Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Values Voter Summit wrap-up
The opening act was the best according to attendees of this weekend’s Values Voter Summit who selected the weekend’s first speaker, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, as their preferred 2012 GOP presidential nominee.
The gathering of Christians and social conservatives gave Huckabee nearly 29 percent of the votes in the conference’s straw poll. He received 170 votes out of the 597 cast; just one-third of the 1,850 in attendance cast ballots. The second place slot had a crowded field among four others: former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (74 votes), Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (73 votes), former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (72 votes), and Indiana Rep. Mike Pence (71 votes).
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (40 votes), Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (28 votes), former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum (15 votes), and Texas Rep. Ron Paul (13 votes) made up the rest of the field. Who would you have voted for?
Huckabee gave the first speech at the meeting, during which he ridiculed President Barack Obama’s healthcare plan:
Pawlenty also addressed the summit, reading from II Chronicles, touting his ability to turn a “left-of-center state into a fiscally responsible state,” and also—as almost every speaker did—attacking the Democrats’ healthcare plan:
“This proposal needs to get killed. It is a bad idea. With all due respect, Mr. President, if we’re out of money, stop spending it.”
In other straw poll results, abortion registered as the No. 1 issue at the summit, with 243 votes cast. Protection of religious liberty (108 votes) and same-sex marriage (44 votes) came in second and third.
back to top44 Comments to “Values Voter Summit wrap-up”
Tim Pawlenty is my governor and his claim of turning a “left-of-center state into a fiscally responsible state” has legitimacy. However, I thought his very early support of John McCain’s candidacy was not wise and did not help the party. Nothing against McCain personally, but I knew early that he was not the best choice for that race.
Report comment to moderator
Re McCain
I agree.
Just about the last straw was when McCain said he thought Obama would make a good Pres.
Report comment to moderator
I would have voted for Sarah.
Report comment to moderator
This is going to be fun. All these “values” guys trying to out-Sodomize each other.
Report comment to moderator
Heh.
They’d all feel better if they headed out to IKEA for some Swedish meatballs with lingonberry sauce afterwards. Oh the horror of waking up in Sweden. Why, we might have to eat lingonberry pancakes for breakfast!
Sadly, we have no IKEA’s here in Buffalo. Closest in the States is Pittsburgh, so we frequently have to head up to Canada to the store in Burlington.
Report comment to moderator
I think the hot-button issues and where candidates stand re them should be widely publicized. But truly, the Values Voters summits are mainly conservatives talking to and rallying the faithful. No surprise here, move along- nothing to see. The MSM seldom cover THESE gatherings unless someone makes a gaffe or otherwise memorable remark.
Sorta has all the predictability and non-newsworthiness of an AFL-CIO or NAACP meeting where they pass resolutions endorsing (insert Democrat name here) instead of (insert R candidate name here).
Report comment to moderator
What I strongly dislike is the presumption that other people are not “values voters.”
Taking care of the sick and poor is a moral value. Avoiding war is a moral value. Not torturing prisoners is a moral value.
Many people of both parties vote their values. Many vote their pocketbooks. And some have a hard time seeing any difference.
Report comment to moderator
What? Not a word about Roy Blunt’s racism-tinged joke about “jungle monkey’s on the golf course”?!
What really strikes me as odd about Blunt’s bad joke is not the not-so-subtle race baiting involved in comparing the President and congressional democrats to monkeys. It’s the sheer stupidity of it all. This man is not smart.
How can you all take confidence in a man or a party that appears to speak in a vacuum? I would agrue at this point (given the fact that we don’t live in vacuums but in a world populated by other speakers) “Democrats are monkeys” (and not just monkeys, monkeys from the jungle) should be off limits–not exactly because they are racist (they are)–but because not making one can serve as proof that you are not a cloistered idiot!
Report comment to moderator
#7 – “What I strongly dislike is the presumption that other people are not ‘values voters.’”
I used to be a Democrat, thinking that my values were guiding me and I was helping the “little guy.” I have grown up since then in many ways. For years, I watched my party slide deeper and deeper into moral compromise of egregious proportions, especially in their disregard for the sacredness and integrity of life itself, as well as marriage and more. I changed parties precisely because I concluded that Democrats no longer want or seek genuine values voters. That conclusion has been well confirmed over the last two decades, in my view.
