Obama releases internal Bush Justice Department memos

[Seran]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Obama administration Monday released nine previously secret internal Justice Department memos and opinions defining the legal limits of government power in combating terrorism.The Bush administration had refused to make the documents public, rejecting demands from congressional Democrats.


The release ends a tug-of-war over copies of controversial legal guidance from the post-9/11 period that advocated greatly expanded executive power to combat terrorism.


Among the documents from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) is a 2001 memo declaring that in terrorism cases the military may conduct searches in the United States without a warrant if approved by the president.


"We conclude that the president has ample constitutional and statutory authority to deploy the military against international or foreign terrorists operating within the United States," wrote John Yoo, then a deputy assistant attorney general. "We further believe that the use of such military force generally is consistent with constitutional standards, and that it need not follow the exact procedures that govern law enforcement operations." Read the memo

(http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm)
The October 23, 2001, memo was sent to then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales. Gonzales later became Bush's attorney general.


As the debate grew over the Justice Department's (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/U_S_Department_of_Justice) aggressive legal approach to dealing with terrorism suspects, the Bush (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/George_W_Bush) administration's views evolved.
In another released memo, the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Steven Bradbury, in October 2008 warned that "caution should be exercised before relying in any respect on the memorandum" written by Yoo. Bradbury advised the Justice Department that the 2001 memo "should not be treated as authoritative for any purpose."


President Barack Obama (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Barack_Obama) had promised a review of the disputed documents to determine whether they could be released.


Attorney General Eric Holder (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Eric_Holder) issued a statement Tuesday saying, "Americans deserve a government that operates with transparency and openness. It is my goal to make OLC opinions available when possible while still protecting national security information and ensuring robust internal executive branch debate and decision-making."


Earlier Monday, in a speech to the Jewish Council on Public Affairs, Holder said, "There is no reason we cannot wage an effective fight against those who have sworn to harm us while we respect our most honored constitutional traditions."


Bush administration critics charged the "war on terror" led to an erosion of an array of constitutional rights.


The First Amendment right to free speech was among those addressed by Yoo in his 2001 memo.


"First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully," Yoo wrote. He said the "Supreme Court has recognized that the government's compelling interests in wartime justify restrictions on the scope of individual liberty."

Yoo also said wiretaps without court-approved warrants may be needed.

In another memo, written in 2002 by then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, legal justification was presented to support "extraordinary rendition," a practice that allowed the U.S. to transfer terror suspects to other countries where torture was allegedly used.


The memo said al Qaeda and Taliban detainees picked up on the Afghanistan battlefield were not entitled to rights granted by either U.S. law or international treaty including the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit torture.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/02/justice.memos.released/index.html

______________

I'm glad it took until 2008 for the Bush Administrations Attorney General's office to realize that it may have overstepped their boundries in impuning the rights of innocent American citizens for due process and protection against illegal search and seizure.

Anyone else realize that in the wake of a national tragedy, that Bush happily setup his own right to a secret policing force and tribunal not much unlike what was operated by the KGB?

Don't forget that with the majority of the Patriot Act still in place all of you who might speak against the rapidly evolving United Social States of America may want to consider doing so with more caution.

[Daniel]

Wow. You've got to be shitting me.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I'm all for full disclosure, but I think certain things should be kept secret. I'm ok with torturing terrorists and denying them rights when the fuckers blow up 3000 civilians. So sorry. Flame away.

That said, Obama is doing good things I think, and I hope he remains strong in his moral convictions. Regardless if I think he's right or wrong (I disagree here), I like to see someone who bucks the standard lines of BS.

We'll see how open he is to full disclosure at the end of his term... lots can happen in 4 years and Afghanistan could turn into his own version of Iraq.

[Jorddyn]

I'm all for full disclosure, but I think certain things should be kept secret. I'm ok with torturing terrorists and denying them rights when the fuckers blow up 3000 civilians. So sorry. Flame away.

The problem I have with this is that we've killed Al-Qaeda's #2 guy about 6 times in the last 5 years. My faith in us being able to correctly identify is somewhat lacking.

[Kuyuk]

<<I'm ok with torturing terrorists>>

what if they werent terrorists?

[Back]

<<I'm ok with torturing terrorists>>

what if they werent terrorists?

Double ??

How do you not sink to their level?

[Celephais]

<<I'm ok with torturing terrorists>>

what if they werent terrorists?
Well if someone tortured them thinking they were terrorists, that means they're not white, so they probably deserved it anyway.

(I'm not sure I can make that italic enough, there'd still be one idiot who thought I was serious).

[Mabus]

That said, Obama is doing good things I think, and I hope he remains strong in his moral convictions.
He did vote for the 2006 reauthorization of the Patriot Act and voted for retroactive immunity (after stating he opposed it) for the telecoms that allowed (possibly) illegal surveillance on US citizens (we will never know if they were truly illegal, as with the immunity the court cases seeking information from them were dismissed).

The ACLU only gives him an 80% on matters dealing with civil liberty. That is still far better then GW and friends, but he is not some great defender of our liberties.

That said, I am glad the information was released and I look forward to more being released. Thank you for posting the article.

[Daniel]

I'm all for full disclosure, but I think certain things should be kept secret. I'm ok with torturing terrorists and denying them rights when the fuckers blow up 3000 civilians. So sorry. Flame away.



Sorry dude, but I'm just as much for giving people like that what they deserve, but not at the expense of our civil liberties at home. Infringement of free speech and warrantless arrests and convictions by the military on US soil (Illegal as fuck btw) is not justified and it never should be.

[Parkbandit]

The problem I have with this is that we've killed Al-Qaeda's #2 guy about 6 times in the last 5 years. My faith in us being able to correctly identify is somewhat lacking.

Hasn't this guy been Al-Qaeda's #2 guy from the beginning or close to it?

http://www.welt.de/multimedia/archive/00533/cn_sawa_DW_Politik__533792g.jpg

I hadn't read anywhere that he was dead.

[ElanthianSiren]

So what happens when the people with the tin foil hats were right? Does everybody else have to wear them for a week? Imagine the irritation/dandruff they'd cause.

[Faent]

what if they werent terrorists?

Then you weren't torturing them hard enough.

[Keller]

For all of the hype about the Obama-Lincoln connection, Bush and Lincoln also have something in common: in times of national crisis they said "fuck the constitution" and did what they thought was appropriate for the circumstances.

