'Waterboarding Is How We'd Baptize Terrorists'

[Icequeen]

I think her remark is way over the top and she would have been better off keeping her mouth shut.

But I do have to say if a terrorist intends on coming into the country...killing/injuring maybe 100's or 1,000's of men, women, or children just to make a statement, or for some butt hurt political or racial agenda...I really don't care what they do to them if they're caught.

If someone has basically no regard for my life, the people I love, and the lives of others...what regard "should" I have for theirs?

[odeon]

I can certainly sympathise with your position but there's the little matter of proof. Waterboarding and other similar methods are used to produce confessions, but how much is such a confession worth?

Or is Palin saying that once there's a confession, THEN she waterboards terrorists?

[Semicolon]

I think her remark is way over the top and she would have been better off keeping her mouth shut.

But I do have to say if a terrorist intends on coming into the country...killing/injuring maybe 100's or 1,000's of men, women, or children just to make a statement, or for some butt hurt political or racial agenda...I really don't care what they do to them if they're caught.

If someone has basically no regard for my life, the people I love, and the lives of others...what regard "should" I have for theirs?

Now that I analyze it more, I think that it's unusually smart for her to have said this. Going into the midterm elections, Democrats risk being called soft on terrorism if they disagree with her, and her base already supports her statements. The issue is that a lot of Sarah Palin's supporters are single-issue voters in terms of gun rights, and the Democrats have already lost that battle. The question is how her statements would go over with moderates.

[Jack]

Or is Palin saying that once there's a confession, THEN she waterboards terrorists?

She's showing she's a good Christian who believes everyone should be baptized.

[odeon]

Or is Palin saying that once there's a confession, THEN she waterboards terrorists?

She's showing she's a good Christian who believes everyone should be baptized.

[odeon]

I think her remark is way over the top and she would have been better off keeping her mouth shut.

But I do have to say if a terrorist intends on coming into the country...killing/injuring maybe 100's or 1,000's of men, women, or children just to make a statement, or for some butt hurt political or racial agenda...I really don't care what they do to them if they're caught.

If someone has basically no regard for my life, the people I love, and the lives of others...what regard "should" I have for theirs?

Now that I analyze it more, I think that it's unusually smart for her to have said this. Going into the midterm elections, Democrats risk being called soft on terrorism if they disagree with her, and her base already supports her statements. The issue is that a lot of Sarah Palin's supporters are single-issue voters in terms of gun rights, and the Democrats have already lost that battle. The question is how her statements would go over with moderates.

As you say, Democrats have already lost that particular battle, so I think it's fairly safe to disagree with her, soft or not. You are simply disagreeing with a nutjob.

[Genesis]

Shes made religious people upset over this comment. (I know some of the complainers)

[Semicolon]

I think her remark is way over the top and she would have been better off keeping her mouth shut.

But I do have to say if a terrorist intends on coming into the country...killing/injuring maybe 100's or 1,000's of men, women, or children just to make a statement, or for some butt hurt political or racial agenda...I really don't care what they do to them if they're caught.

If someone has basically no regard for my life, the people I love, and the lives of others...what regard "should" I have for theirs?

Now that I analyze it more, I think that it's unusually smart for her to have said this. Going into the midterm elections, Democrats risk being called soft on terrorism if they disagree with her, and her base already supports her statements. The issue is that a lot of Sarah Palin's supporters are single-issue voters in terms of gun rights, and the Democrats have already lost that battle. The question is how her statements would go over with moderates.

As you say, Democrats have already lost that particular battle, so I think it's fairly safe to disagree with her, soft or not. You are simply disagreeing with a nutjob.

But the Democrats have to come up with some sort of platform going into the midterm elections, and the lack of any major terrorist attacks under the Obama administration is as good as anything else they have, I think. After invading Afghanistan and Iraq under President Bush, Osama bin Laden was finally killed by the command of President Obama.

Democrats can't rely on the economy (which continues to do poorly) for a platform. There haven't been any large labor issues that I'm aware of, because there are no jobs. Obamacare is doing alright, but it's not turning out as well as President Obama implied it would, and it has been a fiasco for everyone.

