or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Paul Ryan thinks you are a bunch of fucking idiots.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Paul Ryan thinks you are a bunch of fucking idiots. - Page 4

post #121 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I invite you to read that book and make your own conclusions.

 

All I'm saying is that you refuse to believe your government is capable of or engaging in tyranny and that's what the average Nazi thought, too.

 

The book may be worth a read, but your second sentence is an appalling example of a logical converse error.

post #122 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

The book may be worth a read, but your second sentence is an appalling example of a logical converse error.

 

It is if you make assumptions, yes.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #123 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

The book may be worth a read, but your second sentence is an appalling example of a logical converse error.

 

It is if you make assumptions, yes.

 

And it isn't if you don't make assumptions? Or are you suggesting that your comment did not mean what it appeared to mean, in which case what, if anything, did it mean?

post #124 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

And it isn't if you don't make assumptions? Or are you suggesting that your comment did not mean what it appeared to mean, in which case what, if anything, did it mean?

 

What did you think it meant?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #125 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

And it isn't if you don't make assumptions? Or are you suggesting that your comment did not mean what it appeared to mean, in which case what, if anything, did it mean?

 

What did you think it meant?

 

My initial response made it perfectly clear what I read it to mean, so that game is going nowhere. If you did not intend that then the simplest solution is to clarify.

post #126 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

My initial response made it perfectly clear what I read it to mean, so that game is going nowhere. If you did not intend that then the simplest solution is to clarify.

 

No. You infer what you will from my statement. I meant it how I said it.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #127 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

My initial response made it perfectly clear what I read it to mean, so that game is going nowhere. If you did not intend that then the simplest solution is to clarify.

 

No. You infer what you will from my statement. I meant it how I said it.

 

Ah right, tricky one - then converse error it is, since I can't see any other reason to link those causally unconnected observations.

post #128 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Ah right, tricky one - then converse error it is, since I can't see any other reason to link those causally unconnected observations.

 

Interesting conclusion.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #129 of 168

Drone strikes are not just random.

 

They are the result of intelligence gathering.

 

Whether the intelligence is accurate or not is another issue.


Edited by Bergermeister - 9/5/12 at 2:58pm

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #130 of 168

Ryan requested funds from Obamacare in 2010.

 

http://www.thenation.com/blog/169757/exclusive-paul-ryan-quietly-requested-obamacare-cash

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #131 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

I invite you to read that book and make your own conclusions.

 

All I'm saying is that you refuse to believe your government is capable of or engaging in tyranny and that's what the average Nazi thought, too.

 

No, I don't think that's all you're saying.  You are drawing parallels to America and Nazi Germany.   That is usually not going to win many debates.  By the way, I didn't way we weren't "capable" of tyranny.  I said we don't engage in tyranny.  Can you provide an example of tyranny? 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

The domino effect didn't work anyway, so it's moot. On the drone issue now I'm going to call unsupported statement. What makes you think the intel strategy has changed? That side of the operation is naturally less publicized than the drone ops. The strikes are just a tactical option to act on the intelligence, and would not work without it. 

 

It remains to be seen whether the domino effect works.  The intel strategy has changed because Obama himself (as well as many others) have said so.  The intelligence is less human-based and more technology based. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Ryan requested funds from Obamacare in 2010.

 

http://www.thenation.com/blog/169757/exclusive-paul-ryan-quietly-requested-obamacare-cash

 

That's a real stretch.  He didn't "request funds from Obamacare."  He expressed support for a public health center in his district, one that would get part of its funding from a grant.  At worst, that grant was "funded" by Obamacare, though that's also a stretch in itself. 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #132 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

No, I don't think that's all you're saying.  You are drawing parallels to America and Nazi Germany.   That is usually not going to win many debates.  By the way, I didn't way we weren't "capable" of tyranny.  I said we don't engage in tyranny.  Can you provide an example of tyranny?

 

You can think whatever you want.

 

An example of American tyranny? Here's an obvious one:

 

The forced relocation of Japanese Americans to internment camps.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #133 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

You can think whatever you want.

