The only problem I have with this stuff is that it is basically the government who decides who an enemy combatant is. The government is constantly wrong and doing things for backhanded political reasons (not just refering to the current admin, both sides of the aisle are guilty), there is little doubt people can and will be detained who shouldn't be. I do not find that acceptable.
That is such unadulterated bull****. Of course people are outraged, but it's to be expected. After all (I'm going to type this in caps so you understand the point) THEY ARE THE GODDAMN BAD GUYS. WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE GOOD GUYS.
I am highly outraged when people get beheaded, cut open, etc. That's not the point. I am similarly outraged when my own government, which is supposed to be the shining light on the hill, acts just like those other people that outraged me in the first sentence. I'm also outraged at the curtailing of our rights in the "land of the free."
Their is a difference between being outraged by someone elses opinion versus government policy.
Are you referring to yourself here? If so, quit trying to play the martyr card.
Those servicemen wouldn't even be there if it weren't for all the lies, but that is a different issue entirely.
You just got done telling me you're basically Uday Hussein without the commitment to follow through on things. I need moral lectures from you about as much as I need moral lectures on sexual purity from a child molesting priest...
so, if killing & defiling disgusts you to the point of wanting harm to come to those who inflict said crimes (i'm assuming you'd like some sort of reciprocity), what shall i conclude about what you want done to the field marshalls, generals, & other advisors about troop levels?
i'm going to play the role of a bereaved family member who has just found out you (as president) cannot find iraqi citizens to testify against my family member's killers, or closed-circuit tv footage, or any forensic evidence, and therefore will not mete out any justice.
Hospital acquired infections are preventable and outrageous as well. Funk, is it too damn much to wash your hands? If the fedgov spent a fraction of the funds they spent on terror on public health it would save 10 times the number of lives lost to terror. See:
So it's all about you then?
And so obviously we should declare war on swimming pools.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Justice against who? Some random individual? If you don't know who is guilty, what we should just pick someone at random, torture them until they confess and then execute them? You aren't making any sense.
i'm very much aware of the recent news you cited, as i too read it recently. point is, the stuff that truly does affect our citizens is addressed with disproportionate (or even feigned) outrage. we suffer greatly on the mortality scorecard domestically, due mostly to our own negligence (putting aside for the moment domestic violence & gang-related shootings, which seem to get proportionate outrage).
that's what you took away from my anectdote? pity. my point about that, the hospital infections, drownings, etc. is that due to most people not being directly affected, most people don't give a rip. which is rather curious. why should the same people who have a very real chance of being injured or die on our highways be silent, while they are all-too-vocal on the "immorality" of our foreign policy?So it's all about you then?
pool & gun owners can do a lot more to prevent accidental deaths than an avg joe can do to prevent death by intentional terror (by its very nature, terrorism targets a great a group as possible, & happens without notice & without any equivalent "cpr" to fully restore order). if you see my posts as assailing your ideology, and not mulling it over, then your constant defensive posturing will be your achilles heel.
?
, is way more important than 39,189 dead (in 2005). http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/
So we should ban water then?
i can't make it any plainer; i'll just have to say i failed to get out my message & leave at that.
false dilemma aside, i read your comments as couching terrorism as a criminal act, with all the protections of the law. this would be silly. i'll quickly admit to overreaching with our flawed policy of money-for-browns paid to northern alliance, or other convenient & temporary allies, but this does not negate the effectiveness (and necessity, i assert) for extra-judicial methods to detain jihadists.
you ever try doing bonghits w/ sand?
I got your meaning. You are saying that if he supports violence against the terrorists then he should support violence even more against those that he holds in "more disgusting". You make a very large assumption that he wants harm in the form of violence to come to those individuals.
Please read this so that you will stop using "False dilemma" incorrectly.
it wasn't incorrectly used; but that's pretty rich coming from someone who dismissed my solid addressing of your willful ignorance of clinton's hypocrisy on that other thread.
