DebateGate

General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: hnumpah on September 18, 2006, 12:20:56 PM

Title: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: hnumpah on September 18, 2006, 12:20:56 PM
http://www.xoverboard.com/cartoons/2006_09_18.png

Gotta copy it over to your browser - it won't let you get there from here.
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: Amianthus on September 18, 2006, 12:24:26 PM
Yeah, pretty much.

It was old 5 years ago already.
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: sirs on September 18, 2006, 01:00:19 PM
It was before Bush even took office
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: Amianthus on September 18, 2006, 01:31:37 PM
It was before Bush even took office

Yeah, I know. Which is why it was getting old already 5 years ago.
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: sirs on September 18, 2006, 02:02:27 PM
The best some of these BDS folks can come up with in trying to rationalize Bush = Hitler, is that we can no longer talk to foreign terrorists, without the call possibly being monitored, or red flags going up at the FBI if we were to check out a horde of Jihad made Easy, Bombmaking for Dummies , & How to hide among your neighbors 101 books.  That apparently equates with rounding up & exterminating millions of Jews, and trying to apply a New World Order, that everyone is to follow.      ???
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: _JS on September 18, 2006, 02:52:57 PM
I don't think it is outdated so much as not useful. Clearly Bush isn't similar to Hitler. Bush is not a Fascist. In fact, it is difficult to say what political philosophy Bush follows, if any. Perhaps some kind of patrician opportunist? I'd say that is as close as Bush comes to an actual political philosophy.

He's also clearly not as intelligent or as adept at understanding the general psyche of the people as Hitler was. Yes, the GOP and Karl Rove are spin machines with a lot of money and the ability to use information or statistics to meet their agenda - but Bush, personally has no concept of rallying the masses and using support. We can tell this easily by how quickly his 90% approval rating fell apart.

Lastly, Bush doesn't have the grapes that Hitler had (and ironically Hitler only had one). The world is better off for this and the previous characteristic as well. For example, Bush has had his own party in office and has personally been at the helm now since January 2001. What has he accomplished? Hitler had already turned around a horrible economy suffering from hyperinflation. Indeed, he would have gone down in western history as a great leader had he died in 1938 or 1939 pre-Polish invasion. The German military went from barely existent to feared throughout Europe. The army and air force had invented all new methods of warfare, never before seen in battle. German industry was envied. German national pride was extremely high.

And what has Bush accomplished, with his own party in control of Congress?

Indeed. The comparison is not useful. Hitler was one of history's true villains. Bush is just one of history's worst presidents. Villainy and incompetence aren't directly comparable.
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: hnumpah on September 18, 2006, 03:02:17 PM
Quote
The best some of these BDS folks can come up with in trying to rationalize Bush = Hitler, is that we can no longer talk to foreign terrorists, without the call possibly being monitored, or red flags going up at the FBI if we were to check out a horde of Jihad made Easy, Bombmaking for Dummies , & How to hide among your neighbors 101 books.

So, let's see, I know this guy who has traveled extensively in the Middle East and makes calls overseas to Arabs in the Middle East; he visits web sites and checks out books at the library on subjects such as exotic weapons, poisons, explosive devices, organic chemistry, and firearms; he has a collection of books he picked up over the years from Palladin Press on the same subjects, as well as survival, urban warfare, sniping, terrorism, security, and several other subjects related to warfare or surviving after the apocolypse or whatever you want to call it.

Think I should call the FBI and turn myself in?
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: Plane on September 18, 2006, 06:48:46 PM
I know this guy who has traveled extensively in the Middle East



Don't turn me in either, but should the FBI be prevented from looking ?
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: sirs on September 18, 2006, 07:11:28 PM
I know this guy who has traveled extensively in the Middle East and makes calls overseas to Arabs in the Middle East; he visits web sites and checks out books at the library on subjects such as exotic weapons, poisons, explosive devices, organic chemistry, and firearms; he has a collection of books he picked up over the years from Palladin Press on the same subjects, as well as survival, urban warfare, sniping, terrorism, security, and several other subjects related to warfare or surviving after the apocolypse or whatever you want to call it.  Think I should call the FBI and turn myself in?[/color]

I don't see anything about Jihad made easy, and Islamic Terrorism is your Friend, so no, I see no reason.  Do you?  I have several firearms reference materials myself, though nothing related to terrorism.  Perhaps just keep focused on purchasing such books, vs checking anything out. 
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: Plane on September 18, 2006, 07:14:35 PM
   I have always suspected that the Palidin Press is an FBI frount.
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: sirs on September 18, 2006, 07:15:02 PM
Don't turn me in either, but should the FBI be prevented from looking ?