 

An example of American tyranny? Here's an obvious one:

 

The forced relocation of Japanese Americans to internment camps.

 

Wow.  I didn't see this before.  You're going to go to that well?  That's what you can come up with?  I'm actually disappointed.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #134 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

You can think whatever you want.

 

An example of American tyranny? Here's an obvious one:

 

The forced relocation of Japanese Americans to internment camps.

 

Wow.  I didn't see this before.  You're going to go to that well?  That's what you can come up with?  I'm actually disappointed.  

Yeah it happened a long time ago so it doesn't matter. Uh huh. ( eyes roll if they could ) How about a little something more recent like Vietnam? There's plenty of material there.

 

 

Quote:

The secret bombing of Cambodia and Laos

Prince Norodom Sihanouk had proclaimed Cambodia neutral since 1955,[206] but the communists used Cambodian soil as a base and Sihanouk tolerated their presence, because he wished to avoid being drawn into a wider regional conflict. Under pressure from Washington, however, he changed this policy in 1969. The Vietnamese communists were no longer welcome. President Nixon took the opportunity to launch a massive secret bombing campaign, called Operation Menu, against their sanctuaries along the Cambodia/Vietnam border.

This violated a long succession of pronouncements from Washington supporting Cambodian neutrality. Richard Nixon wrote to Prince Sihanouk in April 1969 assuring him that the United States respected "the sovereignty, neutrality and territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Cambodia..."[207] In 1970, Prince Sihanouk was deposed by his pro-American prime minister Lon Nol. North Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1970 at the request of Khmer Rouge leader Nuon Chea.[208] U.S. and ARVN forces launched an incursion into Cambodia to attack VPA/NLF bases and end the communist encirclement of Phnom Penh.

This incursion sparked nationwide U.S. protests. Four students were killed by National Guardsmen at Kent State University during a protest in Ohio, which provoked public outrage in the United States. The reaction to the incident by the Nixon administration was seen as callous and indifferent, providing additional impetus for the anti-war movement.[209]

 

America is about as good as it gets but are our hands clean? Hardly.


Edited by jimmac - 9/15/12 at 10:47am
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #135 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yeah it happened a long time ago so it doesn't matter. Uh huh. ( eyes roll if they could ) How about a little something more recent like Vietnam? There's plenty of material there.

 

 

America is about as good as it gets but are our hands clean? Hardly.

 

I didn't say our "hands were clean."  I said we don't practice tyranny.  Neither of the above are examples of tyranny.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #136 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yeah it happened a long time ago so it doesn't matter. Uh huh. ( eyes roll if they could ) How about a little something more recent like Vietnam? There's plenty of material there.

 

 

America is about as good as it gets but are our hands clean? Hardly.

 

I didn't say our "hands were clean."  I said we don't practice tyranny.  Neither of the above are examples of tyranny.  

Of course in the Bizzarro world. lol.gif

One example of the definition of Tyranny from Webster's

 

Quote:
 an oppressive, harsh, or unjust act : a tyrannical act

And yes it usually indicates an act within a body of government on it's own people and not exerted on an outside entity. However it doesn't have to be that way to gain the label.

 

However if you insist on that defintion we can replace it with  " Despicable ". 


Edited by jimmac - 9/16/12 at 11:41am
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #137 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Of course in the Bizzarro world. lol.gif

One example of the definition of Tyranny from Webster's

 

And yes it usually indicates an act within a body of government on it's own people and not exerted on an outside entity. However it doesn't have to be that way to gain the label.

 

However if you insist on that defintion we can replace it with  " Despicable ". 