As I've said on other occassions, I fully support the rule of law over the rule of men and strongly oppose what both Bush and Lincoln did. But, with that said, I think it's pretty funny that we all want to forget the less than flattering constitutional history of President Lincoln.

[Faent]

in times of national crisis...

I wonder how many people believe 9/11 was a "national crisis". This sounds to me like excessive exaggeration.

[Clove]

The problem I have with this is that we've killed Al-Qaeda's #2 guy about 6 times in the last 5 years. My faith in us being able to correctly identify is somewhat lacking.Well duh, each time we kill the #2 guy they have to promote the number #3 guy!!!!

[Keller]

I wonder how many people believe 9/11 was a "national crisis". This sounds to me like excessive exaggeration.

Was Pearl Harbor a national crisis?

[Faent]

No. It was not a "national crisis". It was an attack on the US military, and a few thousand soldiers died. This does not a "national crisis" make.

[Stanley Burrell]

What happened to just telling people they were being a fire hazard? Or protesting without a permit?

I've always been confident in my government and local police force's ability to find some sheisty way of suppressing the masses by bending the laws that surround our constitutional rights, without actually having to place an asterisk next to a given amendment.

[Tsa`ah]

For all of the hype about the Obama-Lincoln connection, Bush and Lincoln also have something in common: in times of national crisis they said "fuck the constitution" and did what they thought was appropriate for the circumstances.

As I've said on other occassions, I fully support the rule of law over the rule of men and strongly oppose what both Bush and Lincoln did. But, with that said, I think it's pretty funny that we all want to forget the less than flattering constitutional history of President Lincoln.

Meh ... that's a stretch of epic magnitude to make. Most of these comparisons have been made by party/administrative lackeys in the same tone and cadence as some bible nut, snacking on shrimp, selling the idea that gays are going to burn in hell.

The very notion reminds me of a salon article I read a year or so ago ...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/08/23/bush_lincoln/index.html

[Keller]

Meh ... that's a stretch of epic magnitude to make. Most of these comparisons have been made by party/administrative lackeys in the same tone and cadence as some bible nut, snacking on shrimp, selling the idea that gays are going to burn in hell.

The very notion reminds me of a salon article I read a year or so ago ...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/08/23/bush_lincoln/index.html

From your article: "[Lincoln] pushed executive authority to extremes never before imagined; he created the first "national security" apparatus since the Alien and Sedition Acts fiasco of 1798; he showed no hesitation about curtailing civil liberties, aggressively used military commissions to try American citizens for aiding the enemy or even speaking against the war effort, suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and maintained his own system of extra-legal executive prisons, including one that stood on the site of the present Supreme Court building."

Where is the stretch again? I wasn't aware the actions taken above were rooted in constitutional authority. Maybe you could point me to the relevant language in the document that would support you saying I had made a "stretch of epic magnitude"?

[ClydeR]

No. It was not a "national crisis". It was an attack on the US military, and a few thousand soldiers died. This does not a "national crisis" make.

Public reaction can turn an event into a national crisis, regardless of whether or not the event would amount to a crisis on its own.

[Drew]

No. It was not a "national crisis". It was an attack on the US military, and a few thousand soldiers died. This does not a "national crisis" make.

Good Lord you are stupid. If your sister got raped would you classify that as a family crisis? What are the ties that bind us? Apparently nothing according to you.

[Tsa`ah]

From your article: "[Lincoln] pushed executive authority to extremes never before imagined; he created the first "national security" apparatus since the Alien and Sedition Acts fiasco of 1798; he showed no hesitation about curtailing civil liberties, aggressively used military commissions to try American citizens for aiding the enemy or even speaking against the war effort, suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and maintained his own system of extra-legal executive prisons, including one that stood on the site of the present Supreme Court building."

Where is the stretch again? I wasn't aware the actions taken above were rooted in constitutional authority. Maybe you could point me to the relevant language in the document that would support you saying I had made a "stretch of epic magnitude"?

A man is awarded the keys to the city for pushing a child out of the path of an oncoming bus, even though it meant he would be struck.

"Where is my key?" yelled a woman during the ceremony.

The mayor pauses with key in hand and asks the woman "What did you do to deserve such an honor?"

"I was hit by a bus" came the response and displays the casts covering both her arm and leg.

"And what about the circumstances that led to you getting struck by a bus?" inquired the mayor.

"Oh, I was in a hurry to get to my car, so I jaywalked" the woman chimed proudly.

With a scowl the mayor responded "It looks like the meter maid is getting ready to ticket your car ... you'd best hurry to the meter."

You can't draw lines of parallel in comparison of the two while omitting the circumstances involved. And with that you have to start at the beginning.

Did Lincoln start a war? Did Lincoln invade a sovereign nation?

Your parallels would be feasible if Lincoln ordered the first shots ... and then turned around and invaded Canadian territory or Mexico with the claims that they were either going to attack or were training southern rebels.

[Parkbandit]

Good Lord you are stupid. If your sister got raped would you classify that as a family crisis? What are the ties that bind us? Apparently nothing according to you.

Actually, using his stupid logic: the entire family.. plus extended family and any family pets.. would have to be raped for it to constitute as a family crisis.

[Drew]

Did Lincoln start a war? Did Lincoln invade a sovereign nation?


Ask anyone in the South at the time, the answer would be yes and yes. It's all perception Tsa'ah, all perception.

[Tsa`ah]

Lincoln knew war was imminent, but he was wise enough to not be backed into a corner where he would have to fire the first shot. He knew the appearance of defense would be his only thread to keep what was left of the union intact.

You can't draw any lines on the handling of ft Sumter to anything Bush ever ordered.

[Drew]

The Confederate States of America was a self-governing sovereign entity. We decided arbitrarily that the USA gets to choose what sovereignty to recognize and what not to. We continue to do that, for instance with dictators who are a threat to the region and us, we arbitrarily choose to not recognize the dictators sovereignty.

[Tsa`ah]

The Confederate States of America was a self-governing sovereign entity.

Self-governing sure ... sovereign no.


We decided arbitrarily that the USA gets to choose what sovereignty to recognize and what not to. We continue to do that, for instance with dictators who are a threat to the region and us, we arbitrarily choose to not recognize the dictators sovereignty.

Umm no. The US has no authority to recognize or not recognize sovereignty in the face of the rest of the world.

[Tea & Strumpets]

Umm no. The US has no authority to recognize or not recognize sovereignty in the face of the rest of the world.

I disagree. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just failed to express the idea that you were trying to convey.*




*This post has been approved by the United Nations.

