Guantanamo Stats

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Links?

Nope. He clearly said he'd been following my posts for the last six months. If he didn't pick up on the content the first time around, then he (or you or anybody else) is (are) welcome to search and review them on your own time.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

If it was Godwin's Law, the entire utility of the poem would be destroyed, and would be of no value whatsoever. The point of the poem is to examine actions BEFORE they become a disaster. You attempting to make a "Godwin's Law" argument would have us examine any actions that harm others but not us (at least directly) only AFTER our rights had been directly impacted, at which point it would already be too late.

You seem to be taking the absurd position that we should never attempt to apply any lessons of the Holocaust to current events until AFTER the current events turn out to be catastrophes. THAT would be offensive to all parties involved, and it is nonsense.

You obviously don't understand Godwin's Law. Frequent and/or hyperbolic citing of the Holocaust cheapens legitimate citations, which yours is not.

Originally Posted by BlueK

Let's say Obama wins and the next day Pres. Bush announces he's calling a state of emergency because of the war and he isn't moving out of the white house until it's resolved. Would that be going too far or would you be supportive of the president?

Fully supportive, BlueK. In fact, I'd legally change my name to Gadianton and start a subversive movement to make Bush king.

Any other stupid questions?

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Nope. He clearly said he'd been following my posts for the last six months. If he didn't pick up on the content the first time around, then he (or you or anybody else) is (are) welcome to search and review them on your own time.

Sorry Babs, ya know I like you but that's a copout.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Sorry Babs, ya know I like you but that's a copout.

No, it's not. I feel no obligation to defend myself to anyone who hasn't bothered to follow the political forum. I don't have the time to sift through my hundreds of political posts. I'm comfortable with what I have on record. Of course I've advocated Obama, but I've repeatedly conceded his weaknesses and any potential concerns I have.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Tex

You obviously don't understand Godwin's Law. Frequent and/or hyperbolic citing of the Holocaust cheapens legitimate citations, which yours is not.



Fully supportive, BlueK. In fact, I'd legally change my name to Gadianton and start a subversive movement to make Bush king.

Any other stupid questions?

Oh, so you would draw the line somewhere? Good. You haven't once that I know of expressed where you think the limit of presidential power should be. So I figured I may as well start on the edge. At least you finally committed to something.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

No, it's not. I feel no obligation to defend myself to anyone who hasn't bothered to follow the political forum. I don't have the time to sift through my hundreds of political posts. I'm comfortable with what I have on record. Of course I've advocated Obama, but I've repeatedly conceded his weaknesses and any potential concerns I have.

You've conceded his weaknesses......right.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BlueK

Oh, so you would draw the line somewhere? Good. You haven't once that I know of expressed where you think the limit of presidential power should be.

So naturally, it's logical to assume there isn't one.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

What if power corrupts? Then it is sad for all of us. What do you suggest as an alternative? Electing nobody to the office?

SOMEBODY has to be elected. Can we at least agree on that? So if we MUST elect somebody, and if your chief concern is that the person being elected may abuse executive powers, then wouldn't you naturally vote for the person who has stood against the extension of the executive powers, rather than with the person whose party beliefs led to the extension of the powers you fear?

If you are looking for some sort of guarantee that neither person will abuse executive powers, well- sit this election out (and every other election for time immemorial), because there is no such guarantee.

Again, you want to argue Repubs v. Dems in place of answering the question directly. Has Obama stated he WILL curtail executive powers, if he has not WHY?

For the record I am equally concerned about both individuals. Yes, one must to win the office, but isn't it irresponsible of the electorate not to demand of one or the other that they curtail the expanded executive powers instead of ignore the issue all-together?

Obama in the White House with expanded executive powers + a Democrat controlled Senate = ...

I would like supporters of Obama like you to raise these questions with your knight in shining armor and demand answers. It starts here with your voice Cali. Are you a cheerleader or a responsible Democratic voter?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

You obviously don't understand Godwin's Law. Frequent and/or hyperbolic citing of the Holocaust cheapens legitimate citations, which yours is not.



Fully supportive, BlueK. In fact, I'd legally change my name to Gadianton and start a subversive movement to make Bush king.

Any other stupid questions?

And you clearly don't understand logic. I didn't cite the Holocaust. I cited a line from a poem that warns of stepping onto the path of denying others of their liberties, particularly when that denial would be offensive if it were to occur to oneself.

Given that you pay so much heed to "laws" made up by random people, here is one that actually is applicable:

Cali's Law: When Tex is involved in a debate, Tex is neither interested in the truth or in logic. He is only interested in being dogmatic, and when this is pointed out to Tex, he invariably will become sarcastic and snippy, but not particularly clever.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Again, you want to argue Repubs v. Dems in place of answering the question directly. Has Obama stated he WILL curtail executive powers, if he has not WHY?

For the record I am equally concerned about both individuals. Yes, one must to win the office, but isn't it irresponsible of the electorate not to demand of one or the other that they curtail the expanded executive powers instead of ignore the issue all-together?

Obama in the White House with expanded executive powers + a Democrat controlled Senate = ...

I would like supporters of Obama like you to raise these questions with your knight in shining armor and demand answers. It starts here with your voice Cali. Are you a cheerleader or a responsible Democratic voter?

Yes- he has said he will curtail executive powers. Are you really this obtuse? He has discussed the overreaching of the executive branch on multiple occasions. Here is one site listing several of his statements:

http://www.onemillionstrong.us/showDiary.do?diaryId=492

Again, if you are looking for someone to curtail the power of the executive branch, I fail to see how you can even consider McCain. It is all the more amusing given the timing of your question, which happens to correspond to yet another statement by Palin that expanding the powers of the VP may occur in her discretion, coupled with her endorsement of Cheney as one of the greatest VPs this nation has ever had.