 

 

I haven't heard the internment of Japanese Americans described as "tyrannical" before.  Have you?  I also don't think "despicable" fits.  Such an action is certainly almost unreal by our standards today, but in the context of the times, it's easier to at least understand.  I'm not saying I agree with it, mind you.  But consider we had been attacked brutally by Japan and were engaged in a full-scale, declared war.  Consider the anger and fear towards the Japanese at the time, some of it very legitimate.  Again, it is a dark chapter in our history, but "tyrannical?"  That's a stretch, especially when it's the only example of tyranny provided.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #138 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

 

I haven't heard the internment of Japanese Americans described as "tyrannical" before.  Have you?  I also don't think "despicable" fits.  Such an action is certainly almost unreal by our standards today, but in the context of the times, it's easier to at least understand.  I'm not saying I agree with it, mind you.  But consider we had been attacked brutally by Japan and were engaged in a full-scale, declared war.  Consider the anger and fear towards the Japanese at the time, some of it very legitimate.  Again, it is a dark chapter in our history, but "tyrannical?"  That's a stretch, especially when it's the only example of tyranny provided.  

 

If you don't believe being forcibly sent to an internment camp based solely on your race/ethnicity to be a tyrannical act, you likely won't accept any other examples offered.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #139 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

If you don't believe being forcibly sent to an internment camp based solely on your race/ethnicity to be a tyrannical act, you likely won't accept any other examples offered.

 

Nice try.  "You won't accept any other evidence, so I won't offer any."    Sorry, Jazz...you look silly on this one.  You can call the internment of the Japanese a lot of things, but "tyrannical" really isn't one of them.  Extreme?  Over-reactive?  Based on fear and even racism?  Certainly.  But it's not tyranny.  In fact, you can't point to tyranny, because we don't engage in it.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #140 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

Nice try.  "You won't accept any other evidence, so I won't offer any."    Sorry, Jazz...you look silly on this one.  You can call the internment of the Japanese a lot of things, but "tyrannical" really isn't one of them.  Extreme?  Over-reactive?  Based on fear and even racism?  Certainly.  But it's not tyranny.  In fact, you can't point to tyranny, because we don't engage in it.  

 

According to dictionary.com:

 

 

 

Quote:

tyr·an·ny

  [tir-uh-nee]  Show IPA
noun, plural tyr·an·nies.
1.
arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
2.
the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
3.
a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.
4.
oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
5.
undue severity or harshness.

 

 

I think the forced relocation of Americans of Japanese descent to internment camps fits at least 3 of those definitions.

 

But please, continue to tell me I'm the one who looks silly, here.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #141 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You can call the internment of the Japanese a lot of things, but "tyrannical" really isn't one of them.

 

Tell us that when you've been forcibly put into an internment camp of some kind.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Extreme?  Over-reactive?  Based on fear and even racism?  Certainly.

 

It is all of those thing also.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

But it's not tyranny.

 

Is this because you don't like the word or the idea that the US government has done it?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

In fact, you can't point to tyranny, because we don't engage in it.  

 

Of course not. :rolleyes:

 

Shit, we could just look at the TSA and be done with it. And probably Guantanamo. And drone strikes that regularly kill civilians. And US bullying around the world telling everyone everywhere what they can and can't do. We could look at FACTA, the IRS and health insurance purchase mandates. We could mention the ironically named USA PATRIOT ACT. Then there are certainly dozens of examples of smaller tyrannies the US government engages in that involve things like the war on drugs, dictating what your toilet, shower head, light bulbs and dishwashers can or can't do. We can mention the raids and prosecution of raw food and milk operations. Shoot we could even mention the alarmingly more frequent examples of police officers in the US using "undue severity or harshness" and, more often than not, getting a paid vacation and then exoneration for their actions. We could look ate the US federal government's actions (both public and behind the scenes) against Julian Assange and Bradley Manning. We could discuss Waco and Ruby Ridge. Heck even the example you gave in another thread about the Department of Justice leaning on Gallup after some polls showed negatively for Obama is a example. Even the prosecution of whistle blowers (which Obama has done more of than an previous president) is an example.

 

Shall I stop now?

 

The list is actually quite long (and not a little disturbing.)

 

These are forms and degrees of tyranny. Some are clearly less serious than others. But they are all applications of absolute (and overreaching and unrestrained) government power.

 

This is what governments do...including the US governments.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Nice try.  "You won't accept any other evidence, so I won't offer any."

