Are you trying to prove to me we don't torture as bad or what?
I am trying to demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about. Many Europeans and Americans believe that the bad things the media tell them are really humanity's low points. Unfortunately, they aren't.
The really bad things happen where journalists are not allowed to talk about them, in places where a lawyer cannot get you out.
Screaming at Gitmo is useless. They are worse problems affecting innocent people. Similarly screaming at Republicans is useless. They are at least trying to do something against the evil in the world. To proclaim that they are part of that evil is not only stupid but also exactly what the real bad guys want.
Oh so the whole guilt by assosciation thing to, on your post above. The Socialist and Facist thing. So If the KKK supports McCain over Obama should I infer McCain is not facist just racist and anti-semitic?
If the KKK supports someone, I tend to reconsider my support for that someone. The KKK happens to hate both George Bush and John McCain, and anyone who supports Bush's policies and knows about the KKK's positions knows why.
Obama is a socialist. And I don't understand why you are so upset about that. I also don't understand your equation that socialist and fascist are the same type of exageration. Calling someone a socialist is not, in my opinion, an insult. Calling someone a fascist, especially someone who is hated by (real) fascists on the other hand, is not only arrogant but also ignorant.
Obama proposes what constitute socialist policies. Whether they are good or bad is another matter. But the fact is that this is what he does. McCain on the other hand does not propose fascist policies and is hated by fascists. Calling him a "fascist" (a term that anyone with some knowledge of history understands to be an insult) is not the same honesty.
Conservatives call Obama a socialist because he is and won't vote for him because they don't like socialism.
Liberals call McCain a fascist because they don't like him and won't vote for him because they (these days anyway) SPECIFICALLY disagree with McCain on the very subjects that (real) fascists also disagree with him.
Brigitte Bardot has only recently condemned Sarah Palin. The article in question (on a German news Web site) referred to her as an "animal protection advocate", which is a code word for "racist". Brigitte Bardot was on the news over the last few years because of her anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and general negative attitude towards immigrants. However, whenever one of those neo-Nazis criticises American Republicans, they become "animal rights advocates" instead. (And there are no links back to older articles decrying her racism.)
The connection between neo-Nazis and animal rights is the following, btw. Neo-Nazi parties in Europe have few votes and are trying to become more mainstream. Looking for something positive to say in their platform, they included animal rights, hoping to gain votes that way. Since they never get enough votes to become part of a government (except in Austria, apparently), they can demand all the animal rights they want and never have to figure out whether those make sense (for the economy and the animals). The connection between neo-Nazis and animal rights is entirely bogus, but it makes for nicer-sounding credentials whenever a neo-Nazis speaks up against his favourite enemy number 3, American neo-cons. (First two are Jews and foreigners in general.)
Also I played devil's advocate to rediculous calls of Obama as a Socialist, the opposite is McCain as Facist. Why is it Republicans always try use the word Socialist for that they oppose?
It's simply because Republicans oppose socialist.
Obama promotes socialist policies (public healthcare as a "right" and things like that) which Republicans are opposed to. Hence they call Obama a "socialist" and oppose him. Note that I am generalising.
But Democrats, even though they now agree with fascists about Iraq (and even Israel), call everyone they oppose a "fascist". However, there is no particular rational reason for that. Republicans do not actually promote fascist policies. In fact Republicans currently promote policies that fascists all over the world decry and oppose.
Ask socialists and fascists around the world who they support as president of the US, Obama or McCain.
Do you think a German socialist supports McCain? Do you think the head of Hamas or the dictator of Syria (who is an actual fascist from an actual fascist party founded in actual Vichy France) does not want you to vote for Obama?
And then take a look at Obama's local racist friends. I wouldn't call Obama a fascist, but he HAS fascist supporters (in contrast to McCain), IS a racist, and DOES promote socialist policies.
Republican's want to impose their veiws on everyone else, Un like libertarians who still believe in freedom.
I have joined many discussions and it is never Republicans who are really upset when I disagree with them. Democrats, on the other hand, scream censorship whenever someone disagrees with them. Remember the discussion about radio talk shows?
I disagree with Republicans about public healthcare (_I_ am in favour of it), with capitalists about property rights (I believe natural resources should be owned only in exchange for taxes), and with American Christians (some of them) about evolution. But never ever has one of those, and most of them are Republicans, called me ignorant for opposing them or proposed a mechanism to make my voice unheard.
I cannot say that my experience of Democrats was the same one.