<p>zoosermom: I respectfully disagree with the use of the term sub-human to refer to Islamic terrorists. I am also affected on a daily basis by 9/11 since I’m in metro-NYC. I saw the twin towers burning and lived through the aftermath here. But if we call the terrorists “sub-human” we play directly into the hands of their leaders. Osama wanted us to counter-attack hard so that he could demonstrate to the Islamic world just how “sub-human” we are. One side calls the other side sub-human, thus justifying continuation of hostilities. It is not healthy. </p>
<p>I don’t usually reference religion. I am an atheist but I am deeply influenced by religious teachings including those of Jesus (go figure!). I think Jesus would tell us that those terrorists are also God’s children. Did he preach that his persecutors were sub-human?</p>
<p>Now I also on occasion have referred to certain public figures as “scum” or “vermin”. But I do not actually expect anyone to take that literally. But when we label Islamic terrorists (and in many people’s minds, all muslims are terrorists) as sub-human, then we are promoting a very dangerous attitude- that is is OK to bomb their civillians, to torture them, etc etc. We lower ourselves below the standards of our own humanity. </p>
<p>Sorry to sound so preachy, but I feel we should not play into the hands of the terrorists.</p>
<p>"zoosermom: I respectfully disagree with the use of the term sub-human to refer to Islamic terrorists. I am also affected on a daily basis by 9/11 since I’m in metro-NYC. I saw the twin towers burning and lived through the aftermath here. But if we call the terrorists “sub-human” we play directly into the hands of their leaders. Osama wanted us to counter-attack hard so that he could demonstrate to the Islamic world just how “sub-human” we are. One side calls the other side sub-human, thus justifying continuation of hostilities. It is not healthy. "</p>
<p>I live here, too, as you obviously figured out, and I appreciate your respectful disagreement. I disagree with your disagreement, but courteous people of goodwill can disagree. My position is that there are some “people” with whom you can’t reason and must defeat. Now, you don’t know my personal situation, but in my personal life no one would ever confuse my strict parsing with referencing all Muslims. I also respectfully disagree with your assertion that my words would lead anyone to think it would be acceptable to torture civilians and I’m not sure where that came from, but I don’t think empathy works if one wants to stay alive and the enemy has no goal other than murder. But, again, we can disagree and I appreciate that you didn’t need to play the Nazi card to disagree with me.</p>
<p>I agree that there are some people with whom you can’t reason and must defeat. </p>
<p>The point about torture was because many people think it is “OK” to torture “sub-humans” while they might be more squeamish about torturing humans. I feel that if we are going to torture a terrorist we should be honest enough to admit that we are torturing a human being and we believe that the ends (staying alive) justified the means (torture).</p>
<p>Vicariousparent, I’m not sure I can make my point clear here, but if I offend you in some way, please ask for clarification, ok?</p>
<p>In my earlier post, I was talking about the philosophy of having to say as a general matter that safety outweighs principles in certain circumstances and used the term “subhuman” in the context of the general philosophy that comes into play when choosing a candidate. I was not talking about torture or even a specific terrorist, but rather the mindset that allows others to kill for the sake of killing. In my opinion, what makes me human (and I don’t speak for you or anyone else) is my love and sacrifice for my children, my aspiration for a better future for them, my ability to make choices that will have positive consequences in future. Absent those things, I think fundamental humanity is lost. Again, you can disagree. In the mindset that allows children to aspire to martyrdom and murder, that glorifies carnage, I find no humanity. There is no connection in what I believe to make a human being and followers of that ideology. So I stand by my use of the term but note and respect your disagreement. That said, my general statement in choosing a candidate is vastly different from approving torture in a specific circumstance. As a pro-life person who doesn’t ever support the death penalty, causing injury or pain is anathema to me, but as a measure of last resort in a specific circumstance, I would likely be amenable. I would not, however, agree to that lightly or in an across the board fashion, it would have to involve careful deliberation. I don’t necessarily think that it’s possible to always uphold one’s principles and the earlier point I was trying to make was that we did not seek to be in a position of choosing between principle and life, that was foisted upon us by, yes, subhumans who have no respect for life and use our compassion against us. Again, if I’ve offended you in some way, please let me clarify and please know that no disrespect was intended.</p>
<p>“I feel that if we are going to torture a terrorist we should be honest enough to admit that we are torturing a human being and we believe that the ends (staying alive) justified the means (torture).”</p>
<p>We should also be honest about what constitutes torture versus aggressive interrogation. John McCain was tortured. KSM was not. </p>
<p>John McCain was brutally beaten and exposed to unimaginable pain on a regular basis. For less than a minute KSM was exposed to fear but no physical pain. </p>