 

Actually, he's right. If you wouldn't even consider Japanese internment a form of and degree of tyranny, you're unlikely to accept just about anything (or will find some way to justify whatever is offered...just as you have with this example.)

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Sorry, Jazz...you look silly on this one.

 

Sorry, SDW...you look silly on this one.

 

You're blind "patriotism" has led you to a point where you seem unable to recognize the point to which the US governments have evolved (and appear to be heading.)


Edited by MJ1970 - 9/17/12 at 2:13pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #142 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Tell us that when you've been forcibly put into an internment camp of some kind.

 

 

Says he who also has never been put into an internment camp.  

 


 

 

 

Quote:

It is all of those thing also.

 

 

 

Is this because you don't like the word or the idea that the US government has done it?

 

I think the word doesn't fit.  I think the U.S. government has not engaged in it.  

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Of course not. :rolleyes:

 

Shit, we could just look at the TSA and be done with it. And probably Guantanamo. And drone strikes that regularly kill civilians. And US bullying around the world telling everyone everywhere what they can and can't do. We could look at FACTA, the IRS and health insurance purchase mandates. We could mention the ironically named USA PATRIOT ACT. Then there are certainly dozens of examples of smaller tyrannies the US government engages in that involve things like the war on drugs, dictating what your toilet, shower head, light bulbs and dishwashers can or can't do. We can mention the raids and prosecution of raw food and milk operations. Shoot we could even mention the alarmingly more frequent examples of police officers in the US using "undue severity or harshness" and, more often than not, getting a paid vacation and then exoneration for their actions. We could look ate the US federal government's actions (both public and behind the scenes) against Julian Assange and Bradley Manning. We could discuss Waco and Ruby Ridge. Heck even the example you gave in another thread about the Department of Justice leaning on Gallup after some polls showed negatively for Obama is a example. Even the prosecution of whistle blowers (which Obama has done more of than an previous president) is an example.

 

Shall I stop now?

 

Yes, you should. Because while some or all of those things are troubling, inappropriate, concerning and even things that make me angry..they are not "tyranny" as in "the acts of a tyrant."   

 

 

 

Quote:

The list is actually quite long (and not a little disturbing.)

 

These are forms and degrees of tyranny. Some are clearly less serious than others. But they are all applications of absolute (and overreaching and unrestrained) government power.

 

This is what governments do...including the US governments.

 

We agree that the US government (and all others) overreact, grow to big and powerful, etc.  I simply think the word "tyranny" doesn't apply, especially when we compare the US to most other places in the world.  

 

 

Quote:

 

Actually, he's right. If you wouldn't even consider Japanese internment a form of and degree of tyranny, you're unlikely to accept just about anything (or will find some way to justify whatever is offered...just as you have with this example.)

 

 

Thanks for telling me what I'm likely to accept.  You apparently have that right now, given that I disagree that the internment of the Japanese was "tyrannical."   

 

 

 

Quote:

 

 

Sorry, SDW...you look silly on this one.

 

 

You're blind "patriotism" has led you to a point where you seem unable to recognize the point to which the US governments have evolved (and appear to be heading.)

 

 

 

I understand exactly where it's heading, and I don't like it.  That doesn't make the term fit any more.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #143 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Says he who also has never been put into an internment camp.

 

At least I can identify it as the tyranny it is, while you refuse to.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I think the word doesn't fit.  I think the U.S. government has not engaged in it.  

 

Apparently.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yes, you should. Because while some or all of those things are troubling, inappropriate, concerning and even things that make me angry..they are not "tyranny" as in "the acts of a tyrant."

 

OK. You win. The US governments don't and never have engaged in any form of tyranny. :rolleyes: But I strongly disagree.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

We agree that the US government (and all others) overreact, grow to big and powerful, etc.  I simply think the word "tyranny" doesn't apply, especially when we compare the US to most other places in the world.

 

I see. So you're grading on a curve. Got it.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Thanks for telling me what I'm likely to accept. You apparently have that right now, given that I disagree that the internment of the Japanese was "tyrannical."