Excellent clarification, Plane
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: hnumpah on September 18, 2006, 08:54:29 PM
Quote
Don't turn me in either, but should the FBI be prevented from looking ?

To the point that they begin invading my privacy, no. When they begin monitoring my phone without a warrant or telling the library (or bookstore) they have to turn over records about what books I've checked out (or bought), or tell my internet provider they have to turn over records of my internet use, without a warrant, then it becomes a privacy issue.

You may be willing to give that up without a fight, in the name of security; I'm not.
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: Michael Tee on September 18, 2006, 10:05:45 PM
I think this is one more instance of the right wing's naivete.  In an ideal world where no government would ever dream of compiling lists of supporters and opponents, there's probably no reason to fear them snooping into your library records, phone calls or anything else.  Hell, they are only going to use it to catch bad guys, right?  Not a chance in hell that they'd be interested in blackmailing any political adversary they accidentally caught in an extramarital affair or checking out gay magazines behind the wife's back.  Not a chance in hell that your application for a government job would be affected by the opinions you voiced in private conversations either.

But think about it.  If there's no fear of government retaliation, why are there secret ballots?  Why not just vote on everything by open show of hands? 

A long time ago somebody figured out that democracy is fine, but the government does NOT have to know everything about you.  They are NOT as benevolent as some of our right-wing friends seem to think.  They are not above making lists and figuring out who is their kind of people and who is not.  So the right to privacy is fiercely guarded by those who care about real political freedom - - and tossed to the winds by those who do not.
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: hnumpah on September 18, 2006, 11:15:04 PM
Quote
A long time ago somebody figured out that democracy is fine, but the government does NOT have to know everything about you.  They are NOT as benevolent as some of our right-wing friends seem to think.  They are not above making lists and figuring out who is their kind of people and who is not.  So the right to privacy is fiercely guarded by those who care about real political freedom - - and tossed to the winds by those who do not.

Perzactly.
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: Lanya on September 18, 2006, 11:19:50 PM
I thought this was a truly conservative belief---one I agreed with, by the way---that the government should be kept out of our business, our privacy respected.  What happened with that?  Now Bush is talking about how he wanted to "re-invigorate" the Presidency.  Well, take the little blue pill, Mr. President. Leave us alone.
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: Amianthus on September 18, 2006, 11:22:21 PM
What happened with that?

It's been gone for about 40 years.
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: hnumpah on September 18, 2006, 11:54:40 PM
Here's the thing I don't like about the government looking into my private affairs.

Many years ago, when I went into the Army, I needed a Top Secret Crypto clearance to be able to do my job. In order to get that, I had to have a background investigation. Before that happened, I had to acknowledge that I knew that was a condition of my being able to get the clearance and be trained in the specialty I had chosen, and sign off on paperwork giving my consent for the BI.

Some months later, while I was home on leave, I had people I had known for years - schoolteachers, classmates, even relatives - ask me what kind of trouble I was in. When I asked what they were talking about, they mentioned visits by men with FBI badges, asking questions about me. When asked why they were asking about me, they wouldn't say why, which led folks to believe I might be in some sort of trouble.

Flash forward to now. I have a job in the transportation industry, where I have to have access to government facilities from time to time; specifically, to the local Marine Terminal, where military equipment and weapons are gathered, stored and shipped overseas. It is none of the government's business what overseas calls I make, or what web sites I visit, or what books I buy or check out at the library, or what my interests run to aside from my job. But what do you think my boss would do if some FBI agent showed up at my job, asking questions about me and refusing to say why, based on information the government gathered illegally about my phone contacts, reading habits, and web browsing habits?