Report comment to moderator
“Taking care of the sick and poor is a moral value.”
No one has said otherwise. In fact, those on the right have a long record of making far more personal sacrifices voluntarily to do just this in and with their own lives and resources. On the left, however, many want to use OTHER people’s resources to allegedly do this all too indiscriminately. This does not work. In fact, it creates a dependency class and this is a moral issue too.
“Avoiding war is a moral value.”
Not if the enemy is a true and proven threat, as with Hitler, Saddam (who had a history of already actually using WMD on people and had fought against us in a war before and was ignoring the treaty terms at great peril to the world) and others. The morality on this issue significantly swings on the nature of the need for defense and on the justice of the cause.
“Not torturing prisoners is a moral value.”
And refusing to use serious legal enhanced interrogations on known jihadist terrorists who are known to have vital life-saving information is immoral. I am grateful that enhanced interrogation was used during the Bush administration to protect innocent lives, instead of torture.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia: Do you know much about sodomy? If so please explain it clearly.
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
For a religious fanatic, Huckabee is kind of cool. Huckabee and Palin would be a dynamite ticket, sure to lose, but to be gracious about it.
Well, Huck, anyway.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, Roger, why don’t you explain sodomy to us. Clearly, but cleanly. Remember, as someone once said to me, “Remember, children read this blog.”
Report comment to moderator
Thanks random, but I was asking Arcadia, who dosn’t need you to defend him/her. But it would be OK if you wish to answer with him/her.
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
My story is very similar, only I used to be a Republican. Then I watched my party become the party of imperialistic war and torture. A party that used to talk about limited Constitutional government now wanted the federal government to spy on its citizens and deny Habeas Corpus to its prisoners. The rhetoric of economic liberty was employed to appease corporate interests with utter disregard for the poor and middle class. Their disregard for individual liberty rose to egregious proportions, and I left.
Now Joel Mark, I can’t count the number of times over the past few weeks that you have scolded me for criticizing the Right generally. I believe I said they were uncivil (or maybe defended somebody who said that), and they were out of good ideas and were instead following fatuous demagogues and nutters like Beck and Palin.
For these limited criticisms, you talked as though disparaging an entire political movement (by calling them uncivil, out of ideas, and poorly led) was just something not to be done. Unchristian and sinful, your rhetoric said.
And here you are plainly implying that Democrats have no moral values?
I do not believe that I or any non-Right poster on this blog has ever gone so far as to claim that the Right was entirely lacking in morals.
Report comment to moderator
JJF,
The Republican party has never been “the party of imperialistic war and torture.” Those are just Marxist talking points from the 60s. The USA has long been accused of “imperialism” by the most inperialistic people of our time. It’s disingenuous.
So, JJF, what war was “imperialistic?” If you think the Vietnam War was imperialistic, did you forget that it was started and excellorated by Democrats? (Kennedy send the first personell and it was carried on by Johnson –although Kennedy officials called the military that they sent “advisors”).
The Gulf War was to liberate Kuwait (very unimperialist, don’t you see?). The Iraq War was also the exact opposite of “imperialistic.” Along with 30 other nations and with support of Democrats, we deposed Saddam and then stayed to help Iraq rebuild and restore security. And we did so at great cost to ourselves and we did NOT stay to rule them now did we!
Report comment to moderator
And those who tortured illegally were prosecuted toughly under the Bush administration. The Repulbican party had never sanctioned torture. The enhanced interrogation applied under the Bush administration was carefully vetted and it did scare some known terrorists (thus the word “enhanced”) but it was never torture and it did save many innocent lives in a war that desperately needs good intelligence for us to win.
So your decision was based on a misunderstanding on your part.
Report comment to moderator
JJF, the only people we tapped on were known terrorists and/or terrorist contacts. I am grateful for the competent way President Bush’s administration and those who served American faithfully protected the homeland.
But yes, admittedly the first Republican, Abraham Lincoln, did in fact suspend Habeas Corpus.
Report comment to moderator
I never said Democrats “have no moral values” (quoting your words). I wrote that I saw Democrats slide into moral compromise. I cited examples for my opinion too. I’m sure you disagree.