[Tsa`ah]

I disagree. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just failed to express the idea that you were trying to convey.*




*This post has been approved by the United Nations.

In the sense that the US, as any other global sovereign, can recognize the sovereignty of a newly formed nation ... sure. In the sense that we can invade a recognized sovereign entity simply because "we don't recognize it" .. no. The US is not an absolute global power ... and there are consequences to be had for the invasion of a sovereign nation (which the CSA was not). We're just fortunate that the UN and other global entities recognized the financially destabilizing effect that would have had.

[Keller]

Your parallels would be feasible if Lincoln ordered the first shots ... and then turned around and invaded Canadian territory or Mexico with the claims that they were either going to attack or were training southern rebels.

Where did you get the idea I was making parallel's between Iraq and the Civil War?

I understand you want to be right -- but you're not. Stop dragging my words where they never went so you can try to make some sort of fanagled argument.

[Tsa`ah]

Where did you get the idea I was making parallel's between Iraq and the Civil War?

I understand you want to be right -- but you're not. Stop dragging my words where they never went so you can try to make some sort of fanagled argument.

You ignored the entirety of my post. Drawing lines of parallel do not make the two administrations similar in any fashion.

I understand that you want me to be wrong ... but wanting isn't enough. Stop quoting out of context to support your contrived notion of similarities.

[Keller]

You ignored the entirety of my post. Drawing lines of parallel do not make the two administrations similar in any fashion.

I understand that you want me to be wrong ... but wanting isn't enough. Stop quoting out of context to support your contrived notion of similarities.

Let me ask a simple yes or no question:

Did President Lincoln engage in violations of the United States Constitution?

I don't care about context. It is a yes or no question.

[Tea & Strumpets]

We're just fortunate that the UN and other global entities recognized the financially destabilizing effect that would have had.

I think luck, or fortune, had very little to do with it. You make the US government sound like it's a big dumb bully shoving their way through the altruistic "every man" governments of the rest of the world. I just can't wrap my mind around your world view.

[Tsa`ah]

Let me ask a simple yes or no question:

Did President Lincoln engage in violations of the United States Constitution?

I don't care about context. It is a yes or no question.

You're trying to paint a picture of purely black and white, and in this context (or any) it can't be done.

To answer your question, yes.

The context that you wish to ignore is key in this sort of debate. Lincoln, to his own regret, executed his administrative authority well beyond constitutional constraints ... in order to preserve and protect a crumbling union.

To suggest that Bush did the same ... for the same reasons, is absurd.

[Keller]

To answer your question, yes.

To suggest that Bush did the same ... for the same reasons, is absurd.

Thank you.

And I didn't.

I'm glad you admitted you were wrong.

[Tsa`ah]

I think luck, or fortune, had very little to do with it. You make the US government sound like it's a big dumb bully shoving their way through the altruistic "every man" governments of the rest of the world. I just can't wrap my mind around your world view.

The US is (currently), and was, the largest importer/consumer economy in the world at the time of our invasion of Iraq.

Yes, Saddam was probably the face of true evil, yes he did horrible things, yes he was a mass murderer ... but so are a number of other leaders of sovereign states.

Had say Jordan invaded Iraq, toppled the government, executed Saddam, and then occupied Iraq ... do you not think that the UN, backed by the US and UK, would not sanction the fuck out of Jordan and give it a timeline for complete withdraw?

Economic might has come to the point of rivaling military might. The US currently has both, and did at the time of the Iraq invasion. These two facts act as our "sanction" shield.

[Tsa`ah]

Thank you.

And I didn't.

I'm glad you admitted you were wrong.

LOL ... ok.

[Faent]

Good Lord you are stupid. If your sister got raped would you classify that as a family crisis? What are the ties that bind us? Apparently nothing according to you.

Um, yes that would be a family crisis.



Actually, using his stupid logic: the entire family.. plus extended family and any family pets.. would have to be raped for it to constitute as a family crisis.

So PB is wrong. To place a safe bet that PB is wrong you don't even have to know what he's saying.

[Stanley Burrell]

I give my full-fledged military support to whichever figurehead decides to become the next Gandhi and forfeit things like ... Food, so that they can try and find the Truth of the people's suffering in order to fully relate to them.

And until that happens, I support whoever makes things work as best as they can otherwise. I don't spit on our military because Washington decided to wage a war that was exceptionally botched up in its preconceptions.

My grandparents didn't have a choice whether or not they could join the military. My dad's dad didn't get blown up with the rest of his platoon in Korea because he happened to go deaf from the howitzers and was the best typewriter on the boat, as it turned out.

This is not the just-doing-what-the-higher-ups instructed Nazi agenda: Our country saved the collective asses of the world using our Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. Don't let politics erase the history of our armed forces' good deeds. And don't let politics tell you that every soldier in Iraq, who happens to perpetrate something we don't fully agree on, is somehow the unchanging future embodiment of our armed forces. Please.

I'm tired and I have to go back to work. Sorry for the :soap: bullshit.

[Jorddyn]

Had say Jordan invaded Iraq, toppled the government, executed Saddam, and then occupied Iraq ... do you not think that the UN, backed by the US and UK, would not sanction the fuck out of Jordan and give it a timeline for complete withdraw?


I offered, actually, but my checking account was a couple trillion short on covering the expenses.

[Tsa`ah]

Damn ... that was both hilarious and inevitable.

[Tolwynn]

Was Pearl Harbor a national crisis?



No. It was not a "national crisis". It was an attack on the US military, and a few thousand soldiers died. This does not a "national crisis" make.

Pearl Harbor was an act of war by a foreign power. In one attack, 8 naval ships were sunk, and another 10 were damaged. 188 American aircraft were destroyed and another 155 damaged. 2,345 military personnel were killed, and another 1,247 were wounded. 57 civilians were killed, and another 35 were wounded.

To suggest that this act, and the declaration of war that shortly followed were anything short of a national crisis at the time has to be one of the most retarded things ever posted on this board, and that's really saying something.

[Tea & Strumpets]

The US is (currently), and was, the largest importer/consumer economy in the world at the time of our invasion of Iraq.

Yes, Saddam was probably the face of true evil, yes he did horrible things, yes he was a mass murderer ... but so are a number of other leaders of sovereign states.

Had say Jordan invaded Iraq, toppled the government, executed Saddam, and then occupied Iraq ... do you not think that the UN, backed by the US and UK, would not sanction the fuck out of Jordan and give it a timeline for complete withdraw?