That's why they are supposed to get a warrant. They are supposed to have to go to a judge and show just cause why they should be able to invade my privacy and gather that information. They are supposed to have a compelling reason why that should be allowed, some proof that there is some sort of activity going on that they need to investigate - not just some guy who has friends overseas, in the Middle East, from his travels there over the years; not just some guy who has always had an interest in the subjects I mentioned earlier, and checks out books in the library or buys books or visits web sites to pursue his interest in those subjects.
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: Plane on September 19, 2006, 01:03:49 AM
http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/speccoll/dspolitic/Hitler.html


Dr. Suess does Hitler.

They are all good.
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: sirs on September 19, 2006, 01:16:36 AM
It does get a tad irritating to frequently see distotrions being made as it relates to the the NSA program, the monitoring of FOREIGN terrorists phone calls, and Datamining.  All this bogus implication of widestpread domestic recording.  A) what monitoring that's going on has been going on for many an administration.  b) what listening that's occuring is that of FOREIGN terrorists' calls coming into the U.S. vs the egregious claims of widespread domestic wiretapping

Now, unless anyone wants to demonstrate (WITH FACTS/EVIDENCE) to supposed widespread wiretapping of domestic calls, you can consider your claims of such completely uncredible, but loaded with AMBE

Of course, then you have Tee's upside down alternate reality confirmation tactic, that the lack of any such evidence, proves the allegations    ::)
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: Plane on September 19, 2006, 03:09:56 AM
(http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/speccoll/dspolitic/pm/1942/20211cs.jpg)
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: Plane on September 19, 2006, 03:16:04 AM
(http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/speccoll/dspolitic/pm/1942/20515cs.jpg)
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: hnumpah on September 19, 2006, 09:16:24 AM
Poor Sirs.

I guess he hasn't read any reports of librarians, book sellers, phone companies, etc being asked to turn over customers records. Hardly anyone has. Why? Because those folks are then served with papers prohibiting them from disclosing to anyone, even the customer involved, that the government has been checking up on them. I've seen a couple such reports make the news over the last few months, usually when the person who was forced to turn over the records refused or went to an attorney to sue over the government's methods, which then of course put them in violation of the law because they told someone what had happened.

Haven't seen anywhere yet where only incoming calls are monitored. I would imagine, though, it is possible someone I know in, say, Lebanon is on some sort of watch list, and their calls to me could be monitored, which would then theoretically give the government snoops cause to monitor my outgoing calls to see who else I associate with. Or flash an FBI badge to my boss and start asking questions about me, with no explanation why, which could cost me my job.

Go to a judge, show cause, and get a warrant. Otherwise it's an invasion of privacy and an unlawful search.
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: sirs on September 19, 2006, 11:35:10 AM
The point that the FBI is able to check up on anomolous book records was pretty much conceded when it was brought up in my earlier post.  Reading for comprehension isn't a problem, on your end, is it?   Now, back to my query.  Care to show us any EVIDENCE/FACTS of these widespread domestic wiretapping??  Last time I checked it was quite specific, and your cynicism of Bush and the government isn't going to cut it as providing validity to such allegations
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: hnumpah on September 19, 2006, 01:07:16 PM
Quote
...widespread domestic wiretapping...

Who has the reading comprehension problem?

Where did I say it was widespread?

It may only be calls to and from overseas locations, in this case specifically the Middle East. My point is the government has no business monitoring them at all. CIA is prohibited by its charter from operating domestically, and NSA is prohibited by its charter from monitoring domestic phone calls. Those prohibitions were written into the charters of those organizations when they were founded to prevent exactly what Bush is doing now. That is why there was such a big stink a few years ago when NSA tried to get around it by making agreements with Britain and Canada to monitor our domestic calls, then turn the results over to NSA.

The FISA panel is there to provide warrants for such wiretaps, if cause can be shown why such warrants need to be issued. By bypassing them and usurping their power to himself, Bush is operating illegally.
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: _JS on September 19, 2006, 01:08:28 PM
If the wiretapping program is on the level, then why use the NSA and not the FBI? It is ostensibly within the FBI's purview.

Also, what about the ability to send people to prison without any legal representation or pressing charges for over four years. Surely that violates constitutional rights.
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: sirs on September 19, 2006, 01:47:03 PM
H: Who has the reading comprehension problem?  Where did I say it was widespread?