JJF wrote; “I do not believe that I or any non-Right poster on this blog has ever gone so far as to claim that the Right was entirely lacking in morals.”
So what? I don’t know of any non-left poster who has claimed that the Left was “entirely” lacking in morals either. What point does this prove?
Report comment to moderator
Ideological imperialism is still imperialism.
Iraq II was a neo-con experiment in nation-building and region-transforming. Flowering democracy, and that sort of thing. They had the policy papers written since the mid 80s. Create friendly regimes in the area that become such appealing beacons of hope and liberty that the entire region turns pro-Western.
Just because it failed dismally doesn’t mean it wasn’t an imperialistic goal.
And the Republican party is absolutely the party of torture. They instituted it, and they continue to defend it. Some, like you, prefer Orwellian Newspeak terms like enhanced interrogation, but some even defend it by the name “torture.”
How about the point about your Democrats have no moral values rhetoric, Joel? Are you backing away from that one, or will you back away from your earlier statements that it is wrong to make blanket judgments about an entire political movement?
It’s wrong to call the Right uncivil, but it’s just fine to call the Left “bloody handed child killing Deathcrats.” It’s wrong to call the Right “out of ideas and poorly led,” but’s it’s just fine to call the Left completely without moral values. I think you hold an enormous double standard, Joel.
Report comment to moderator
This is entirely false.
Report comment to moderator
#20 – “Ideological imperialism is still imperialism.”
Nonsense. It’s propoganda.
JJF, you are seriously incorrect about the mission of the Iraq War. Your opinion is just leftist & liberal campaign themes & talking points that have little bearing on what our military actually went there to do and did–bravely I might add. We did not fail, at least not yet (since all victories must be sustained by good policies).
And the attempt to label the Repbublican Party as the party of torture is, to say the least, tortured partisan logic. But I do expect it from you, JJF. The enhanced interrogation we used saved innocent lives and where it was applied according to policy, it left no one injured. It used fear tactics and that was justified. It did not fit the legal definition of torture and I don’t use that word. Democrat partisans, however, insist on using it and I disagree.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, Random?
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
JJF asked, “Are you backing away from that one, or will you back away from your earlier statements that it is wrong to make blanket judgments about an entire political movement?”
Huh? I said nothing to back away from. You amuse me though, JJF. But to be clear, I never claimed that Democrats have no moral values. You made that up. I explained that I changed from Democrat to Republican because of what I saw as moral compromises among Dems. That’s different and it’s just my perspective. I like Republican values more though. Why else would I have joined it? You can disagree with me JJF, but don’t make things up about me please.
As far as blanket judgments go, some are fair and some are not. Take them on a case-by-case basis and judge for yourself, JJF. I don’t like unfair blanket statements.
Here’s a fair one: The Democrat Party largely supports the legalized killing of unborn human babies (abortion).
Here’s an unfair one: The Democrat Party hates America and hates the military.
I don’t like that second one. It’s not fair or true. The first one is and that does put blood on their hands.
Report comment to moderator
So does John McCain.
So do a good many military intelligence officials.
So, I’m sure, do the innocent men who were tortured by our government then released without charges.
So did the American government when other nations used these same techniques on us.
We’ve hashed this out again and again, and I’ve provided pages of links to credible sources, and you’ve responded (just like you did above) by saying only that my arguments are politically motivated. It goes nowhere.
But the United States of America tortured prisoners. I will continue to say it because it is true. Under President Bush, we instituted a policy of torture. You want to invent a new term to remove the moral stigma from what they did and what you still support. Much, I suppose, like abortion rights supporters prefer the term “fetus” to “baby.” It makes it easier to support an indefensible outrage.
So in your vein, here’s a fair blanket statement: The Republican party largely supports torture and aggressive foreign wars.
And some of us left because of that.
We’re values voters, Joel.
Report comment to moderator
I do not think there is much consistency to John McCain’s position on enhanced interrogation. He is more a politician than a Republican in my view. He was trying to appeal to the American “middle” as he saw it. And it did not work for him. That said, he’s a fine American with whom I disagree.
I think those rattling the cage regarding alleged “torture” are being partisan and irresponsible. Many of them would be excoriating the right and/or GWB no matter what was done or not. They will never express respect or gratitude to the Bush administration and the CIA for doing a fine job of protecting innocent lives so well for the last 8 years.