Economic might has come to the point of rivaling military might. The US currently has both, and did at the time of the Iraq invasion. These two facts act as our "sanction" shield.

Most of that is obvious or irrelevant, but I don't agree that economy being related to power/war is anything remotely new (I'm not a professional historian, though).

And does the US even need a "sanction shield" like you mentioned? I'm just going to immediately assume that most of the people that matter in any of the world's governments, realize that the UN is just a sideshow. Don't most of the countries with significant military strength have some kind of veto? I don't really bother reading about the UN rules because it's obvious the whole thing is a bullshit screen.

Oh yeah, I just googled it, and doublechecked it through wikipedia. Now that I have unquestionable sources, I will confirm that their are 5 countries that can veto any substantial (whatever the fuck that means) resolution. Fuck, I hope that includes sanctions or this is going to blow up in my face.

[phantasm]

Torture isn't the end of your life, I know several great guys who were tortured in Vietnam and still lived normal lives. So torture a few, figure out which is the right one, torture him more, and get the answers we need.

[Jorddyn]

Torture isn't the end of your life, I know several great guys who were tortured in Vietnam and still lived normal lives. So torture a few, figure out which is the right one, torture him more, and get the answers we need.

Ok, we're starting with you.

[Faent]

To suggest that this act, and the declaration of war that shortly followed were anything short of a national crisis at the time has to be one of the most retarded things ever posted on this board, and that's really saying something.

Not every declaration of war by a foreign power or entity constitutes a national crisis. To assume as much is to be willfully blind.


To suggest that this act, and the declaration of war that shortly followed were anything short of a national crisis at the time has to be one of the most retarded things ever posted on this board, and that's really saying something.

Why was it a "national crisis"? Because a few hundred planes were lost without which the US was left defenseless? But I wasn't aware the US was left defenseless. And sorry---but 2000 soldiers dying is not a "national crisis". Was it a "national crisis" because of the terror that shot through almost everyone in America when a military base on U.S. territory lying 2400 miles off the mainland was bombed? No, and if the "terror" it prompted was so great as to rise to the level of a "national crisis" then the real crisis is in the stomachs of Americans.

Your sense of proportionality is just way off (as it is for most Americans). World Wars I and II were national crises. The Great Depression was a national crisis. If you want, you can say that Pearl Harbor was a miniscule part of a massive event that was a national crisis, but Pearl Harbor itself? I don't think so.

[Tea & Strumpets]

Not every declaration of war by a foreign power or entity constitutes a national crisis. To assume as much is to be willfully blind.



Why was it a "national crisis"? Because a few hundred planes were lost without which the US was left defenseless? But I wasn't aware the US was left defenseless. And sorry---but 2000 soldiers dying is not a "national crisis". Was it a "national crisis" because of the terror that shot through almost everyone in America when a military base on U.S. territory lying 2400 miles off the mainland was bombed? No, and if the "terror" it prompted was so great as to rise to the level of a "national crisis" then the real crisis is in the stomachs of Americans.

Your sense of proportionality is just way off (as it is for most Americans). World Wars I and II were national crises. The Great Depression was a national crisis. If you want, you can say that Pearl Harbor was a miniscule part of a massive event that was a national crisis, but Pearl Harbor itself? I don't think so.

Are you a filthy Canadian?

[thefarmer]

Your mom is a "National crisis".

[Drew]

Not every declaration of war by a foreign power or entity constitutes a national crisis. To assume as much is to be willfully blind.



Why was it a "national crisis"? Because a few hundred planes were lost without which the US was left defenseless? But I wasn't aware the US was left defenseless. And sorry---but 2000 soldiers dying is not a "national crisis". Was it a "national crisis" because of the terror that shot through almost everyone in America when a military base on U.S. territory lying 2400 miles off the mainland was bombed? No, and if the "terror" it prompted was so great as to rise to the level of a "national crisis" then the real crisis is in the stomachs of Americans.

Your sense of proportionality is just way off (as it is for most Americans). World Wars I and II were national crises. The Great Depression was a national crisis. If you want, you can say that Pearl Harbor was a miniscule part of a massive event that was a national crisis, but Pearl Harbor itself? I don't think so.


I am actually shocked at how stupid you are. Literally shocked. How do you operate a computer?

[Keller]

Your sense of proportionality is just way off (as it is for most Americans). World Wars I and II were national crises. The Great Depression was a national crisis. If you want, you can say that Pearl Harbor was a miniscule part of a massive event that was a national crisis, but Pearl Harbor itself? I don't think so.

If you find that "most people" don't agree with your opinions, that in and of itself should tell you something.

[Tea & Strumpets]

I am actually shocked at how stupid you are. Literally shocked. How do you operate a computer?

Just a friendly warning, do not question Faent's intelligence. I disagreed with him in another thread and questioned if he might be a mongoloid, and he negative rep'd me right in the face.

[Drew]

Just a friendly warning, do not question Faent's intelligence. I disagreed with him in another thread and questioned if he might be a mongoloid, and he negative rep'd me right in the face.

Thanks for the warning but Team D already neg reps me all the time, I'm used to it by now.

[Keller]

Thanks for the warning but Team D already neg reps me all the time, I'm used to it by now.

I never neg rep you. :(

[Faent]

Just a friendly warning, do not question Faent's intelligence. I disagreed with him in another thread and questioned if he might be a mongoloid, and he negative rep'd me right in the face.

I neg repped you for falsely claiming I'd contradicted myself. That deserved a serious neg rep. Normal disagreement doesn't warrant a neg rep. Disagreement for idiotic reasons that involve attributing false statements to me does.


If you find that "most people" don't agree with your opinions, that in and of itself should tell you something.

Yes, usually that most people are wrong. In this case it tells me that some people here are willing to use the term "national crisis" VERY LOOSELY. I suggest that this is mostly due to their whiny behavior and overly emotional and panic-prone demeanor. But there may be some room for calling these minor events "tiny little "national" crises".

[Tea & Strumpets]

I neg repped you for falsely claiming I'd contradicted myself. That deserved a serious neg rep. Normal disagreement doesn't warrant a neg rep. Disagreement for idiotic reasons that involve attributing false statements to me does.


Look, I learned my lesson and I don't want any trouble.

[Drew]

I never neg rep you. :(


Yeah I know, you're all right kid, you're all right.

[Keller]

Yes, usually that most people are wrong. In this case it tells me that some people here are willing to use the term "national crisis" VERY LOOSELY. I suggest that this is mostly due to their whiny behavior and overly emotional and panic-prone demeanor. But there may be some room for calling these minor events "tiny little "national" crises".

