quote:

ORIGINAL: Creative Dominant
But stating that an idea is eerily similar to that of a long-gone totalitarian regime is something that should, in my mind, be given at least some serious thought. ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales
How about stating that an idea is "eerily" similar to a system employed by almost every industrialized, democratic nation on earth being given some serious thought?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

quote:

But stating that an idea is eerily similar to that of a long-gone totalitarian regime is something that should, in my mind, be given at least some serious thought. ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

How about stating that an idea is "eerily" similar to a system employed by almost every industrialized, democratic nation on earth being given some serious thought? And yet I don't notice England and Canada trying to take over the world. I don't see the French trying to commit genocide in order to further their idea of a master race. Ok...they think Jerry Lewis is a genius, but that's not quite as bad as the nazi agenda. But hey, far better to cast back to nazi Germany for an example of a country with universal health care than any of the current, non-totalitarian countries that have it in one form or another and don't seem to have either people dying in the street or jackbooted thugs dragging people off to extermination camps. If they are and I just happened to miss the report on Fox news, please tell me..

How about this.....Obama considers Japan an ally. Nazi Germany considered Japan an ally. MY GOD! OBAMA is a nazi! I'm gonna give that some real serious consideration.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

....those thrown into these camps have not been citizens of this country nor have they been uniformed soldiers covered by the Geneva convention, they have been terrorists not entitled to consideration under the Geneva convention. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

....those thrown into these camps have not been citizens of this country nor have they been uniformed soldiers covered by the Geneva convention, they have been terrorists not entitled to consideration under the Geneva convention. 

..have to say CD, i've thought your posts in this particular thread have been very interesting and bordering on non-partisan (don't tell Sanity or he'll egg your house).
However i do have to take issue with the bit i've quoted above.
As has been pointed out on these boards a number of times, those who ended up at Gitmo were not terrorists, but alleged terrorists. Some put there on hearsay evidence that was bought and paid for. Evidence which subsequently proved utterly false. Now, some of those alleged terrorists really do have a case to answer, for some the evidence is somewhat more compelling and thats a different case.
However to contend that all those who ended up at Gitmo or who suffered extraordinary rendition at the hands of US authorities were proven terrorists is false. Some of them were totally innocent of the allegations against them....some of them were tortured in foreign countries at the behest of US authorities. While fighting terrorism is important, a scattergun approach like this is counter-productive.
Two wrongs don't make a right........

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


How many of the remaining prisoners in Gitmo are "non-terrorists", philo?

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

But stating that an idea is eerily similar to that of a long-gone totalitarian regime is something that should, in my mind, be given at least some serious thought. ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

Yes...and Bush was a nationalist which, in some segments of the left, made him a Nazi. I've never stated that I thought these people were right and it certainly would not have been the comparison I would've made. But just as many on the left have a way of arguing for the bigger message of their brethren, many of us on the right have that same tendency. Please do not go the flippant route with me...at that point, you are no longer worth discussing anything with because I don't care to have every point I make met with sarcasm.

Without sarcasm, it appears that you give credence to the idea that the fact that nazi Germany had some form of universal health care is in any way relevant to the discussion of America adopting health care reform. I say that that is a ridiculous concept. The nazis also wore pants. Does that have any relevance to the fact that Americans wear pants? By the way, just to avoid confusion, I do view the wearing of pants as a good thing and am not objecting to it.

The fact is, that words like "nazi" "communist" "socialist" are being thrown around far too losely by both sides in issues these days. Giving it any credence is not a positive step.

As for your not liking my writing style, feeling I am too flippant or disliking a sarcastic turn of phrase, rest assured that I willl give it all the consideration it merits.

(in reply to CreativeDominant)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
And Ron?  People on the left already compare Bush, Cheney, et al to Nazis.  Of course, those thrown into these camps have not been citizens of this country nor have they been uniformed soldiers covered by the Geneva convention, they have been terrorists not entitled to consideration under the Geneva convention.  But this has all been argued out on these boards before also, has it not?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

I guess the $64,000 question is ... how, then, do we defend ourselves against an enemy who doesn't wear uniforms, who uses the civilian population as a shield, a cover, and a first line of defense, and mostly will claim when captured that they are "just another innocent sheepherder", and then use the US civilian courts to obfuscate, confuse, delay and deny?

In other words, they use our very desire to "be fair" to destroy us?

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

I guess the $64,000 question is ... how, then, do we defend ourselves against an enemy who doesn't wear uniforms, who uses the civilian population as a shield, a cover, and a first line of defense, and mostly will claim when captured that they are "just another innocent sheepherder", and then use the US civilian courts to obfuscate, confuse, delay and deny?

In other words, they use our very desire to "be fair" to destroy us?

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

I guess the $64,000 question is ... how, then, do we defend ourselves against an enemy who doesn't wear uniforms, who uses the civilian population as a shield, a cover, and a first line of defense, and mostly will claim when captured that they are "just another innocent sheepherder",

quote:


and then use the US civilian courts to obfuscate, confuse, delay and deny?

quote:


In other words, they use our very desire to "be fair" to destroy us?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rightwinghippie
A regular Criminal does what he does to get ahead in the society he lives in. He wants to cheat the system, not destroy it. He wants better things for his children, not to destroy thier home.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

I guess the $64,000 question is ... how, then, do we defend ourselves against an enemy who doesn't wear uniforms, who uses the civilian population as a shield, a cover, and a first line of defense, and mostly will claim when captured that they are "just another innocent sheepherder", and then use the US civilian courts to obfuscate, confuse, delay and deny?