It’s just not something they are capable of. Instead, they HAVE to condemn and criticize.
Report comment to moderator
The need for better human intelligent has never been greater in our history for those commissioned to protect American lives. Yet, the unrealistic policies the left want now will cripple our capacity to get that intelligence worse than ever before in our history.
1. We are talking about proven and known vicious mass-murderers on a mission from Allah to brutally murder as many innocent people and create as much chaos as humanly possible. They were caught in the act of trying to accomplish this mission and they know others still out there making plans. We are talking about people who will hide behind women and children to do it; people who want to oppress you, JJF, beyond your wildest fears.
2. And we are talking about well-trained military and law enforcement personnel commissioned to lay their own lives on the line to stop those vicious murderers — people who did use enhanced fear-inducive tactics (like sleep-deprivation, nudity and stress-positions) to get that life-saving information. And they did it fully legally and under well vetted policies.
3. And we are also talking about partisan ideologues who want to punish their predecessors (which is common among third-world tin-horn coup leaders) and engage in moral preening from ivory towers at the expense of those who actually did the face-to-face & hands-on tough work of protecting us all.
Report comment to moderator
JJF, I never invented any term and you know it. You are in denial. The phrase “enhanced interrogation” has been used from the start and I think it is fair and truthful.
I know of no detainee who was proven “innocent” JJF. If we let some go, that is not proof of their innocence but perhaps the proof of the threat they represent no longer merits keeping them, in the opinion of our officials.
We are at war. I wish those on the Left hated the jihadist terrorists only half as much as they hate Republicans.
Report comment to moderator
In his open letter to President Bush (The Atlantic, Oct. 2009), Andrew Sullivan wrote; “If liberty is white, torture is black.”
This simplistic line illustrates a moral blindness to the need for context to assess morality.
It could well be grossly immoral to FAIL to use appropriate enhanced interrogation, sleep deprivation, forced nudity or stress positions on mass-murdering terrorists to prevent more mayhem (which I and many believe we did).
It could also be immoral to FAIL to seek the kind of human intelligence that could help us distinguish the evil from the innocent on the field of battle so we can fight and win with as few collateral casualties among the innocent as humanly possible. This takes good human intelligence information.
True morality honestly recognizes the contingencies of context in the real world. There are no recipes in the real world for morally perfect results, but ivory tower moralists tying the hands of those decent and courageous enough to do the real work of protecting innocent lives and who do that work on the ground at severe risk to themselves and their comrades, is the worst way to go.
_____________________________________
Report comment to moderator
. . . slide deeper and deeper into moral compromise of egregious proportions . . .
It’s a different ethical judgment, not compromise. Democrats don’t compromise with murder. We really do believe abortion is not murder, based on empirical observation and reasoning. If you could persuade us that abortion is murder, we’d be just as opposed to abortion as you, and just as uncompromising. Similarly, if we could persuade you that capital punishment is murder, you’d be just as opposed to it as we are.
Liberals have better marriages than Evangelicals, for the most part. So no lectures from divorce-crazy Evangelicals about our lack of ethics, please. Democrats like gay marriage because Democrats are ethical.
I don’t believe Republicans when they talk about their journeys up from the trough of ethical relativism. They’re Republicans because they are captive to superstitions about big government. Period. I have a million reasons.
Report comment to moderator
And refusing to use serious legal enhanced interrogations on known jihadist terrorists who are known to have vital life-saving information is immoral.
That’s an argument from expedience, right? It depends on the hypothesis that torture produces vital, life-saving information. But maybe it doesn’t. Maybe torture actually prevents the discovery of vital, life-saving information.
People who advocate torture have a duty to consider the fail hypothesis for torture. What if “enhanced interrogation” cause memory loss, false memory, and confabulation? If that’s the case, enhanced interrogation techniques may prevent discovery of the ticking bomb.
Research on the effects upon the brain of “enhanced interrogation” supports the fail hypothesis.
And those who tortured illegally were prosecuted toughly under the Bush administration.
No, they were let off to save the US government from shame and to hide our wickedness from angry Arabs.
. . . it did save many innocent lives . . .
