Warrantless wiretapping ruled illegal

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Bascule, you did barrage Pangloss with generalities, and it is rather irritating. Instead of picking two or three to back up and pretending the rest don't exist, either admit the rest were generalities or back them up too.

[bascule]

You know, if there is one thing I cannot stand in online debate it's people who, when confronted with their errors, draw things out endlessly by spinning and obfuscating details and focusing on side issues, in desperate hope that other observers will lose interest and drift away from the topic, or even better, assume that both sides are in error and call the match a draw.

 

The phrase you're looking for is "red herring"

 

It's a pathetic, weasly thing to do, cheapening debate and lowering the value of all other discussions that take place here.

 

Would you like to take another shot at your last reply, Bascule?

 

I was trying to get back to the topic at hand, namely the court ruling. What is it you'd like me to address?

[bascule]

Bascule, you did barrage Pangloss with generalities, and it is rather irritating. Instead of picking two or three to back up and pretending the rest don't exist, either admit the rest were generalities or back them up too.

 

I guess I'll start a thread on the history of post-9/11 terror cases in the US.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Instead of picking two or three one to back up and pretending the rest don't exist, either admit the rest were generalities or back them up too.

[bascule]

Instead of picking two or three [ins=8-18-06]one[/ins'] to back up and pretending the rest don't exist, either admit the rest were generalities or back them up too.

 

There's only two real statements being made there:

 

The Bush Administration has a history of attempting to increase the power of the executive

 

The Bush Administration has dramatically overstated the problems of terrorism

 

I'd much rather defend the latter than the former.

 

They are both generalities, yes.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Also

The Al Qaeda network is effectively dead.

 

I believe we're seeing the same thing happening in the UK right now with the "hair gel bombers" and I believe they were captured due to pressure from the US and not because the opposed an immediate threat.

Which Pangloss responded to, and you ignored:

(I asked you a SPECIFIC probing question about that, and you didn't reply, and yet here you are repeating the assertion without even responding to the question. Do you really want to "talk specifics", or do you just want to further your agenda?)

[Pangloss]

Exactly.

 

You know, there's a reason I don't talk to creationists about evolution. What's the point? It's not that they don't have any valid observations at all, it's that they subvert and spin all logic and reason in order to further their faith-based agenda.

 

Just like the Anybody-But-Bush crowd. Or the 9/11 conspiracy nuts. There is no difference.

 

That's the sense I get from you about this -- that it's a waste of time talking to you about these issues, because you're determined to push an "impeach Bush" agenda ahead of such annoying little things as "burden of proof" or "public safety".

 

Like I said, I think you're better than that. I actually have a very high regard for your opinion. But you've thrown this out there now, and I feel like I have no choice but to ask you about it. You said it, and if you're willing to compromise logic and reason and even your own opinions for the sake of an agenda, then why would I want to listen to you on any subject?

 

Please tell me I'm not wasting my time listening to you, bascule.

[bascule]

Which Pangloss responded to, and you ignored

 

That's because it would take me several hours to put together the case research for a proper reply. At this point, I guess I'm willing to do that, give me a day or two.

[bascule]

That's the sense I get from you about this -- that it's a waste of time talking to you about these issues, because you're determined to push an "impeach Bush" agenda ahead of such annoying little things as "burden of proof"

 

He's signed off on a program ruled unconstitutional by a federal court over 30 times. Are you saying that isn't grounds for impeachment?

 

or "public safety".

 

My belief is that our civil liberties are being sacrificed for causes which don't particularly increase safety. I also think more pressing concerns have gone by the wayside with "terror" receiving undue focus.

 

Like I said, I think you're better than that. I actually have a very high regard for your opinion. But you've thrown this out there now, and I feel like I have no choice but to ask you about it. You said it, and if you're willing to compromise logic and reason and even your own opinions for the sake of an agenda, then why would I want to listen to you on any subject?

 

When exactly have I "compromise(d) logic and reason"?

 

Please tell me I'm not wasting my time listening to you, bascule.

 

You seem to have quite a double standard in your dealings with me. You decry me for my opinions, then come back at me with crap like:

 

You think the comparison with 9/11 conspiracy theories was invalid and insulting? Too bad. You've made your bed. Now you get to sleep in it. If you find it uncomfortable, well I truly am sorry, but you are wallowing in the mud with pigs. When you care more about spinning the truth and winning political victories at all costs, people like me step up and point out to other people what those costs are. And that's when you lose.

[Pangloss]

The arrest of your so-called "hair-gell bombers" produced information that directly lead to the capture of Matiur Rehman today in Pakistan, Bascule. And he holds the key to the potential arrest of an entire network of terrorists.

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/08/new_clues_in_hu.html

 

But no, to you that's just another example of the Bush administration's foul-ups. No, that can't possibly be a victory of any kind.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

He's signed off on a program ruled unconstitutional by a federal court over 30 times. Are you saying that isn't grounds for impeachment?

Only those Presidents who have committed treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors (says the Constitution) may be impeached. And besides, that ruling may be appealed.

 

You seem to have quite a double standard in your dealings with me. You decry me for my opinions, then come back at me with crap like:

I see no double standard.

 

edit: Now, Pangloss, don't you start going off the deep end too.

[Pangloss]

That's because it would take me several hours to put together the case research for a proper reply. At this point, I guess I'm willing to do that, give me a day or two.

 

No it won't, it takes five seconds. I asked you "have you heard anything further about what the administration's motive might have been?" I asked you for a mere opinion, not a research paper, and it seems to me now, in light of THIS discussion, that you didn't answer because you couldn't think of an answer that fit your agenda.

[bascule]

I see no double standard.

 

I guess a non-stop barrage of insults is fine, but expressing your opinion isn't.

 

I've refrained from posting extensively in this forum due to the general attitudes around here, and clearly, that hasn't changed. Let's forget all of this, and I'll go back to staying out of here.

[Saryctos]

I guess a non-stop barrage of insults is fine' date=' but expressing your opinion isn't.

 

I've refrained from posting extensively in this forum due to the general attitudes around here, and clearly, that hasn't changed. Let's forget all of this, and I'll go back to staying out of here.[/quote']

I LoLed

[Pangloss]

Bascule, if you're not willing to take responsibility for your posts, then I agree that it's best that you, shall we say, stay out of the kitchen.

 

I'm sorry you feel that way -- like I said, I have a high regard for your opinion. But I can't in good conscience let what you did in this thread stand, and you know it.