Brother msfe, The USA is technically correct in saying what it has said... the Evil Ones can not be subjected to US jurisdiction, cos Cuba aint in the USA... moreover, the Evil Doers were not wearing army uniforms, and so could be rightly classified as unlawful combatants... The USA has done nothing wrong... we must now set dates for both the military courts and the forthcoming executions of the Evil Doers, who are taking up unnecessary space on the beautiful island of Cuba... we should quickly execute all of those Taliban scum and build some upmarket hotels in Guantenemo... its a waste of money keeping the Evil Doers alive... Just my 2 cents... Candle
I wasn't aware that one could "flame" an author who wasn't participating in the discussion. Are you suggesting that one or all of the group I mentioned might be lurking here. If so, then I wonder what they're doing in the chat area of trading site, and I sure hope they show themselves so we can have at it one on one. Heck, I'll take them all on. Flaming is another term for attacking a person, and not their position. By labeling anyone "idiot" "loony" "nutjob" "childish" etc. you are suggesting that their present behavior, or their opinions expressed are due to a static condition of being a lunatic, an idiot, a child, etc. You have a habit of not addressing the issue, but labeling the person who brings forth the issue. This is flaming someone, and is a tactic used by both the left and right, but most often by the right wingers when they lack the ability to make an argument strong enough to defeat the opinions of an political opponent concerning an issue at hand, so they resort to denouncing the person who espouses the idea.....thinking if they create the impression that a person is an idiot or a lunatic, then all their thinking that follows must be idiotic or lunacy. In logical argumentation, it is called an ad hominem attack, and I am not the first person in this forum who has brought your techniques of employing ad hominem and flaming tactics to your attention. The subject was msfe's posts. We were asked for opinions. I gave mine. I've previously responded to various of pieces by such authors in detail, or have presented countervailing views from other authors - depending on how interesting I thought the matters were, how much time I had, what seemed appropriate. I've seen you attacking msfe and others, sometimes foully, often insultingly and repetitiously. I don't recall your ever engaging the substance of any of the c&p's other than with blanket dismissals. You expressed your opinions in an ad hominem manner, not providing an argument for those opinions. You can focus on what I do, but is that done to say what you do is right, because I do it too? Is this just another means of justification or rationalization? Is this your way of saying that you are not a principled man, but simply one who follows the behavior of others, and justifies it on the basis of what others do? Your statements suggest that you either know very little about right wing extremists, the majority of whom hold views very different from mine, or that you are demonstrating another aspect of your customary hypocrisy - flaming me while pretending to deplore the practice, using a loaded term to argue by way of insults and generalized guilt by association rather than with logic or evidence. I challenge you to point to an "extreme" point of view that I've offered, or to give an example of an "extremist" whose views you believe are similar to mine. Until you do so, then I'll assume that anyone who has points of view different from yours, and who argues them tenaciously, must qualify as an extremist in your political dictionary. Typical tactic, focus on someone else's behavior to dodge the question. Extreme is a relative term. In today's political climate, moderates are viewed as extremists from the far right perspective. My perspective on extreme is one who denies evidence, or the validity of evidence in order to maintain their opinion, which I believe I have seen you do when it comes to the issue of the war and justification of it in spite of questions of the reasons given by Bush and company for the urgent need to have a war. We've spent a lot of time arguing about issues, and I'm offended that you discount my efforts so off-handedly. I wouldn't make a claim to "logic [that's] brilliant and irrefutable beyond question," but I've worked hard to be as precise and clear as I could, and to refer wherever possible to facts and evidence. You are offended? Good. I imagine those who run the web-sites you term loony and nutjobs are offended at your comments as well. I'd really thought you'd gotten over the need to make every discussion a pissing contest, and were through with trying to make things personal between us. I'd really though you'd gotten over the need to use inflammatory language and ad hominem attacks.
Is this Optional777???? Are you being tongue in cheek accusing others of foul language? ridicule? name calling? ...........c'mon Optional, you know I love you but YOU and I have no right to comment on anybody else ridiculing others or name calling ....You have to know your limitations and even I know i'd be a hypocrite saying this to somebody else
Are you saying that a hypocrite doesn't have the right to point out when other people are employing ad hominem arguments? Why wouldn't they have a right to do that?
"I'd really though you'd gotten over the need to use inflammatory language and ad hominem attacks." ============================================= Im talking about inflamatory language...you are not exactly known for having the cleanest mouth on the board...just ask ALICE...who has made a reapearence in the trading forum with mrMarket...
Both i guess....i don't deny my mouth or temper either...its one of my better qualities...what i find very hypocritical is how both the left and right constantly accuse the others of avoiding issues and using name calling.....It all depend on your point of view and is not exclusive to one side or the other...for instance, onthis board there is non stop bush bashing threads and I have often argued with posters who, resort to " bush wasn't;t elected he was selected" and make that their last bastion of hope...and from time to tim i see the other side resort to " Clinton should have killed bin laden when he had the chance" ...it is not exclusive to one side or the other and I would say that this board tends to be run by more liberal minded people...what I mean by that is that the majority these threads are started and fueled by left wingers IMO.....In the thread i started last week thanking America for it has given me and my family, you quickly labeled Ann Coulter a bunch of different names, including Fascist or nazi if i recall....Im pretty sure you have not read the book, yet you choose to label her with the typical left wing rhetoric of " Fascist, nazi ect.."....Right wingers on the other hand quickly label the other side as Anti American or communist...my final point though is that we all do the same labeling and resort to the same tactics.
You are right, I didn't read the book. My labeling her is not something I did quickly, I have followed her comments and writings for some time now. I watched her recently on Hannity and Colmes pumping her book, I listened to her on Colmes show, I have read her columns, and I have watched her numerous times on a variety of political talk shows. She is dogmatic in her thinking, she thinks her opinions are not just opinions, but fact. And yes, I think she has fascist tendencies. She views those tendencies as a sign of patriotism, I see it differently.
OK my Brethren... enough of this antagonism... peace and love to all of you, including to our Brother msfe...
I am slightly amused: a bunch of Yanks can't handle a Swiss making critical postings. You guys deserve to be ridiculed, by the likes of MSFE, and of course others. Thanks to heaven that most Americans I know are as disgusted by types like you as I am. I really wonder what you people think when they land at any European airport and find out that the taxi driver does not speak that corruption of an old European language, that you miscommunicate in. I have a friend in Trondheim (small town in central Norway, but you wouldn't know even where that is) who always enjoys going to New York and speaking with the people there in Norwegian. Most of the time he says they don't realise that he is having a good time there cos when the Yanks realise that he does not speak English, they not only treat him with respect, but - lo and behold - leave him alone! So you don't like some critical C&P? The Guardian is not pro-Bush enough? And you cannot even read a French newspaper? Go get stuffed