JOEL MARK has the burden off proof, but all he can offer, sadly, is an argument from authority (Cheney).
Report comment to moderator
Don’t underestimate the assessment of Leon Pannetta and Barack Obama that revelation of the CIA’s torture program would lead to a catastrophic destruction of the CIA itself.
Why should that be the case? Because the work of the CIA depends on infiltration, cooperation, persuasion, and conversion. The CIA was of two minds about torture. Most of the CIA thought that torture had no predictive value. None. Nevertheless, Cheney’s faction resorted to it (to get political information). This put the anti-torture faction of the CIA in a grave existential crisis from which it cannot recover, if the light is shown on Cheney’s wickedness.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop, I left the Democrat Party because I saw too much moral compromises for the sake of politics and winning. They would do nearly anything for certain special interest groups like feminists, homosexuals, unions, etc. That is common among all parties but worse, in my view, among the Dems. It was my observation and my choice.
Scroop wrote; “If you could persuade us that abortion is murder, we’d be just as opposed to abortion as you, and just as uncompromising.”
“If” is a meaningless word in Scroop’s sentence. Abortion is what it is and we both know what it is: Live developing human beings b(innocent) get exterminated or torn to pieces. Even some Dems who want it to be legal admit that it is immoral.
Scroop Moth wrote: “Liberals have better marriages than Evangelicals, for the most part.”
Inaccurate generalization. Anti-church pollsters like George Barna want us to think this, but he’s wrong. More responsible studies have shown that people who attend churches regularly have much lower divorce rates than those who do not.
Your abuse of the phrase “divorce-crazy Evangelicals” betrays your animus and lack of objectivity.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth wrote’ “People who advocate torture have a duty to consider the fail hypothesis for torture.”
Yes, and people who advocate appeasement have a duty to consider the fail hypothesis for appeasement.”
Much as you would love to believe and/or imply that Republicans advocate gratuitous torture, we don’t.
SM wrote; “What if ‘enhanced interrogation’ cause memory loss, false memory, and confabulation?”
And what if Obama’s order to shoot dead those teenage pirates who were holding a hostage led to memory loss or even grief for their loved ones? And what if we fail to go after vital information that we know detainees have that can save lives? Terrorism SHOULD have it’s high-risk drawbacks. We need to make terrorism an UNrewarding vocation. And when they are caught, if they refuse to cooperate with those opposing their mission, it should not be because we did not try to get them to cooperate.
I believe that high standards of care must be taken by our side to act in good faith and assess the level of knowledge for what this person actually knows. I think our side did take all such measures of care and they did NOT act gratuitously or indiscriminately.
We disagree. None were tortured illegally under the Bush administration. Those are the accusations of people with a political vendetta, in my opinion.
Report comment to moderator
The evidence points more to the possibility that the catastrophic crippling of the CIA is just what Obama is seeking.
Report comment to moderator
Even some Dems who want it to be legal admit that it is immoral.
Read what I wrote. I said abortion isn’t murder. Lots of things are immoral. So what? Very few people think abortion is murder. If you want us to use government to interfere with private choices, wrong isn’t enough.
I think it’s wrong to pollute the minds of children with superstition.
Report comment to moderator
I know, Scroop. Read what I wrote. You were responding specifically to me and I originally expressed my view that abortion was immoral (and that the vast majority of Democrats embrace it). At #33, I was simply returning to the word I first used and the point I made to which you were responding. You made the semantic shift from the concept of morality to the legal term of murder. I just did not follow your shift.
And you are dead wrong to calim that abortion is a “private” choice. It directly impacts the child, the dad, the grandparents, the community, the church and the country. Slave masters in the old South also thought that their ownership of slaves was a “private choice” too.
Report comment to moderator
Are you saying that abortion isn’t murder, JOEL?
Report comment to moderator
No.
Report comment to moderator
Here we go with abortion again.
Abortion is one of the most difficult issues facing society.
I think people should be encouraged not to have abortions. I don’t think abortion should be punished as a crime.
If we abort a child a day before it is born, my reaction to the act would be the same as if it was murdered after its birth.
To evaluate some forms of birth control or “day after” pills as murder does not persuade me it is murder.
Genocide against adults bothers me more than abortion. If abortion of American babies is murder, than abortion of Chinese babies is just as much murder.
