Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Bush's NSA surveilance program is almost universally called "illegal" and in violation of the FISA act, yet none of those that I've debated this issue with on this board had actually bothered to read the FISA act, nor could they say in what way exactly the NSA program violates it other then vague "they're spying on us!" statements.
Really? Funny that. I remember citing from the FISA act at length. I believe I even linked to it.
You linked a part of the FISA code that wasn't particularly relevant. And you did it after a couple pages of a debate had gone on that essentially was "OMG! They're spying on us!!!".
I was the first to actually link the pages that defined what exact types of electronic surveilance required a FISA court warrant under FISA. Funny how once I did that, you and everyone else kinda forgot about the thread and ran off to find some other shiney whirly thing to occupy yourselves.
Quote:
Quote:
Meanwhile, I point out something like the Kelo v New London SCOTUS decision, which sharply contrasts Conservative versus Liberal views on Emminent Domain, with the Liberal view basically being that it's ok for the government to take a private citizens property pretty much at will (anyone's home meets the criteria in this case), and it's shrugged off as nothing...
Really? I remember pretty much everyone saying it was a bad decision. Funny that as well. Well, that and, as Samira mentioned, she brought it up in the first place.
I don't recall who brought it up. But whoever did was saying it was a bad decision, but was
blaming Conservatives for it. Apparently, they just assumed that any decision that was in clear violation of people's rights and freedoms must have come from a Conservatives (mental block perhaps?). I was the one who actually looked up which Justices ruled which way and pointed out that it was the Liberals who made the ruling, with the Conservatives dissenting. Odd that you don't seem to recall that at all, do you?
Quote:
And, again, I think comparisons between Iraq and WWII are straight up silly and designed purely to try to validate something by trying to attach it to an event you know people will say "that was a good thing!" about. No matter who is saying it. I can't even pretend, just to play the game, to make up an argument I'd be proud of to try to compare the two in any serious fashion.
Rumsfeld wasn't just talking about Iraq. See. This is another classic "liberal" methodology. Redefine the other guys argument to make it easier for you to bash. He was talking about the "rise of a new type of fascism". He's talking more broadly about global, Islamic based terrorism. He was comparing the methods used by those groups to that used by Hitler in the 1930s. Take a little bit. No response. Take a little bit more. I'd wager that his remarks had far more to do with the UNs response to the Hezbollah situation in Lebanon then it had to do with Iraq.
Heck. The fact that many on this forum have claimed Israel's response was an overreaction because "border attacks like that are common", is kind of the first hint that Rumsfeld is right on this. Hitler gained so much ground while the world did nothing because he gradually allowed them to think that what he was doing was "normal". Start with something small. Then take a slightly bigger step. Then a bigger one. At each stage, it doesn't seem like that much more then what's happened before, so it's easier to catagorize a strong reaction as an overreaction.
But it's easier to argue against Iraq, so that's what you do. Nice strawman. I kinda can't blame you though, since the write of the article was doing it first. Go back and read it. Rumsfeld never mentioned Iraq. But the article writer mentions it specifically (and tangentally as "the war") many times.
But you'll argue that there's no bias or twisting of facts in the story *and* that you weren't manipulates, all while defending your own assumption that this was about Iraq specifically. And that's unfortunately typical around here...
". Find me someone official comparing the two and I'll waggle the finger of shame at them for your appeasement.
". Find me someone official comparing the two and I'll waggle the finger of shame at them for your appeasement.
