasn't coming from the elected folk; no, it was coming from the judges, whose job it is to interpret the law. And, I might add, were appointed by those same politicians. Essentially, they were told "We like you and your values, until those values don't match what we want. Then, we'll do an end-run around you to get our agenda completed".

    Republicans are always touting smaller government. This one sure ain't.
    I suppose, if you consider the rich paying less in taxes, it is, but I don't consider the rich anyomre than they are likely to consider me.
    (that would be none, for the slow people)

  • At 6:19 PM, Blogger Cowboy Blob said…

    The context of "big American breasts" jay.mac was using referred to GTMO interrogators' use of sexual contact to stress Muslim detainees. Note I use "stress" rather than "torture." They're not doing anything to the detainees that they don't use in U.S. Survival Schools...and, gee...I didn't get any tits rubbed on me!

    How could starvation/dehydration be bad? That's how they let T. Shiavo die! It's so peaceful, isn't it?

    If there were any chance of US personnel being treated humanely and with dignity (like not being tortured and beheaded) by the "insurgents," I could see your point. As it is, the "insurgents" have forfeited their Geneva Conventions protection by fighting as illegal combatants (violating the Sanctities of the Uniform, the Surrender, the House of Worship, and using legal noncombatants as human shields). Illegal combatants may be summarily executed under International Law. That we don't do so and retain them at GTMO for interrogation already shows our superhuman restraint.

  • At 1:34 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    By stating that the terrorists, or foreign militaries, who capture U.S. military personnel or civilians don't honor the Geneva Conventions, and using that as an excuse to ignore them as well, will only prove to the rest of the world that we are not the benevolent nation we constantly attempt to claim we are.

    I knoew what he meant about the breasts; the point I was making is that most liberals wouldn't be upset about that particular style of "torture".

    I personally never claimed dehydration was peaceful, and I would promptly punch anyone who says so in the mouth. But, again, that wasn't the point of the battle.
    For either side.

    America needs to show the world that we can be better than those who would do murder in the name of their religion. We must show restraint. Beyond just holding them in captivity as opposed to executing them. That's hardly restraint.

    P.S. I hope this discussion doesn't boot me from your blogroll, my entry there being all shiny and new...

  • At 9:43 AM, Blogger Cowboy Blob said…

    Dude, illegal combatants are NOT protected under the Geneva Conventions. Have YOU ever read them? Does "benevolent" mean "suicidal" to you? Clinton taught the ragtards that America is a pushover (well Reagan helped in Lebanon); if they're so ready to martyr themselves, we should oblige them. Who are we to deny them virgins?

  • At 12:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The same argument (pushover) could be made about Bush Sr. and the Iraq War Version 1.0

    As for whether they are covered, that's a slippery slope. It's very simple to declare someone to be an illegal combatant, and therefore deny him/her the rights afforded byt teh Geneva Convention.
    The more important lesson, however, is will America choose to simply repeat the claim that they are illegal, simply to be able to ignore the Convention where those persons are concerned.
    When the President and the Attorney General both essentially admit that they intend to keep many of these prisoners locked up indefintely, that is a clear admission that they do not, and have not, ever considered these people innocent. They were all condemned prior to being locked up.

    That's not what America is all about.

  • At 1:35 PM, Blogger Cowboy Blob said…

    Yeah, let's embed ACLU lawyers into every rifle platoon:

    "You know, these guys just might be a hunting party. Some rednecks use AK-47s for that! Maybe they mistook you for wild goats! And maybe they don't know what a white flag is for. Let's respect our cultural differences!"

  • At 1:40 PM, Blogger Cowboy Blob said…

    Yeah, Bush-41 was a pushover...for the Left. He didn't have the balls to drive to Baghdad after all the girlie squeals over the "Road of Death" retreat.

    Schwartkopf should have made "Saddam's severed head on a platter" a condition for cease of hostilities.

  • At 2:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I agree with the "Severed Head" condition...

  • At 1:46 AM, Blogger azlibertarian said…

    ...these people are imprisoned in Gitmo; the majority of them have yet to be even charged with a crime, much less convicted, so you can't justify it with a "they're terrorists....
    and later,
    ...When the President and the Attorney General both essentially admit that they intend to keep many of these prisoners locked up indefintely, that is a clear admission that they do not, and have not, ever considered these people innocent....

    You seem to be hung up on the difference between a prisoner and a convict.

    Those in Gitmo are prisoners. No charges are filed, nor will any be. They are there--generously, IMO--because they were picked up as [illegal] combatants on the battlefield. Keeping them in Gitmo (or Abu Ghrab, or wherever) removes them from that battlefield. As to when the war will be over, and when they can return home, I do not know. On that point however, this is a problem of their own making. By acting outside the protections of the Geneva Conventions (especially relating to being accountable to a country), they put themselves in the position of an undefined end to this thing.

    You earlier compare some sort of Kangaroo Court decision on Daniel Pearl to our detainees in Gitmo. Beyond the offensive moral equivalence you're using, you're missing the point. This is wartime detention--very much like our POW camps of WWII--and not an imprisonment after criminal conviction. It is not a crime to be a Prisoner of War. But that does not mean one should expect to be released from detention.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Visits Since September 11, 2004