Oh, 9/11 and Pearl Harbor are now "minor events."

Keep on digging, you might eventually get to China.

[Tea & Strumpets]

LOL, that was a nice impersonation of Faent on my negative rep, but Anticor told me who it really was.

[Mabus]

LOL, that was a nice impersonation of Faent on my negative rep, but Anticor told me who it really was.
You got trouble?
;)

[Tea & Strumpets]

You got trouble?
;)

Ah hah! Now I can reveal that I didn't actually know, remove Anticor from under the bus, and stop using the suspicion that we all have about the moderators.

[Parkbandit]

So PB is wrong. To place a safe bet that PB is wrong you don't even have to know what he's saying.

Actually, I'm just using your stupid excuse for logic. It's not that I am wrong, it's your stupid logic that is wrong.. which I am completely and 100% making fun at.

Thank you for proving my point.

[Parkbandit]

I am actually shocked at how stupid you are. Literally shocked. How do you operate a computer?

If you are shocked on how stupid Faent is, you obviously haven't been paying much attention to any of his posts.

It's not like this stupidity came out of the blue only today.

[Back]

What popped up in the memos? That there were ready to suspend freedom of the press rights.

Extraordinary Measures (http://www.newsweek.com/id/187342)


In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the Justice Department secretly gave the green light for the U.S. military to attack apartment buildings and office complexes inside the United States, deploy high-tech surveillance against U.S. citizens and potentially suspend First Amendment freedom-of-the-press rights in order to combat the terror threat, according to a memo released Monday.

The good news is that they did not. This is kinda like the meteor story.

[Faent]

Actually, I'm just using your stupid excuse for logic. It's not that I am wrong, it's your stupid logic that is wrong.. which I am completely and 100% making fun at.

PB, you will never know what logic is. You will never know what it is for a connective to be truth-functionally complete or for a system to sound and complete. You will always and forever remain incapable of translating, either mentally or on paper, basic statements of English into any formal language.

Your smug ignorance is hilarious. If it were at all possible, I'd demand a refund for that brain of yours. You *really* got the short end of the stick.

[Liagala]

You will always and forever remain incapable of translating, either mentally or on paper, basic statements of English into any formal language.


You will never know what it is for a connective to be truth-functionally complete or for a system to sound and complete.

Pot, meet kettle. Care to try that second sentence again?

[Keller]

You will always and forever remain incapable of translating, either mentally or on paper, basic statements of English into any formal language.

Below is a "basic statement of English." Please translate it into any formal language. Thank you.

"You are an idiot."

[Faent]

Below is a "basic statement of English." Please translate it into any formal language. Thank you. "You are an idiot."

Vx[(x = Keller) --> Idiot(x)]


Pot, meet kettle. Care to try that second sentence again?

No thanks. The sentence was fine.

[droit]

It's incredible how fast you guys can derail a thread. Awe-inspiring, really.

[Keller]

It's incredible how fast you guys can derail a thread. Awe-inspiring, really.

All the credit goes to Faent.

Dance, monkey!

[Kembal]

All the credit goes to Faent.

Dance, monkey!

No kidding. This thread had fairly good potential to be substantive, but it derailed pretty badly after his contribution.

[Parkbandit]

PB, you will never know what logic is. You will never know what it is for a connective to be truth-functionally complete or for a system to sound and complete. You will always and forever remain incapable of translating, either mentally or on paper, basic statements of English into any formal language.

Your smug ignorance is hilarious. If it were at all possible, I'd demand a refund for that brain of yours. You *really* got the short end of the stick.


If you are trying to fill the void that Ashliana has left.. you are failing. At least she was entertaining. You are boring and stupid... which is no way to go through life.

Please kill yourself now.

[Parkbandit]

This thread needs some entertainment. Since Faent is failing miserably here.. allow me to help him out:

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=892042&postcount=1

[Back]

Because maligning someone is an answer to real issues.

[Faent]

I bet I could set land speed records for derailing threads. I think I have been confining my more controversial remarks to political or politicized threads, however. It's incredibly easy to provoke the average person to almost instantaneous ire by calling into question one of the political beliefs they've:

held from birth,
hold b/c mommy/daddy held it,
hold b/c their favorite teacher told them it was true,
hold b/c their pastor tells them its true,
hold b/c they want it to be true,
hold b/c thinking it is true is part of their identity,
hold b/c thinking it is true makes it easier for them to cope with life,
hold b/c thinking it is true is popular amongst their friends/community,
hold b/c they believe thinking it is false is unpatriotic or disloyal,
hold b/c thinking it is false would produce cognitive dissonance,
hold b/c they can't think of or imagine any more plausible alternatives,
hold b/c it just FEELS true,
hold b/c they were born within a certain geographical region,
etc...
etc...

Since an extension of this list covers most of the reasons for which the average american actually holds the beliefs they hold, it's almost impossible to get anything other than an outburst of rage from one of them. If you responded with an insult, I suspect the best explanation for that can be found above...

[Parkbandit]

Because maligning someone is an answer to real issues.


:rofl:

Just when I thought the stupidity in this thread couldn't possibly attain a lower level than Faent brought to it.. Backlash runs in and drops this post.

Dude.. you are so awesome.

PS - Sorry to malign you.. the answers for you are still in this:

http://www.vibes.se/albums/funny/suicide_gun.jpg

[Tea & Strumpets]

I bet I could set land speed records for derailing threads. I think I have been confining my more controversial remarks to political or politicized threads, however. It's incredibly easy to provoke the average person to almost instantaneous ire by calling into question one of the political beliefs they've:

held from birth,
hold b/c mommy/daddy held it,
hold b/c their favorite teacher told them it was true,
hold b/c their pastor tells them its true,
hold b/c they want it to be true,
hold b/c thinking it is true is part of their identity,
hold b/c thinking it is true makes it easier for them to cope with life,
hold b/c thinking it is true is popular amongst their friends/community,
hold b/c they believe thinking it is false is unpatriotic or disloyal,
hold b/c thinking it is false would produce cognitive dissonance,
hold b/c they can't think of or imagine any more plausible alternatives,
hold b/c it just FEELS true,
hold b/c they were born within a certain geographical region,
etc...
etc...

Since an extension of this list covers most of the reasons for which the average american actually holds the beliefs they hold, it's almost impossible to get anything other than an outburst of rage from one of them. If you responded with an insult, I suspect the best explanation for that can be found above...

