Thank you for conceding that there is agreement, which renders your argument irrevocably damaged and incapable of being salvaged. My point was that you said Clarke's article did not agree with my take, and I'm quoting you here, "AT ALL." That your opinion is that the differences are greater than the agreement is irrelevant, as your assertion was that there was no agreement "AT ALL", yet you have just conceded that there is in fact agreement. Thank you for proving me right, and your statement incorrect. Next...
Your relevant take, obvious as it is, is that the NYT article jeopardized the war on terror, which Clarke doesn't agree with... That's why he wrote the piece, that's why the NYT published it. Next, again, and again, and again, and again....ad infinitum...
LOL! Z, it is disingenuous of you, and a tad rude, to try and insert the word "relevant" at this point. Besides, my illustrating that the program was legal, effective, and did not infringe on the privacy and rights of Americans is of course "relevant" as those issues make up the core of the Times article. Either way, your argument is irrevocably flawed. Again, I thank you for conceding that there is agreement, and therefore proving that your assertion was incorrect. Although your argument is unsalvageable, you may keep trying as much as you like...........ad infinitum...
If the program is currently effective, then Clarke would have stated that it was damaged by the NYT piece. He did nothing of the kind. Quite the contrary according to Clarke. That was the salient point he was making, that the terrorists were smart enough now to act so that the efforts to track them were rendered ineffective. Next, next, next....Again, and again, and again, ad nauseum...
Unfortunately, your statement ending with AT ALL -that never included the words "salient" or "relevant" - renders your latest interpretation irrelevant. If you would like to rephrase your statement and use words such as "relevant" and "salient," you are naturally free to do so and I'll be happy to debate you. Of course, if you do, you are only further highlighting that your existing assertion was, as proven over and over, incorrect. As your statement stands, I again thank you for conceding that there was agreement, thus proving me right and you wrong. Much appreciated, H
You really need a win that badly? You got it... Feel better? LOL... I know what I was getting at all along, and I suspect you do too, and what I saw as you take on this issue....so whatever.... For scorekeepers, that would be what? ROTFLMAO...
Uhhh, no. I was not "wrong." I admit that hapaboy was confused as to the salient point I was making regarding his comments and Clarke's reasons for his OP ED piece, so now he has clarification, and if he thinks he "wins" anything with the clarification, that is his choice. In my opinion, which continues unabated, hap's agenda was to demonstrate how the NYT actions somehow endangered the efforts to control and confront terrorism. Clarke's agenda, was to show how rendered moot the point of the opposition to the NYT's article was, as his expert opinion is that the secret spying on financial records was not really a secret to the those terrorists, and as such they were not damaged due to the innefectiveness of the "secret spying." In arguments like these which are making an overall case, it is the agenda, the main point that matters--the reason for the argument itself, not the facts that a case is built upon. People can agree on certain facts and opinions, but reach very different conclusions, which is the case with the NYT article by Clarke and Hap's position on the impact of the NYT's article. So little Nikkyboy, keep trying, keep up that stalking, keep up that Jr. High School video game mentality of "ownage." <img src=http://www.forumspile.com/Owned/Owned-BadHair.jpg>
Hey hap I hear you. It's the institutionalization of these powers that bothers me. Right now, these acts are being justified by some sort of 'extraordinary circumstances' or 'executive privilege in emergency situations' clause. The violation of civil liberties occurs when the procedural norms for such violations are in place, as they are now. If the administration had been proving all along that they were not interested in doing any end-runs, I wouldn't be so worried about it. They've tried a few, though. Again, the argument is that it's extraordinary circumstances, I understand that. No, no, it wouldn't. I can envision a much more serious situation. My only point is that that would be the only way to prsecute the kind of 'war' that is necessary here. The suspension of civil liberites would be necessary. Maybe it's the case that this is the new normal and that a shift has occurred in terms of the reasonable expectation a citizen can have regarding the protection of his civil liberties. I know the ACLU is probably not your favourite organization....I may have to go to their site to see what they have to say about this, and see if it's realistic given the attack we are under. Nik
Oh, okay. I didn't think you would admit that. You have been dead wrong so many times here, and your assertions have been exposed as such so many times, and your intellectual dishonesty has been proved so many times, that it's clear at this point that you don't have the self-confidence to admit when you're opponent has a valid point, as I have just done in my debate with hap. The OWNAGE CONTINUES!!!!! I own you because I am able to concede good points that my opponents make, and you are too fucking pinheaded to do the same. By the way... you mentioned that the statements and opinions of ET members are worthless. If this is the case, could you give us some guidance as to how we should understand this bizarre bit of information, given below (please pay special attention to the boldface text)? Profile For ZZZzzzzzzz Date Registered: 06-14-04 Status: Total Posts: 12112 (16.19 posts per day) Thanks for any help you can give us with this difficult question Editor's note: Let's see if Z makes his usual response, which would be to focus in on the word 'us' (he hates it when I speak of those who are waiting for explanations from him as a plurality. He will us that as an excuse to ignore the questions in the post - a typical tactic of the dialectically challenged).