 

I simply making an educated guess about what you would accept given your denial of that particular tyranny.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I understand exactly where it's heading, and I don't like it.

 

And where is that?


Edited by MJ1970 - 9/17/12 at 2:37pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #144 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

At least I can identify it as the tyranny it is, while you refuse to.

 

 

 

Have I been asked to identify it, or just agree with you and Jazz?  

 

 


 

 

 

Quote:

Apparently.

 

 

 

OK. You win. The US governments don't and never have engaged in any form of tyranny. :rolleyes: But I strongly disagree.

 

 

I don't believe the term fits.   From your link:  "Tyranny is usually thought of as cruel and oppressive, and it often is, but the original definition of the term was rule by persons who lack legitimacy, whether they be malign or benevolent."    

 

Do you believe our leaders lack legitimacy?  

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

I see. So you're grading on a curve. Got it.

 

 

I see.  So you're looking at the issue as if it exists in a vacuum.  Got it.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:

I simply making an educated guess about what you would accept given your denial of that particular tyranny.

 

 

And I'm saying that's a gigantic pile of shit.  You've not even asked me to define tyranny or provide examples.  You have, however, refused to provide other examples yourself.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:
And where is that?

 

Let me guess...I outline where I see our government going in terms of size and scope.  You agree and then try to label it "tyranny."  Do I have that about right?  Yes, I think I do. 

 

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #145 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Have I been asked to identify it, or just agree with you and Jazz?

 

You have denied that the internment of Japanese people is any form of tyranny. What more can be said about this?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

I don't believe the term fits.   From your link:  "Tyranny is usually thought of as cruel and oppressive, and it often is, but the original definition of the term was rule by persons who lack legitimacy, whether they be malign or benevolent."    

 

Do you believe our leaders lack legitimacy?

 

So you picked one statement. Did you bother to read beyond the first sentence?

 

But to answer your question: In many of their actions, yes. By virtue of the fact that in many of the things I listed they are quite simply a violation of the constitution they are all sworn to uphold. Their failure to adhere to and uphold it reduces or eliminates their legitimacy.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I see.  So you're looking at the issue as if it exists in a vacuum.  Got it.

 

No, I just don't think something is not bad (or not tyrannical) because someone else is more bad (or more tyrannical.) As you appear to believe.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

And I'm saying that's a gigantic pile of shit.

 

And now we have the true SDW showing his true colors.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You've not even asked me to define tyranny or provide examples.

 

No one is stopping you. Feel free to give us your definition and examples. You've just been too busy denying any of the examples you've been given are tyranny in anyway.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You have, however, refused to provide other examples yourself.

 

I gave a whole list of examples. You waved them off.

 

As I said, you win. The US governments don't or never have engaged in any form of tyranny. If that makes you feel better.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #146 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

You have denied that the internment of Japanese people is any form of tyranny. What more can be said about this?

 

 

 

So you picked one statement. Did you bother to read beyond the first sentence?

 

But to answer your question: In many of their actions, yes. By virtue of the fact that in many of the things I listed they are quite simply a violation of the constitution they are all sworn to uphold. Their failure to adhere to and uphold it reduces or eliminates their legitimacy.

 

 

 

No, I just don't think something is not bad (or not tyrannical) because someone else is more bad (or more tyrannical.) As you appear to believe.

 

 

 

And now we have the true SDW showing his true colors.

 

 

 

No one is stopping you. Feel free to give us your definition and examples. You've just been too busy denying any of the examples you've been given are tyranny in anyway.

 

 

 

I gave a whole list of examples. You waved them off.

 

As I said, you win. The US governments don't or never have engaged in any form of tyranny. If that makes you feel better.

 

 

Why are you incapable of simple disagreement?  You're welcome to your opinion on tyranny.  I simply don't believe that Japanese internment qualifies as tyranny.  I also don't think your other examples qualify.  But the whole thing has become semantics anyway.  Tyranny or not, we both agree that our government is too big and too powerful. 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #147 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Why are you incapable of simple disagreement?