Or...

hold b/c they have an overinflated sense of their own intelligence, despite all evidence to the contrary (I'm referring to you, just in case that was too subtle).

[Parkbandit]

I bet I could set land speed records for derailing threads. I think I have been confining my more controversial remarks to political or politicized threads, however. It's incredibly easy to provoke the average person to almost instantaneous ire by calling into question one of the political beliefs they've:

held from birth,
hold b/c mommy/daddy held it,
hold b/c their favorite teacher told them it was true,
hold b/c their pastor tells them its true,
hold b/c they want it to be true,
hold b/c thinking it is true is part of their identity,
hold b/c thinking it is true makes it easier for them to cope with life,
hold b/c thinking it is true is popular amongst their friends/community,
hold b/c they believe thinking it is false is unpatriotic or disloyal,
hold b/c thinking it is false would produce cognitive dissonance,
hold b/c they can't think of or imagine any more plausible alternatives,
hold b/c it just FEELS true,
hold b/c they were born within a certain geographical region,
etc...
etc...

Since an extension of this list covers most of the reasons for which the average american actually holds the beliefs they hold, it's almost impossible to get anything other than an outburst of rage from one of them. If you responded with an insult, I suspect the best explanation for that can be found above...


You forgot

hold b/c THAT FUCKING EDITOR IS A DUMBASS BECAUSE HE WON'T PUBLISH MY PAPER!

[Stanley Burrell]

I bet I could set land speed records for derailing threads. I think I have been confining my more controversial remarks to political or politicized threads, however. It's incredibly easy to provoke the average person to almost instantaneous ire by calling into question one of the political beliefs they've:

held from birth,
hold b/c mommy/daddy held it,
hold b/c their favorite teacher told them it was true,
hold b/c their pastor tells them its true,
hold b/c they want it to be true,
hold b/c thinking it is true is part of their identity,
hold b/c thinking it is true makes it easier for them to cope with life,
hold b/c thinking it is true is popular amongst their friends/community,
hold b/c they believe thinking it is false is unpatriotic or disloyal,
hold b/c thinking it is false would produce cognitive dissonance,
hold b/c they can't think of or imagine any more plausible alternatives,
hold b/c it just FEELS true,
hold b/c they were born within a certain geographical region,
etc...
etc...

Since an extension of this list covers most of the reasons for which the average american actually holds the beliefs they hold, it's almost impossible to get anything other than an outburst of rage from one of them. If you responded with an insult, I suspect the best explanation for that can be found above...

lol. I'm just fucking with y'all. I don't even know what that hld b/c garbage is, I just felt like making a wall of text (my bad.)

Anyway, check out my ride, suckas:

http://news.cnet.com/i/ne/p/2007/CrownVicSpinners_550x354.jpg

Fixed.

[Parkbandit]

Or...

hold b/c they have an overinflated sense of their own intelligence, despite all evidence to the contrary (I'm referring to you, just in case that was too subtle).

I hope he slaps you in the face with another negative reputation.

Come back to WoW Ahole!

[Back]

:rofl:

Just when I thought the stupidity in this thread couldn't possibly attain a lower level than Faent brought to it.. Backlash runs in and drops this post.

Dude.. you are so awesome.

PS - Sorry to malign you.. the answers for you are still in this:

http://www.vibes.se/albums/funny/suicide_gun.jpg

Apology accepted.

Carry on, fool.

[Faent]

If you are trying to fill the void that Ashliana has left.. you are failing. At least she was entertaining. You are boring and stupid... which is no way to go through life. Please kill yourself now.

Oh come now. I'm doing a pretty good job of providing entertainment. You don't have to add being a liar to your list of obvious faults.


hold b/c THAT FUCKING EDITOR IS A DUMBASS BECAUSE HE WON'T PUBLISH MY PAPER!

Paper is under review again at a better journal. It got past the editor this time, thankfully. You will never publish anything worthwhile, however, being a pathetic little peon incapable of serious thought, so it's not like your opinion matters. You are, and always will be, a nobody whose greatest achievement in life will be topping 20,000 posts at the Player's Corner.

[Stanley Burrell]

That's a crowning fucking achievement. There's no way I'm letting ParkBandit claim that.

Fuck.

[Daniel]

Thanks for the warning but Team D already neg reps me all the time, I'm used to it by now.


I never neg rep you. :(

As the flag holder for the D team, we do not condone mass negative repping. That would require giving a shit beyond a point which is acceptable.

I demand an apology henceforth and forthright.

[Parkbandit]

Oh come now. I'm doing a pretty good job of providing entertainment. You don't have to add being a liar to your list of obvious faults.

Dear dumbass.. YOU do not decide if your performance is entertaining or not.. your audience decides that. Feel free to run a poll regarding that.. but the safe money is on NO, you are far from entertaining.




Paper is under review again at a better journal. It got past the editor this time, thankfully. You will never publish anything worthwhile, however, being a pathetic little peon incapable of serious thought, so it's not like your opinion matters. You are, and always will be, a nobody whose greatest achievement in life will be topping 20,000 posts at the Player's Corner.


:rofl:

I'll pit my life and accomplishments against yours ANYDAY, boy. I'm pretty sure my list won't include things like "Almost got a paper published.. but the editor WAS STOOPID!" and "I entertained people by stupidity on an Internet forum"

Hey.. when that paper is published.. make sure you let us all know where because we are just on the edge of our seat awaiting the day. Really.

[Drew]

If you are shocked on how stupid Faent is, you obviously haven't been paying much attention to any of his posts.

It's not like this stupidity came out of the blue only today.

Fair enough. I just don't check into the political threads as much as you do (usually I only read the first couple of posts).

[Faent]

Dear dumbass.. YOU do not decide if your performance is entertaining or not.. your audience decides that. Feel free to run a poll regarding that.. but the safe money is on NO, you are far from entertaining.

Oh, come now. You can't get enough, can you? My posts cause you to increase your pathetic post count. You must think you're getting some value out of responding or else you're stupider than I thought possible (which, actually, is something I perhaps ought not rule out).


I'll pit my life and accomplishments against yours ANYDAY, boy. I'm pretty sure my list won't include things like "Almost got a paper published.. but the editor WAS STOOPID!"