Um, yes it was. He created no false dilemma. Nowhere did he say that there were only 2 choices. Just because your hypothetical question didn't rebut him as you hoped it would doesn't mean that he used incorrect logic. Of course, even if his logic is incorrect, it wasn't a false dilemma.
Wait, now it's "rich" that you used a red herring. Clinton's actions had nothing to do with the op-ed that I posted. You brought up Clinton's actions as some sort of rebuttal to the point that I brought up, yet you completely skirted the issue I brought up. That is a red herring. I called you out on it and now you are going to make snippy remarks? Grow up.
I hope you enjoyed your crunchy, cheesy and melty stuff. Was it a crunchwrap? Maybe a 1/2 pound burrito?
After reading through the bickering, I now understand what you are saying here.
Would these be stories from the participants in the illegal invading force in an ex-sovereign nation?
it started with RR's quote: "Again, if someone did something wrong, CHARGE them. Use the EVIDENCE to convict them. But a tortured confession isn't worth the air it is cried out with." (take note of the word "but" to see exactly 2 choices are offered. this sets up the dichotomy) to which i responded with the hypothetical of the lacking of evidence would result in no justice being meted out.
from the first paragraph in the op-ed (journalists use this to frame the issue)
and this was penned a week after clinton gave these remarks on larry king live:
so you see (if you so choose), this is a demonstration of the hypocrisy of clinton's deeds against his "sage" advice. it is not a red herring. it is precisely germaine to the topic. of course, that would only be obvious if you understood "germaine" & "topic" & "hypocrisy".
and i pwnd you. (see above)
i chose to let that one go (on the clinton thread) until you chose to show a similar logical fallacy here. 'tweren't a snipe. if you get your lycra in a wad over some make-believe monkey poster, you're going to fall apart soon.
don't even know what it was - it all sucks, but i rode in today & mooched a ride; didn't have a choice.
so now i have a susan powter image w/ taco bell in my gut.I just want the insanity to stop.
In that statement the "but" was not intended to delineate two choices. Rather it was a poor form of grammar (but not an incorrect one), using a conjunction to begin a sentence. http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19961105. My use of "but" was intended to contrast a tortured confession against actual evidence. I did not intend to imply that there were no other options available.
Right on. And since a tortured confession does not equal evidence it logically follows that justice does not come from the same.
You could have skipped lunch. You could have ___________ or ___________ instead. Your choices are endless. Do not attempt to persuade me that you were forced to eat there. I won't buy it.
i could have used the php comparison op "===", which compares both primitive type and value, but that would have been pretentious.
...and possibly inaccurate. Are evidence and justice really the same primitive type?
I'll let RR's words stand on this. I got it from the context that it wasn't an either/or. How come you didn't?
Excuse me? One statement in the opening paragraph doesn't make for the thrust of the op-ed. If you read past the first paragraph you would notice that it was focused on the actions of the administration, and nowhere does it talk about Clinton's sage advice on keeping one's decorum. Either way, you still made a bad assumption that because I didn't answer your initial post that somehow I was being "willfully ignorant."from the first paragraph in the op-ed (journalists use this to frame the issue)and this was penned a week after clinton gave these remarks on larry king liveo you see (if you so choose), this is a demonstration of the hypocrisy of clinton's deeds against his "sage" advice. it is not a red herring. it is precisely germaine to the topic. of course, that would only be obvious if you understood "germaine" & "topic" & "hypocrisy".
Only in your dreams. Hey, when you learn some better reading comprehension you might have a chance.
Yeah? And what logical fallacy was that? Twas you that was slinging the fallacies around as I showed.
I was simply pointing out your lack of etiquette. I don't need to wad my lycra since I'm the one pointing out your logical fallacies.
More bad assumptions accompanied with ad hominem remarks. That makes logical fallacy number....Oh there's too many to count now.
I think it was about Clinton torturing an apostrophe.
semicolon, you eTosser
It wasn't so many posts ago. Let me catch you up...
No apologies necessary, mate. I'm at least as guilty as anyone else.