In other words, they use our very desire to "be fair" to destroy us?

Firm

....fair question. Let's, for the sake of argument, merely consider terrorism to be a crime like any other crime. Let's drop the emotional baggage that comes with it. Ordinary criminals do all the things you mentioned above. They don't wear striped jerseys, little masks and bags that say 'swag'. They live and hide among ordinary civilians. When caught they will claim to be car salesmen or unemployed actors. They will use the court system to delay, confuse, obfurscate and attempt to deny justice. They, once caught, do all the same things you mentioned above. However no-one is seriously suggesting that all that means the legal system should be suspended. Broadly speaking the court system works.
What has happened here is that because terrorism is seen as a unique type of crime, so faulty logic suggests a different sort of justice. It simply does not follow.
i would also suggest that our desire to be fair is not a mere option. It is, to a large extent, what a lot of terrorists want to destroy. Suspending it ourselves is saving them a bullet or two. It's a form of cultural suicide.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

You, on the other hand, seem to think we are not advanced enough, intelligent enough or thorough enough to protect ourselves without lowering our moral standards to the level of those we fight. It's a shame you think so little of your country.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
And Ron?  People on the left already compare Bush, Cheney, et al to Nazis.  Of course, those thrown into these camps have not been citizens of this country nor have they been uniformed soldiers covered by the Geneva convention, they have been terrorists not entitled to consideration under the Geneva convention.  But this has all been argued out on these boards before also, has it not?

Habeus corpus and bills of attainder are covered in the constitution, and the 'enemy combatants' which never actually appears thingie is an amendment.

My whole issue is that habeus corpus should have been adjudicated in a (supposedly impartial) court of law in each and every case. That is not a power granted the executive or legislative branch.

Once they are found to be 'enemy combatants' under due process, you can shit down their throats and call them Sally, for all I give a fuck.....torture away.

But until that is first done....you can hold them as prisoners during the time of danger, but they get three hots, a flop, lights, heat, dignity, and are given the rights of american citizens in our prisons, no torture, no enhanced interrogations they are just in timeout.

Ron

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

You, on the other hand, seem to think we are not advanced enough, intelligent enough or thorough enough to protect ourselves without lowering our moral standards to the level of those we fight. It's a shame you think so little of your country.

Uh huh.

Mind-reading, I see.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

But stating that an idea is eerily similar to that of a long-gone totalitarian regime is something that should, in my mind, be given at least some serious thought. ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

Yes...and Bush was a nationalist which, in some segments of the left, made him a Nazi. I've never stated that I thought these people were right and it certainly would not have been the comparison I would've made. But just as many on the left have a way of arguing for the bigger message of their brethren, many of us on the right have that same tendency. Please do not go the flippant route with me...at that point, you are no longer worth discussing anything with because I don't care to have every point I make met with sarcasm.

Without sarcasm, it appears that you give credence to the idea that the fact that nazi Germany had some form of universal health care is in any way relevant to the discussion of America adopting health care reform. I say that that is a ridiculous concept. The nazis also wore pants. Does that have any relevance to the fact that Americans wear pants? By the way, just to avoid confusion, I do view the wearing of pants as a good thing and am not objecting to it.

The fact is, that words like "nazi" "communist" "socialist" are being thrown around far too losely by both sides in issues these days. Giving it any credence is not a positive step.

As for your not liking my writing style, feeling I am too flippant or disliking a sarcastic turn of phrase, rest assured that I willl give it all the consideration it merits.

quote:

Remind me to run your last phrase by you next time you are the one asking for a serious discussion.

As for throwing certain terms around, I agree...many times, they are used too loosely.  As for comparing the medical system of Nazi Germany to the Obamacare plan, let me state once again...I did NOT state it.  I would NOT have used the same argument.  The argument, in terms of similarities between the two systems, is---while not completely, 100%, every-point-lined-up---there are dissimilarities...still valid.  About as valid as the argument brought forth on an earlier post comparing Gitmo and other camps that we have set up for detaining people to the Nazi concentration camps.  They are similar...they are camps, the people within them cannot leave, and...in some cases...the reasons for holding some of these people appear to be obscure.  Of course, there are dissimilarities...we aren't gassing the people to death, we aren't starving others of them to death, we aren't bringing them into factories or taking them to the fields to work as slave labor, we aren't machine=gunning them down for minor infractions and---the last I heard anyway---we haven't put any of them into a mass grave yet.  Oh yes...the great majority of the people in the Nazi camps hadn't done ANYTHING to the citizens or the governement of the country that held them.

< Message edited by CreativeDominant -- 8/28/2009 1:11:12 PM >

(in reply to SpinnerofTales)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

You, on the other hand, seem to think we are not advanced enough, intelligent enough or thorough enough to protect ourselves without lowering our moral standards to the level of those we fight. It's a shame you think so little of your country.

Uh huh.

Mind-reading, I see.

Firm

Ok...then let me ask you. If you do think we are strong enough, advanced enough and intelligent enough to protect ourselves without resorting to the same tactics we decry in our enemies, why would you think those tactics are desirable and/or allowable?