<p>John McCain to this day can not lift his arms above his head. 5 seconds after the waterboarding of KSM he would have no lingering impact. </p>
<p>John McCain’s torture served no purpose other than to punish and create a propaganda piece. KSM’s interrogation led to significant information useful in preventing the murders of innocent people. </p>
<p>To even talk about what McCain went through versus what KSM went through in the same sentence is ridiculous.</p>
<p>Okay, now I will chime in also…I am originally from the NY/NJ area. I was living on a military base that horrible day(my 7,9 and 11 yr. old were placed in lockdown at their school on base, my DH was also) the problem is many people from other areas of the US don’t understand how that day impacted people from the east coast and the military (Pentagon was hit also). They don’t live daily with its results (almost 7 yrs later and ground zero is still a big whole) The military now has 100% id and barriers to get in and off their bases. The military is deployed constantly.</p>
<p>Now here comes the srceaming from everyone so I will beat you to it. Is this war right, honestly I don’t know. What I do know is we are there and to say we need to leave and call it a day is not realistic. Do I think we were right to remove Saddam, I do, he was a tyrannt, has everyone forgotten what he did his own citizens when they went against him? How his sons would torture their national soccer team for losing? How he diverted the profits from oil for food to his own pocket, and continue to build castles? How he invaded countries and used civilian as shields? Had he been up front and now testerone driven by lieing about his WMD we might not be there, but we are…maybe we should also leave Korea, but we haven’t, it’s the cards that we are dealing with. </p>
<p>I have now digressed, going back to my original premise… when I spoke to my Mom who lives in NJ, she was crying. She didn’t know anyone personally that died, but on that day as she travelled home on the highway where the NJ Transit drops off, all she saw were wives sitting/standing there waiting for their spouses. Many days later the parking lots (Sat.) were still filled with cars and that is when she realized they were the victims cars. She works for a state association, that the members raised enough money to pay for ea. NJ victims family mortgage for 3 mos. The spouse were crying and saying thank you without that money I would have lost my home. </p>
<p>9/11 is a very tender sore for many people and we all deal with it differently, we need to respect the survivors.</p>
<p>Going back on thread here…let’s try to keep it there</p>
<p>McCain will be able to rally every republican. Let’s be honest, republicans and democrats are now very partisan…my belief is the next president will be the person who REALLY does get out everyone in their party…if you walk away and not vote than I believe you lose the right to complain…hold your nos and vote, be an anti-candidate voter, but vote. Many countries don’t have that right and by not doing so you are not understanding what this war is really about</p>
<p>“McCain will be able to rally every republican. Let’s be honest, republicans and democrats are now very partisan…my belief is the next president will be the person who REALLY does get out everyone in their party.”</p>
<p>I think that’s right. I’m not in love with McCain, but make no mistake: I will vote for him as will most republicans that I know. I am waiting to see what he said at CPAC today.</p>
<p>“…whether waterboarding is torture, Mr. McCain said: “They should know what it is. It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture.””</p>
<p>Was McCain waterboarded? If not, he knows no more about it than anyone else who was not waterboarded. A good question to ask of McCain is, “Given the choice of being waterboarded or going through what you did, which would you choose?” Another question for him would be. “If waterboarding is torture, why do we do this to our own servicemen?” I know that when servicemen go through POW training that they are not allowed to be hit, so why would we allow them to be waterboarded?</p>
<p>My in laws who detest GWB have stated that they will vote for McCain if Obama gets the nom…they love Hillary (don’t ask )</p>
<p>McCain gets slammed for not being a conservative (christian), yet he is the only candidate who has adopted a child, and not due to medical reasons, but because they wanted to change this child’s life (daughter was from Africa and he was falsely accused of her being an illegitimate child)</p>
<p>I admire him for some major things:</p>
<ol>
<li> Has stood on the Senate floor and called out colleagues every yr for pork barrel spending.<br></li>
<li>Does not lower himself to answer slander (daughter in SC which probably caused him to lose)</li>
<li> Is man enough to say I made a mistake…also man enough to call out RUMMY</li>
<li> He does straight talk…he jokes about his age and has great humor…my favorite line from the debates was about Hillary wanting to spend taxpayers dollars for Woodstock , his quote, “I will was a little tied up during Woodstock”</li>
</ol>
<p>As far as CPAC he won’t convert them, but come November what Conservative is not going to come out to offset the dems? Come on, they have their motivations too</p>
<p>“As far as CPAC he won’t convert them, but come November what Conservative is not going to come out to offset the dems? Come on, they have their motivations too”</p>