Since this is the sort of thing everybody trying to publish in my field goes through, I'm unimpressed. The fact that my paper was rejected by some press doesn't even come close to telling against its quality. So you lose. As always. How does it feel to be a constant loser? I'm beginning to think you like losing. In fact, I'm certain of it.


and "I entertained people by stupidity on an Internet forum"

You entertain me, so I guess that's something you've got. The fact is that your excessive post count here is a large part of the reason you fail at life. If you spent half the time you spend posting doing something worthwhile you'd be an incredibly valuable person. But making an ass of yourself on internet forums so consumes your time that any reasonable person would be hard pressed to conclude that it's possible you're anything other than a pathetic, miserable freak of nature. But hey, go for that 20K!


Hey.. when that paper is published.. make sure you let us all know where because we are just on the edge of our seat awaiting the day. Really.

PB, you can't read, write or think. I'll be glad to let you know when I get published. But you're unimaginably delusional if you think I care about what your sad, pathetic, miserable loser (overpenetrated) ass is waiting for. Are you really that delusional?

[thefarmer]

This thread makes me laugh every time I read it.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

blah blah, blah blah, yada yada

You lost any credibility you had when you were explaining how a terrorist attack on American soil on civilians in a major city was not a national crisis.

You lost it again when you then compared that to Pearl Harbor and explained how it was "only" an attack against the American military.

Move to Canada you fucking heartless douche, when American's start dying in their home land, that's a fucking crisis.

[Keller]

You lost any credibility you had when you were explaining how a terrorist attack on American soil on civilians in a major city was not a national crisis.

You lost it again when you then compared that to Pearl Harbor and explained how it was "only" an attack against the American military.

Move to Canada you fucking heartless douche, when American's start dying in their home land, that's a fucking crisis.

You missed:


But there may be some room for calling these minor events "tiny little "national" crises".

[Parkbandit]

Oh, come now. You can't get enough, can you? My posts cause you to increase your pathetic post count. You must think you're getting some value out of responding or else you're stupider than I thought possible (which, actually, is something I perhaps ought not rule out).

Again, it's not you who decides what entertains me.. it's myself. You are like an annoying little flea bite on my foot; when I take my shoes off, I feel like scratching it or putting some anti-itch cream on it. When I put my shoes back on, you are simply not worth the trouble. Again.. make a poll and let your audience here decide. Like I said.. the safe money is on the option of: you are an asshole.




Since this is the sort of thing everybody trying to publish in my field goes through, I'm unimpressed. The fact that my paper was rejected by some press doesn't even come close to telling against its quality. So you lose. As always. How does it feel to be a constant loser? I'm beginning to think you like losing. In fact, I'm certain of it.

It was more than you just getting rejected (which is weird, I would think you would be immune to feeling bad since it's happened throughout your life with regularity) by the editor, it was you coming here and crying and whining all over the place about it that made it hilarious.




You entertain me, so I guess that's something you've got. The fact is that your excessive post count here is a large part of the reason you fail at life. If you spent half the time you spend posting doing something worthwhile you'd be an incredibly valuable person. But making an ass of yourself on internet forums so consumes your time that any reasonable person would be hard pressed to conclude that it's possible you're anything other than a pathetic, miserable freak of nature. But hey, go for that 20K!

You equate having a large number of posts on this forum to failing at life? Dude.. you are as delusional as you are ignorant. Here's my secret chump: I have excessive amounts of free time since I own my own companies and while I'm at work.. I'm usually sitting in an apartment complex parking lot, stealing bandwidth here and there. I'm not about to apologize for only having to work 18-24 hours a week, while providing plenty of income for myself and my family. Maybe you should worry about not being published and having to ask Daddy for another loan to get you through another week of QQing and being miserable?



PB, you can't read, write or think. I'll be glad to let you know when I get published. But you're unimaginably delusional if you think I care about what your sad, pathetic, miserable loser (overpenetrated) ass is waiting for. Are you really that delusional?

Really? It's strange that in one paragraph you malaise about my high post count (reading and writing and ability to think) and in the next you make this statement. It's not a surprise to anyone here that you aren't published yet if you can't make that simple connection. And seriously, did you just call me gay? Let me guess, your paper is another classic like "Jack and Jill"? Did you draw pictures in your paper too?

Oh, I can't wait to read this masterpiece paper of yours. I don't want to know just when you get published, boy.. I want a link to read it! I'm sure that link won't be provided though.. will it. Sure you were published... sure.

[Faent]

Move to Canada you fucking heartless douche, when American's start dying in their home land, that's a fucking crisis.

You don't believe that. All sorts of things kill Americans in their homeland but do not a "national crisis" make. For example, suppose just one American was killed by Japan in a targeted strike? National crisis? Only according to crisis mongerers.


Here's my secret chump: I have excessive amounts of free time since I own my own companies and while I'm at work..

So you spend your days sitting in parking lots posting at the PC? And note that, if you have a family, your duty involves doing much more than merely providing for them. One of the many things you should be worrying more about is how to turn yourself into someone who isn't a complete idiot. Right now you are fucking your family up by existing with the mind you have. Get off the PC and read something for once in your life.


Really? It's strange that in one paragraph you malaise about my high post count (reading and writing and ability to think) and in the next you make this statement.

This is what happens when you try to sound smarter than you are. Go look up "malaise" please. In a DICTIONARY---not in your gut. It's impossible to respond to this nonsense since you could have meant (and failed) to express almost anything. Failure is a big theme here isn't it? I suppose you're very accustomed to it.


want a link to read it!

Don't keep lying, PB. Everyone knows you couldn't read it even if you wanted to. I don't mean this literally. You can read. You read at something like (being generous) a 10th grade level. Serious books and papers are off-limits to you, but you may be capable of struggling through a Harlequin romance novel. And parts of the newspaper makes sense. I suspect that the only thing that would make it remotely possible for you to learn to read is having a full frontal lobotomy. Hell, if you brain was filled with cow pies you'd probably be better off. But maybe there's room to turn your life around.

It's sad to see people let themselves go. If you let your body languish and you turn into a 1000 lb. bulb of flesh, you have FAILED to be a good parent. But the same holds for your mind, PB. You've got a mind analogous to the body of the 1000 lb. man. Spend less time jacking yourself off in parking lots while posting here at the PC and more time trying to prevent yourself from getting early onset Alzheimers. Hell, you'd be happier if you took this advice.

[Clove]

No thanks. The sentence was fine.Actually it was missing a verb.

[Clove]

I offered, actually, but my checking account was a couple trillion short on covering the expenses.I so want to rep your brains out...

[Parkbandit]

yes yes Faent... You are the intellectual powerhouse. So far, you have called me fat and gay.

