I don't know about you but I really don't think Khalid Sheikh Muhammad is someone I would shed a tear for if he was waterboarded a 1000 times by our intelligence operatives to save further loss of life in the aftermath of the attacks...
I could care less about Khalid Sheikh Muhammad.
I care about the principles of my nation. Whether or not Khalid Sheikh Muhammad suffers under torture is not my concern. What is my concern is the dangerous precedent it sets, namely the mind-bogglingly juvenile and myopic ends-justify-means nonsense bandied about by people like you. What is my concern is the political damage done to the United States as a result. What is my concern is the moral repugnance of it.
Oh, and as for your laughable downthread comment that you don't think anyone has demonstrated that waterboarding isn't effective, here's a clue - the onus is on its supporters to demonstrate that it IS effective!
And here's another clue - under waterboarding in Egypt, Ibn al-Libi "disclosed" extensive contacts between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein. Only problem was, he made it up just to stop the waterboarding.
How's that for effective, you ridiculous apologist for neocon wet dreams?
Ahmadinejad "supports" a two-state plan in the same way George W. Bush "supported" the assault weapons ban and its renewal. When cornered and essentially forced to answer on the campaign trail, he said he did. Then he never mentioned it in his eight years as President and didn't so much as lift a finger to support its renewal.
And I don't consider Ahmadinejad's word any less worthless than our previous President's word.
Now what exactly do you have against gay marriage?
Let me take a stab at this ...
a) A bunch of guys living in the desert in SW Asia a few thousand years ago didn't like it, and/or
b) It's sooooooooooo icky!
* * * * * * *
The more sophisticated of the bigots will ramble on and on about how the holy sanctity of Rush Limbaugh's three failed marriages will somehow be tarnished by the marriage of two men or two women to each other, but it really boils down to what I listed above.
U.S. forces from Florida or Puerto Rico can handle the job of protecting the Panama Canal, if need be, much more effectively than a small base with a single airfield in Cuba. Frankly, this idea than Guantanamo is necessary to defend the canal is so inane it sounds like you just made it up on the spot for lack of being able to come up with anything better.
... for someone who chooses to identify himself as one who doesn't like bitter people. But then, I guess you have specified that you only dislike bitter non-whites, so perhaps that makes your own bitterness not so ironic, in some odd twist of your mind.
I wonder, did you realize that from 1896 through 2000 there were been 11 elections in which one party took the White House from the other party? Did you further know that the winning party successfully held the White House four years later in 10 of those 11 instances?
I only told you that to make sure today wasn't the day any of your bitterness subsided ...