<p>I would like to see the hand reached out because on so many issues with which I disagree with Senator McCain, his position is often in the range of “because I said so” and I don’t respond to that. I’d like a conversation, maybe some understanding and respect.</p>
<p>“I would like to see the hand reached out because on so many issues with which I disagree with Senator McCain, his position is often in the range of “because I said so” and I don’t respond to that. I’d like a conversation, maybe some understanding and respect.”</p>
<p>Bingo. On top of that, on issues that he takes against conservatives he is quick to use the language of the far left to demonize the positions of conservatives. On the issue of “enhanced interrogation” techniques, he not only refers to it as “torture”, but then goes even further in the demonization by relating it to Pol Pot. Relating the waterboarding of 3 terrorist leaders with the intent to prevent further killings of innocent civilians to the wanton, broad-base terror inflicted by the Khmer Rouge is reprehensible.</p>
<p>I think he has reached his hand out in the political world, many bills have been bi-partisan, poorly written, but he had the support of the other side. This is another reason why I support him…he gets the fact that you need to compromise to get it done.</p>
<p>I do agree a part of him is too brash and quick, he needs to respect and understand everyones view within the republican party</p>
<p>I read something recently that resonated with me deeply. It was about Romney, but the rationale for me is the same. I don’t remember who said this, but you’ll see why that doesn’t matter. The statement was that sometimes flip-flopping is just that, but sometimes it’s a measure of respect for the electorate. Along the lines of “I hold this position but realize that most voters hold that position and being a servant of the people, not a parent, on this issue I will put aside my views in favor of those of the electorate.” Now this would not be possible on issues of war or confidential information, but I think on issues of immigration, the voice of the people should guide the policy, not that the policy should be imposed upon voters. In all these years (and I was a fervent McCain supporter back in the 90s), I’ve never, ever heard a serious articulation of his position on immigration or why he holds that position. I want to be clear here, though, that I do respect Senator McCain and want to support him wholeheartedly. It’s up to him whether that will be possible.</p>
<p>“I think he has reached his hand out in the political world”</p>
<p>That is very true and I’m not always sure that’s a good thing. But he needs to reach out to the base now. Politics aside, how can anyone identify with a group that he disdains and disrespects? That is certainly the impression he has given of me and my party. If it’s true that you only hurt the one you love, it’s time to show the love if he wants to carry the base.</p>
<p>zoosermom: I understand your point about flip-flopping versus respecting the wishes of the electorate. I have often thought that too. But when you say “the voice of the people should guide policy” do you mean the voice of ALL the people or just the people within the Republican party? Also, if a politician gets elected on a certain platform then he or she can justifiably say that he has the people’s permission to act on that platform. </p>
<p>If McCain becomes President, I trust he will be the President for the whole country and not restrict his loyalty to the party. One thing that I admire him for is for consistently saying “country before party”. To say that during the primary season is just a sign of tremendous personal integrity.</p>
<p>I hope you know I respect your opinion, but what has he done that he left our party base? He wanted to close the campain funding from 527’s, didn’t write it well enough, but at least he fixed it a little bit. He has family experience with adoption, which is important for “family values”. He has supported the war, but called out people who needed to be held accountable. He was against the 1st tax cut, but if you delve into it, it was because spending wasn’t tied to it…fiscal responsibility. I am against his immigration stance, yet reality how would the US deport 12 million illegals?</p>
<p>I am not sure of his stem cell stance, anyone who knows please chime in.</p>
<p>My big issue is Nationalized Health Care…lived in a country with it, and I do not want us to go down that path</p>
<p>Vicarious…I think he will live that statement, he just changed the wording from “service before self” which is a military mantra that every member lives by.</p>
<p>" have often thought that too. But when you say “the voice of the people should guide policy” do you mean the voice of ALL the people or just the people within the Republican party? "</p>
<p>Well, we’re talking about a primary here, so the republican party. In my view, although he’s a senator, McCain is right now a job-seeker and should make himself as acceptable to his potential employers as possible. If elected, if there is an overwhelming groundswell for or against something, I think that the elected official should put aside his or her own personal opinions and make a decision that places the will of the electorate at the top of the priority list.</p>
<p>"Also, if a politician gets elected on a certain platform then he or she can justifiably say that he has the people’s permission to act on that platform. "</p>
<p>Yes, of course. But keep in mind that there are things that come up that the platform hasn’t addressed. I’m asking McCain to campaign on a platform supported by most of the people whose votes he is seeking.</p>
)</p>