Guantanamo Stats

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Because I've already answered those questions probably thirty-six times over the last two years, because he's clearly already made up about Obama so there would be nothing gained from the discussion, and because I've been told the election is turning me into a jerk.

The election? I thought it was the declining state of OU football.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

The election? I thought it was the declining state of OU football.

declining? We lost to #1 Texas. Last year we lost to unranked Colorado. We're on the rise, baby!

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

When they came for the Jews ...



When the author of an article sets out with an agenda, it's often a simple matter to make facts and stats say what you want them to say, an art with which you are intimately familiar.

How is that hyperbole? It is a simple statement that the protection of individual liberties must include the protection of liberties of those with whom we fundamentally disagree, else the liberties we deprive to others may also be taken from us.

By the way, every author of every article sets out with an agenda.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

You really are only talking about Bush and not Obama. Has he specifically said he WILL curtail said powers if elected, or is it an unknown? And what if, as always happens, ultimate power corrupts ... what then? He gets a pass because he is not Bush?

What if power corrupts? Then it is sad for all of us. What do you suggest as an alternative? Electing nobody to the office?

SOMEBODY has to be elected. Can we at least agree on that? So if we MUST elect somebody, and if your chief concern is that the person being elected may abuse executive powers, then wouldn't you naturally vote for the person who has stood against the extension of the executive powers, rather than with the person whose party beliefs led to the extension of the powers you fear?

If you are looking for some sort of guarantee that neither person will abuse executive powers, well- sit this election out (and every other election for time immemorial), because there is no such guarantee.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

How is that hyperbole?

Comparing the denial of terrorists' constitutional "rights" to the world's failure to act during the Holocaust is gross hyperbole.

The very suggestion would be quite offensive, if I were to actually take anything you say seriously.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

By the way, every author of every article sets out with an agenda.

Some obfuscate more than others.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Comparing the denial of terrorists' constitutional "rights" to the world's failure to act during the Holocaust is gross hyperbole.

The very suggestion would be quite offensive, if I were to actually take anything you say seriously.



Some obfuscate more than others.

It is the same principle, Texie. The Holocaust certainly didn't begin with the gas chambers. The poem about "They came for the Jews" wasn't written to convince people to look out for the murder of 6,000,000 people. It was written to point out how "small" events that go unnoticed because of the lack of an immediate and obvious impact on the lives of the unaffected can later turn into catastrophes, including the downfall of those who ignored the travails of others at an earlier time.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It is the same principle, Texie. The Holocaust certainly didn't begin with the gas chambers. The poem about "They came for the Jews" wasn't written to convince people to look out for the murder of 6,000,000 people. It was written to point out how "small" events that go unnoticed because of the lack of an immediate and obvious impact on the lives of the unaffected can later turn into catastrophes, including the downfall of those who ignored the travails of others at an earlier time.

It's Godwin's Law, and ridiculous exaggeration.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Because I've already answered those questions probably thirty-six times over the last two years, because he's clearly already made up about Obama so there would be nothing gained from the discussion, and because I've been told the election is turning me into a jerk.

Links?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

It's Godwin's Law, and ridiculous exaggeration.

If it was Godwin's Law, the entire utility of the poem would be destroyed, and would be of no value whatsoever. The point of the poem is to examine actions BEFORE they become a disaster. You attempting to make a "Godwin's Law" argument would have us examine any actions that harm others but not us (at least directly) only AFTER our rights had been directly impacted, at which point it would already be too late.

You seem to be taking the absurd position that we should never attempt to apply any lessons of the Holocaust to current events until AFTER the current events turn out to be catastrophes. THAT would be offensive to all parties involved, and it is nonsense.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Tex

Can you be a little more specific?

Let's say Obama wins and the next day Pres. Bush announces he's calling a state of emergency because of the war and he isn't moving out of the white house until it's resolved. Would that be going too far or would you be supportive of the president?