Well, since hat's what I was asking, and nothing about the FBI being able to access red flagged library records, and then you reply about the apparent widespread access to book records, one can make the logical assumption you were trying to connect the 2.

H:  It may only be calls to and from overseas locations, in this case specifically the Middle East. My point is the government has no business monitoring them at all

Well, there in lies our biggest disagreement, since I see them as having every bit of business monitoring them, considering the Fed's chief function is to protect this country from enemies both foreign & domestic, if they indeed believe they're comming from a suspected terrorist(s) overseas

JS: If the wiretapping program is on the level, then why use the NSA and not the FBI? It is ostensibly within the FBI's purview.  

Why is it not within the purview of the NSA?  Are these not overseas calls?  Is not the NSA focused on data gathering & intel regarding foreign threats?  I do believe the FBI's primary jurisdiction is within the USA.  You actually reinforce the case that this is wiretapping of FOREIGN terrorists, and their calls coming into the U.S.  But hey, why not we get both agencies, working on it?
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: sirs on September 20, 2006, 04:47:50 PM
what about the ability to send people to prison without any legal representation or pressing charges for over four years. Surely that violates constitutional rights.

Enemy combatants, especially captured on non U.S. soil don't qualify for U.S. Constitutional rights, as far as I'm aware of.  And without them donning uniforms, nor do they actually qualify for Geneva convention rights, though I concede that's currently being determined by the courts.  Were prisoners taken during WWII, Vietnam, Korea, even the prior Gulf wars given some Constitutional protections & immediate legal representation?  One more time for those slow on the grasping chain, THIS IS A WAR, NOT SOME LEGAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUE
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: BT on September 20, 2006, 05:16:42 PM
Quote
Well, take the little blue pill, Mr. President. Leave us alone

Don't think FDR can take the pill, being dead and all.
And the mechanism in which people are tracked is by their social security number. And guess who gave us that.
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: Plane on September 20, 2006, 06:01:43 PM
  Here is an entirely hypothetical idea.

   Suppose that the FBI discovered that most assassins kept three gallons of milk in their fridges?

     It would certainly still be true that most milk was sold to careing mothers and old ladies concerned with their calcium.

     But if by some quirk it was discovered that assissians generally bought a lot of milk should the FBI be able to inquire about big milk purchaces from grocers? Would that be an imposition on all the legitamate milk buyers?


        If this is too hypothetical for you , substitute Ammonium Nitrate or concentrated Hydrogen Peroxide in the place of milk in the above question.
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: sirs on September 21, 2006, 01:42:40 AM
Another excellent hypothetical, Plane.  As you've already referenced earlier, having the ability to look into red flagged acts is a far cry from some logistically impossible 24/7 monitoring of any and everyone.  The "Path to 911" demonstrated in abundance how far too often red flagged acts & memos "got shelved", and as a result, we "got shelled"       >:(
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: hnumpah on September 21, 2006, 02:24:33 AM
Quote
Another excellent hypothetical, Plane

You've got to be kidding.
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: _JS on September 21, 2006, 09:38:07 AM
The problem is that you cannot stop terrorism completely, no matter how safe and secure you want everyone to feel. The other side to this issue is that, quite frankly, not very many people die each year across the world from international terrorism. It is a very, very overstated threat.

Many people are saying that it is the top priority and the number one issue facing Americans. I think the question is - should it be? What are we giving up to fight this "war?" Don't tell me we aren't giving up anything as I know how public finances work. Everything is a trade-off of limited resources.

Is this really the horrible threat by the "enemies of freedom" that is claimed? Or is there a better way to fight it? How safe should people feel?
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: BT on September 21, 2006, 10:10:29 AM
Quote
Many people are saying that it is the top priority and the number one issue facing Americans. I think the question is - should it be? What are we giving up to fight this "war?" Don't tell me we aren't giving up anything as I know how public finances work. Everything is a trade-off of limited resources.

I agree. Let's dismantle Homeland Security ASAP.
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: _JS on September 21, 2006, 02:04:10 PM
I agree.