 

I'm not. But thanks for sharing your opinion that I am.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You're welcome to your opinion on tyranny.  I simply don't believe that Japanese internment qualifies as tyranny.  I also don't think your other examples qualify.

 

I know.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

But the whole thing has become semantics anyway.

 

Maybe. Maybe not.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #148 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

I'm not. But thanks for sharing your opinion that I am.

 

 

 

I know.

 

 

 

Maybe. Maybe not.

 

 

 

 

Quote:

"You have denied that the internment of Japanese people is any form of tyranny. What more can be said about this?"

 

 

You feel the above is just disagreement?  You're clearly implying that my position is unreasonable.   You're now claiming it's just mere disagreement?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #149 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You feel the above is just disagreement?

 

No.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You feel the above is just disagreement?  You're clearly implying that my position is unreasonable.

 

Yes.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You're now claiming it's just mere disagreement?  

 

No.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #150 of 168

Why always examples citing Nazis you refer to. LET IT BE DEAD NOW.
 

post #151 of 168

I wonder who would categorize this under the tyranny column:

 

 

Quote:
Yet for the approximately 167 detainees still being held in that godforsaken gulag, 86 of whom have been cleared for release yet continue to be imprisoned at the facility, Guantanamo Bay is a lesson in injustice, American-style. It is everything that those who founded America vigorously opposed: kidnapping, torture, dehumanizing treatment, indefinite detention, being “disappeared” with no access to family or friends, and little hope of help from the courts.

 

Nah.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #152 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I wonder who would categorize this under the tyranny column:

 

 

 

Nah.

 

You have to be kidding me.  Gitmo?  Gitmo is "tyranny?"  Oh boy.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #153 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You have to be kidding me.  Gitmo?  Gitmo is "tyranny?"  Oh boy.  

 

You have to be kidding me. Unlawful detention? Detention after clearance for release? Torture? That is not tyranny? Oh boy.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #154 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I wonder who would categorize this under the tyranny column:

 

 

Quote:
Yet for the approximately 167 detainees still being held in that godforsaken gulag, 86 of whom have been cleared for release yet continue to be imprisoned at the facility, Guantanamo Bay is a lesson in injustice, American-style. It is everything that those who founded America vigorously opposed: kidnapping, torture, dehumanizing treatment, indefinite detention, being “disappeared” with no access to family or friends, and little hope of help from the courts.

 

Nah.

I would.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #155 of 168

Let them all rot there who cares!
 

post #156 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

You have to be kidding me. Unlawful detention? Detention after clearance for release? Torture? That is not tyranny? Oh boy.

 

"Clearance for release?"  Uh, OK.  

 

"Torture."  Uh, OK.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #157 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

"Clearance for release?"  Uh, OK.  

 

"Torture."  Uh, OK.  

 

Is that some form of argument?

 

What shall we call this? Argumentum de incredulity?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #158 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Is that some form of argument?

 

What shall we call this? Argumentum de incredulity?

 

You think we "torture" at Gitmo and seem to believe we're holding 167 innocent people.  Naturally, you label this "tyranny."    Not much more to say about that.  It speaks for itself.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #159 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You think we "torture" at Gitmo and seem to believe we're holding 167 innocent people.  Naturally, you label this "tyranny."    Not much more to say about that.  It speaks for itself.  

 

Again I notice that you fail to actually make an argument. Instead you rely merely on argumentum de incredulity and argument de innuendo.

 

Oh well.

 

I'm beginning to believe that you would never recognize anything the US government does as tyranny in any degree, shape or form.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #160 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Again I notice that you fail to actually make an argument. Instead you rely merely on argumentum de incredulity and argument de innuendo.

 

Oh well.

 

I'm beginning to believe that you would never recognize anything the US government does as tyranny in any degree, shape or form.

 

1)  I don't consider those actions tyranny.   That much is correct. 

 

2)  Hypocrisy much?  You are accusing me of not making a real argument, and you post...that?  LOL. 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Paul Ryan thinks you are a bunch of fucking idiots.