And it doesn't bother them in the slightest. We're now in the place of owing more money than anyone on this planet, in the entire history of humanity, has owed anyone, ever.

But hey, increasing taxes on rich folks will cover it.

Originally Posted by CrazyLittle

"extreme rendition"

"torture"

Hmmm. One of these things is not like the other.

Extreme rendition involves torture, Obama promised to end torture without exception.

Oh except rendition for torture.

Originally Posted by madsci_guy

Extreme rendition involves torture

No, the process of detaining somebody and then shipping them off to another country does not involve torture. The country that they are sent to MAY employ torture, but that is not part of the rendition itself.

Don't conflate two different things. That's like saying that "all gun owners are murderers."

Originally Posted by CrazyLittle

No, the process of detaining somebody and then shipping them off to another country does not involve torture.

From your own source.

As we have previously noted, extreme rendition -- sometimes called "extraordinary rendition” -- refers to taking terrorism suspects to nations where they are at a high risk of being tortured or imprisoned indefinitely. This practice became common following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

So when Obama claims to eliminate the use of torture "without exception", he's merely weasel wording, otherwise known as lying..

Originally Posted by CrazyLittle

Since when did you care about morals?

So if a bank robber takes a cab to a bank, does that mean that catching a cab is the same as robbing a bank? Of course not. The two terms are not dependent on each other no matter how many times you say it. Was EVERY prisoner renditioned to Gitmo tortured? Apparently not. Q.E.D.

And did I say I approved of either rendition or torture? Oh that's right, I didn't comment either way. Strawman me some more - it only hurts your credibility.

Originally Posted by CrazyLittle

So if a bank robber takes a cab to a bank, does that mean that catching a cab is the same as robbing a bank? Of course not.

Red Herring not applicable to the situation. If it did, you would have to have the cabbie know that it was very likely that his cab would be used in a robbery.

Originally Posted by madsci_guy

Red Herring not applicable to the situation. If it did, you would have to have the cabbie know that it was very likely that his cab would be used in a robbery.

No, a red herring is an irrelevant distraction. I gave you an analogous comparison. Rendition itself is not torture. Rendition is a means of transport. Torture is what happens (sometimes) when they get there.

Originally Posted by madsci_guy

Yet you somehow thought MtnGoat lacked morals, even though he didn't say that he approved of letting people starve.

Because that's exactly what he suggested in denying any form of food assistance to unplanned children in the women's health thread:

Originally Posted by MtnGoat

If we're going to simply proceed on the basis of cost while ignoring the moral basis of the costs, then it's far cheaper to not pay for any of the above.

No.

Originally Posted by madsci_guy

No.

Yes.

Originally Posted by CrazyLittle

I gave you an analogous comparison. Rendition itself is not torture. Rendition is a means of transport. Torture is what happens (sometimes) when they get there.

Let me clarify the analogy for you:

A prisoner is renditioned to another country, where the new country holding them does use torture.
A bank robber takes a cab to a bank downtown, where the bank is then held up for a robbery.

In neither of these scenarios is the destination outcome GUARANTEED to happen, nor is the action at the destination predicated on the method of transport.

Obama promised to end torture without exception. He didn't. He didn't even end Extreme Rendition like he promised.


In another word, no.

Originally Posted by madsci_guy

Obama promised to end torture without exception. He didn't. He didn't even end Extreme Rendition like he promised.


In another word, no.

Now who's weasel-wording? Hint: not me.

You're still wrong, and you're arguing against a clear definition.

Does the US torture its prisoners? No.
Does the US send prisoners to other countries where they may be tortured? Yes.

Two questions, two different answers. These two concepts are not mutually exclusive - they can both be true at the same time

Originally Posted by CrazyLittle

Now who's weasel-wording? Hint: not me.

Answer; Obama.

Originally Posted by madsci_guy

Answer; Obama.

THIS is an example of a red herring. You're making an ad-hom against Obama, when Obama's character is not the topic of discussion. The point of contention was whether or not the US policy of torturing its prisoners had stopped or not. You haven't disproven the fact that the US stopped using torture (such as waterboarding) on its prisoners. Obama could be everything that Tea-partiers fear, Kenyan/Muslim/lizardman, but that would STILL mean that you're STILL wrong, and that the US stopped torturing its prisoners.

Originally Posted by CrazyLittle

You're still wrong, and you're arguing against a clear definition.

Does the US torture its prisoners? No.
Does the US send prisoners to other countries where they may be tortured? Yes.

Two questions, two different answers. These two concepts are not mutually exclusive - they can both be true at the same time

Obama promised to end torture without exception. He didn't actually mean "without exception", since Extreme Rendition is an an exception.

It's not Ad Hom, since I am dealing with what he has said vs, what he has actually done.


I think he's a weasel, now that's Ad Hom.