Thus far it has been useless.
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: Plane on September 22, 2006, 03:22:13 AM
Quote
Another excellent hypothetical, Plane

You've got to be kidding.

No we are not kidding , would you want to have Ammonium Nitrate and concentrated Hydrgen peroxide to be tracked by the federal government ?

Most of the tonnage of these things is bought by legitimate Farmers Beauty shopps and rocket hobbyists , only a tiny fraction is ever bought by the likes of Timothy McVeigh or "Shoebomber" Reid.

So for the privacy of Farmers and beuticians and rocket builders should the Federal monitoring of the sale of these chemicals be restricted?
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: hnumpah on September 22, 2006, 08:41:50 AM
My response was to your analogy of milk, and Sirs 'excellent hypothetical' remark.

If the government wants to track Ammonium Nitrate and concentrated Hydrgen peroxide, let them have at it - at least they have the excuse that those can actually be used to make weapons. But milk?
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: Plane on September 22, 2006, 08:01:10 PM
Alfred Hiuchcock was once asked about a murder that occured after the purpetrator watched one of his movies.

He replied that the murderer might have drunk a glass of milk before the murder too but preceeding the event isn't proof of cause.

Milk is seldom associated with wepon , so includeing milk makes the question entirely hypothetical and insulates it from practical consideration.

If the FBI were to notice a demographic simularity bertween assassians , a simularity that was unexplained , like a fondness for milk, would the FBI be wrong to use this demographic data to find assassians?

To track chemicals that are precursors to explosives seems more direct and practical but tracking concentrated Hydrogen Peroxide would lead you to every beautician ten percent of all barbers twenty rocket hobbyists and once in a while a bomb builder.

Tracking one factor will always generate a lot of chaff for winnowing .


But what about tracking several factors and cross referenceing them?

It is likely that a few innocent beauticians have visited web sites and checked out books that instruct on bomb building , but when the tracking shows that a person has done several things that are demographicly tipical of assissains they could still be innocent but perhaps they deserve a look.
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: sirs on September 23, 2006, 03:38:08 AM
(http://www.cnsnews.com/cartoon/nowakimages/2006/statesman.jpg)
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: Michael Tee on September 23, 2006, 11:54:14 PM
<<Of course, then you have Tee's upside down alternate reality confirmation tactic, that the lack of any such evidence, proves the allegations   >>

Alas, like all the rest of sirs' demented fantasies, this one too flunks the reality check.  Tee's basic contention, particularly with regard to the potential misconduct of secret government operations, is that lack of evidence does not disprove the allegations.  A distinction that admittedly may be a little too subtle for those reading comprehension skills which sirs loves to disparage in others.
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: sirs on September 24, 2006, 02:58:25 AM
Tee's basic contention, particularly with regard to the potential misconduct of secret government operations, is that lack of evidence does not disprove the allegations.

Yet you keep focusing on it, as if it does prove the allegations.  Point being, you have squat.  And when that FACT is presented you belly ache "Abu Graib", as if that changes the facts, which it doesn't, you still have squat.  And when pushed for facts to support the asanine claims of widespread military abuse and approved misconduct, you pull out the tried and true tact of how well it's kept under wraps, as if that's what validates your claims.

In other words, you still have squat
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: Michael Tee on September 24, 2006, 09:50:09 AM
<<Yet you keep focusing on it, [llack, or rather alleged lack of evidence] as if it does prove the allegations. >>

That's not true, either.  First of all, there IS no lack of evidence.  There's actually a good deal of evidence:


I have NEVER "focused" on lack of evidence as proof of wrongdoing.  Lack of evidence is something the DEFENDERS of torture raise to rebut the charges - - "Tee insists that  . . .  WITHOUT A SHRED of evidence that . . . " and this has to be dealt with.  I am not in the habit of simply ignoring anything said to contradict my beliefs, no matter how idiotic the contradiction may be.  I deal with it.  I point out the simple truth that government wrongdoing is not usually advertised by the wrongdoers, it is usually covered up (again, as anybody with any knowledge of the real world would be forced to admit) and given the resources they have to work under cover, it is often, most of the time, SUCCESSFULLY covered up, so that we never hear about it.