Sex is dangerous for a thousand reasons. No society has been very successful at controlling and channeling human sexual urges in constructive ways. The evangelical Christian approach seems to be to post thousands of self-righteous messages. This is probably constructive as it keeps you occupied when you might be engaged in even worse and more useless mischief.
Report comment to moderator
None were tortured illegally under the Bush administration. Those are the accusations of people with a political vendetta, in my opinion.
Actually, JOEL, the Supreme Court ruled that the laws against torture apply to the war on terror. Torture is always illegal. Anyone who tortured or approved of torture or tried to rationalize torture is guilty of torture.
If accusers of the Bush regime have a political vendetta, you may just have to suck that up as rough justice, JOEL. What matters is whether the accusations are true. Part of the punishment for wrongdoing is getting punished by people who are worse than you are. Boo hoo.
You admit that torturers have the duty to consider the fail hypothesis for torture, so that’s a step toward your rehabilitation, JOEL. You need to take another step and abandon your prejudice against conventional interrogation. By calling this “appeasement,” you slander the diligent, hard work of the hundreds of CIA officers whose dedication to our mission and lawful practices brought forth all of the information that was vital and useful for saving life.
These honest and loyal American officers, veterans of the front line of our nation’s mission to fight evil, have done us the service of explicating the CIA inspector general report, which proves that lawful interrogation practices — which you unfairly, dishonestly, and disrespectfully slander as appeasement — provided all of the information that enabled us to protect lives.
Against that information, JOEL, what do you have but the false worship of the argument from authority, the word of Dick Cheney?
Report comment to moderator
#39 No.
So, when I wrote my response to your view of Democrats’ moral “compromise,” I fairly characterized this alleged compromise as a compromise with murder, not just as a compromise with “immorality.” I’m making the fair point that if some Democrats see abortion as immoral, which is a matter that principled people can choose not to prosecute, they rarely see it as murder, which is something no respectable person can overlook. You can accuse Democrats of murder, but you can’t accuse them of compromising with murder, because a compromise requires a recognition of the nature of the thing with which they are compromising.
Report comment to moderator
“The Supreme Court ruled that the laws against torture apply to the war on terror.”
When? Tell us whether that was before or after 9/11? Before or after the CIA interrogations? Timing matters you know. Attempts to indict and judge people in hindsight with new rulings is not justice. The enhanced interrogations conducted to get better human intelligence to save innocent lives were well conducted considtently with the legal and lawful policies on the table at the time. Great care was taken to conform to legal understandings at the highest levels. The partisan vendetta against the Bush administration and the CIA involves changing the terms, standards, definitionrules and rules and then applying them backwards for political gain.
“Torture is always illegal.”
This was not legally “torture.” It was enhanced interrogation, well vetted for legality and effectiveness. We disagree on our definition of torture. The left is working with different definitions and insisting that we take their definitions as fact. It’s a political vendetta.
The Bush administration deserves credit for protecting us successfully for 8 years and removing a great deal of terrorists from the field of terrorism to keep us safe. I wish the left in America hated terrorists just half as much as they hate Bush and the right. Leftists have lived on enough on Bush demonizing. It’s time to get on the stick and take responsibility for themselves and their decisions.
Report comment to moderator
One mark of America’s greatness is our peaceful transitions of power. Obama and the Democrats have taken all power and Americans respect the process that brought that about.
Tin-horn dictators in third-world nations, on the other hand, are given to political vendettas and to prosecuting and punishing their predecessors. Today, that is what the Obama/ACORN administration is beginning to do with the Attorney General actively posturing to prosecute CIA officials who served our nation as honest and loyal American officers. They are being viciously accused and judged (by the left) of “torture” when they dutifully applied set policy and followed legal standards carefully to conduct responsible enhanced interrogations that were effective in saving innocent lives.
_______________________
Scroop, your spin on my use of the word “appeasement” was disingenuous and distorted. Your misunderstanding of my point is profound. I never implied or stated that our official or officers were guilty of “appeasement” and you knew that before your faked the impression that I did. You can dish out lots of moralistic judgmentalism and accuse our honest and loyal officials of alleged “torture”, but you fake outrage in accusing others of making similar accusations that they did not even make.
___________________
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!