In reality, I'm the opposite of both, but you've never let reality get in your way. I'll let you get the last word in, since it's apparent that it's that imprtant to you. Just promise me that when this groundbreaking paper gets published, that you put up a link here. I'll assume until the link is provided that you are still going from editor to editor begging them and screaming/crying/carrying on when they also laugh at your "work"

[Clove]

You're trying to paint a picture of purely black and white, and in this context (or any) it can't be done.No he isn't. He's expressing an opinion that infringing Civil Rights is never justified. He doesn't fucking care if it was to save the Union or kick a scumbag off the planet. Deal with it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v412/Jemah/funnies/missingthepoint.png

[Faent]

Here's an article that will make you feel unjustifiably swell about yourself, PB: Chronicle of Higher Ed (http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i26/26b01101.htm?utm_source=pm&utm_medium=en)

[Faent]

So far, you have called me fat and gay.

Strictly speaking, I never called you gay. I also NEVER called you fat. You have the reading comprehension of a steaming pile of bird shit.

[Parkbandit]

Strictly speaking, I never called you gay. I also NEVER called you fat. You have the reading comprehension of a steaming pile of bird shit.


http://mirror.servut.us/kuvat/motivation/lolwut.jpg

[Faent]

http://dontdatethatdude.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/idiot2.jpg

[Jorddyn]

http://dontdatethatdude.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/idiot2.jpg

I love that whoever created this though he was a genius, and yet absolutely killed the grammar and spelling.

[Parkbandit]

I love that whoever created this though he was a genius, and yet absolutely killed the grammar and spelling.

/irony

[waywardgs]

Hard be grammar. Complexicated it be!

[Faent]

I love that whoever created this though he was a genius, and yet absolutely killed the grammar and spelling.

Oops, I should have been more careful. =)

[Tsa`ah]

No he isn't. He's expressing an opinion that infringing Civil Rights is never justified. He doesn't fucking care if it was to save the Union or kick a scumbag off the planet. Deal with it.


No he isn't. He's expressing an opinion that infringing Civil Rights is never justified. He doesn't fucking care if it was to save the Union or kick a scumbag off the planet. Deal with it.

Umm ... no. Gratz on poor comprehension skills. He opened with Bush being more like Lincoln than Obama ... that was his case.

He attempted to draw lines of comparison while ignoring the context in which actions were taken. He may as well have said Bush is more comparable to Hitler, Sadam, Hirohito, or a slew of other historic figures while ignoring the context and been more accurate.

He didn't care about the context ... which as I said, are key to such comparisons.

And ya ... your insults are not only repetitive, but predictable. I should probably use them whenever someone jumps on my leg and tells me the observance of the action is getting old.

[Keller]

Umm ... no. Gratz on poor comprehension skills. He opened with Bush being more like Lincoln than Obama ... that was his case.

One of the greatest things about posts on a message board is that you can go back and consult them to see if Tsa'ah is, once again, sacrificing any vestige of decency in an attempt to be "right". For example, let's consult the post in question.


For all of the hype about the Obama-Lincoln connection, Bush and Lincoln also have something in common: in times of national crisis they said "fuck the constitution" and did what they thought was appropriate for the circumstances.

As I've said on other occassions, I fully support the rule of law over the rule of men and strongly oppose what both Bush and Lincoln did. But, with that said, I think it's pretty funny that we all want to forget the less than flattering constitutional history of President Lincoln.

Not only were you plainly wrong, but you had the audacity to criticize someone elses comprehension skills.

PLEASE SHUT THE FUCK UP BEFORE YOU EMBARRASS YOURSELF FURTHER.

[Tsa`ah]

One of the greatest things about posts on a message board is that you can go back and consult them to see if Tsa'ah is, once again, sacrificing any vestige of decency in an attempt to be "right". For example, let's consult the post in question.

And that's where you, and others, fail time and time again. You assume that I'm trying to be "right".




Not only were you plainly wrong, but you had the audacity to criticize someone elses comprehension skills.

And I'll criticize them again whenever they're so completely off base. So we're talking about the words "more" and "also" ... it doesn't change my argument. You're attempting a black and white interpretation based on events while ignoring context.


PLEASE SHUT THE FUCK UP BEFORE YOU EMBARRASS YOURSELF FURTHER.

For some reason you think I'm ebarrassed ... and that you or clove had something to do with it.

Excuse me while I laugh to myself ...















... ok.

Again, you're attempting to ignore the context of events to be ... right. I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Get over it.

[Clove]

Umm ... no. Gratz on poor comprehension skills. He opened with Bush being more like Lincoln than Obama ... that was his case.

He attempted to draw lines of comparison while ignoring the context in which actions were taken. He may as well have said Bush is more comparable to Hitler, Sadam, Hirohito, or a slew of other historic figures while ignoring the context and been more accurate.He might have, however none of those dictators were American Presidents that infringed on Americans' civil liberties during wartime. Of course he might have still made the comparison since they all restricted the basic rights that Keller has repeatedly held should be sacred. Context isn't necessary IF you are asserting (as Keller was) that compromising civil liberties is never justified. Bush did it. Lincoln did it. That's where the comparison (for Keller's purpose) begins and ends. If you disagree with his initial assertion further comparisons between the two are moot.

Really Tsa'ah, stick with sports metaphors. At least you're hilarious when you fuck them up. When you try to belabor a moot point you're just pathetic and annoying.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v412/Jemah/funnies/missingthepoint.png

[Keller]

And that's where you, and others, fail time and time again. You assume that I'm trying to be "right"

Well, I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I guess you're just dumb.


And I'll criticize them again whenever they're so completely off base. So we're talking about the words "more" and "also" ... it doesn't change my argument. You're attempting a black and white interpretation based on events while ignoring context.

Yes. It does.

You said:
He opened with Bush being more like Lincoln than Obama ... that was his case.


When I said:
Bush and Lincoln also have something in common

Those are fundamentally different statements. They are fundamentally different arguments.

The word "more" is, in this case, subjective. It is, as you might suggest, interpretative.

The word "also" is, in this case, objective. It is not, contrary to your suggestion, interpretative.

In other words, context is not needed. If I had said "more", which you wrongly stated I had said, then context would be important. But, as I've not used the word "more" but instead used the word "also", context is not important.



Again, you're attempting to ignore the context of events to be ... right. I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Get over it.

I am not attempting to ignore anything. I am ignoring context. I am not ignoring context to be right, however, because context is not important to the argument I was actually making.