[odeon]

I think her remark is way over the top and she would have been better off keeping her mouth shut.

But I do have to say if a terrorist intends on coming into the country...killing/injuring maybe 100's or 1,000's of men, women, or children just to make a statement, or for some butt hurt political or racial agenda...I really don't care what they do to them if they're caught.

If someone has basically no regard for my life, the people I love, and the lives of others...what regard "should" I have for theirs?

Now that I analyze it more, I think that it's unusually smart for her to have said this. Going into the midterm elections, Democrats risk being called soft on terrorism if they disagree with her, and her base already supports her statements. The issue is that a lot of Sarah Palin's supporters are single-issue voters in terms of gun rights, and the Democrats have already lost that battle. The question is how her statements would go over with moderates.

As you say, Democrats have already lost that particular battle, so I think it's fairly safe to disagree with her, soft or not. You are simply disagreeing with a nutjob.

But the Democrats have to come up with some sort of platform going into the midterm elections, and the lack of any major terrorist attacks under the Obama administration is as good as anything else they have, I think. After invading Afghanistan and Iraq under President Bush, Osama bin Laden was finally killed by the command of President Obama.

Democrats can't rely on the economy (which continues to do poorly) for a platform. There haven't been any large labor issues that I'm aware of, because there are no jobs. Obamacare is doing alright, but it's not turning out as well as President Obama implied it would, and it has been a fiasco for everyone.

/shrugs

Still think disagreeing with Sarah Palin should count as a merit.

[Semicolon]

I think her remark is way over the top and she would have been better off keeping her mouth shut.

But I do have to say if a terrorist intends on coming into the country...killing/injuring maybe 100's or 1,000's of men, women, or children just to make a statement, or for some butt hurt political or racial agenda...I really don't care what they do to them if they're caught.

If someone has basically no regard for my life, the people I love, and the lives of others...what regard "should" I have for theirs?

Now that I analyze it more, I think that it's unusually smart for her to have said this. Going into the midterm elections, Democrats risk being called soft on terrorism if they disagree with her, and her base already supports her statements. The issue is that a lot of Sarah Palin's supporters are single-issue voters in terms of gun rights, and the Democrats have already lost that battle. The question is how her statements would go over with moderates.

As you say, Democrats have already lost that particular battle, so I think it's fairly safe to disagree with her, soft or not. You are simply disagreeing with a nutjob.

But the Democrats have to come up with some sort of platform going into the midterm elections, and the lack of any major terrorist attacks under the Obama administration is as good as anything else they have, I think. After invading Afghanistan and Iraq under President Bush, Osama bin Laden was finally killed by the command of President Obama.

Democrats can't rely on the economy (which continues to do poorly) for a platform. There haven't been any large labor issues that I'm aware of, because there are no jobs. Obamacare is doing alright, but it's not turning out as well as President Obama implied it would, and it has been a fiasco for everyone.

/shrugs

Still think disagreeing with Sarah Palin should count as a merit.

It depends on what she's saying, although her chance of saying something agreeable is much less than that of the average Republican.

[odeon]

All she'd have to say is "I'm going to off myself" and I'd not only agree but actively help her.

[El]

All she'd have to say is "I'm going to off myself" and I'd not only agree but actively help her.

No way in hell I'd ever help someone that wealthy with that kind of endeavor.

[odeon]

All she'd have to say is "I'm going to off myself" and I'd not only agree but actively help her.

No way in hell I'd ever help someone that wealthy with that kind of endeavor.

But it would be my pleasure.

[El]

All she'd have to say is "I'm going to off myself" and I'd not only agree but actively help her.

No way in hell I'd ever help someone that wealthy with that kind of endeavor.

But it would be my pleasure.

If someone killed Sarah Palin they may be considered a cultural hero, but they'd still go the fuck to jail forever.

[Semicolon]

All she'd have to say is "I'm going to off myself" and I'd not only agree but actively help her.

No way in hell I'd ever help someone that wealthy with that kind of endeavor.

But it would be my pleasure.