 For example, despite the passage of years, less than TEN PER CENT of the Abu Ghraib photos have ever been released to the public.  What are they afraid of?  What are they hiding?  Of course, to right-wing fantasists and persistent deniers of reality, like sirs, these pictures probably don't show anything wrong at all - - they are probably of birthday parties given by the guards for their prisoners, with everybody wearing funny paper hats and eating birthday cake.  To those of us more acquainted with the real world, those pictures probably show atrocities more horrible than anything the U.S. government has yet revealed, and are kept secret for that very reason.

So, when the non-existent "lack of evidence" is brought up - - inevitably by conservative defenders of the right to torture or by conservative deniers of torture - - the argument is answered with the common-sense proposition that OF COURSE you would not expect there to be much evidence of these things.  Even the Nazis knew better than to publicize their own misdeeds.  But to say that I focused on lack of evidence as proof of the allegations is just more total bullshit.  As usual.
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: sirs on September 24, 2006, 11:36:34 AM
LOL......priceless.  You point out areas where we're actually doing something about the abuses that have been noted, and again, that's your twisted thought process that validates the supposed rampant widespread Government supported abuses.  Your Anti-American pathology obvioulsy has no bounds       

And yea, When the fact that the # of abuses brought up was a mere fraction of what makes up the military, your frequent focus was on how well Bush and Co is able to hide all the rest of the abuses.  All without 1 scintella of facts/evidence to prove such.  Just your severe case of foaming at the mouth BDS
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: Michael Tee on September 24, 2006, 12:14:56 PM
<<You point out areas where we're actually doing something about the abuses that have been noted . . . >>

Yeah, "actually doing something.>>  That's hilarious.  It's called "whitewashing" or "damage control," and yeah, you are actually doing it.  Proving, in my "twisted thought process" what?  That this is a cover-up in process?  BINGO!!!. 

<<Your Anti-American pathology obvioulsy has no bounds >>

Right.  So now it's considered "pathological" to be AGAINST torture and AGAINST the cover-up.  "Normal," of course, in Bush's America, is to SUPPORT these things.   

<<And yea, When the fact that the # of abuses brought up was a mere fraction of what makes up the military . . . >>

LMFAO.  The "fact" that the number of abuses is a mere fraction . . .   A "fact" that exists nowhere on earth except in the delusional fantasies of sirs and his demented ilk.  As if widespread and repeated instances of torture aren't a problem unless they can be proven by demonstrative evidence to affect 85% or more of all prisoners held in US custody.

 your frequent focus was on how well Bush and Co is able to hide all the rest of the abuses.  All without 1 scintella of facts/evidence to prove such.  Just your severe case of foaming at the mouth BDS
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: sirs on September 24, 2006, 12:20:27 PM
Your meritless diatribes aside, the facts still remain the same, your examples are shown to be a mere fraction of the military, the abuses have been being dealt with, and the current treatment of our enemy combatants is nearly a polar opposite of what you keep pertuating they are.  And no one's claiming to be "for torture and cover-up", that'd just your hyperbolic knee jerk reaction to having your POV shot out of the water.   
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: Michael Tee on September 24, 2006, 01:50:59 PM
<<Your meritless diatribes aside . . .  >>

"Meritless diatribes . . . "    So that's what you call it when your ludicrous assertions are exposed for the drivel they are?  Not bad.

"Mere fraction" is hilarious, considering the thousands known to have been tortured in US custody.

Oh, and let me know when the U.S. government decides to release the rest of the Abu Ghraib photos and videos.  Must be taking an extra long time to grind out authentic-looking substitutes and find the scapegoats who will admit to taking them.
Title: Re: Is the Hitler analogy outdated?
Post by: sirs on September 24, 2006, 02:56:57 PM
"Meritless diatribes . . . " So that's what you call it when your ludicrous assertions are exposed for the drivel they are?  

No, that's what its called when accurately demonstrating that bringing up "some" abuses, that are being dealt with by the Government doesn't equate to validating claims of widespread abuse that's actually advocated by the Government.  But by all means, continue

Oh, and let me know when the U.S. government decides to release the rest of the Abu Ghraib photos and videos

 :D   See?...more of that lack of evidence is proof of evidence garbage.  Much appreciated Tee