The real enemy is ...

[Oakman]

Ilíon wrote:

But surely no more widespread than the similar agreement as applies to you

Sure, Troy. Both of your heads agree, I'm sure. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[oilFactotum]

Oakman wrote:

I'm afraid you do.

No, I don't.

Oakman wrote:

That document deals only with the history of avowed left-wing terrorist groups.

false. Do read the report(Including the title:The Current threat) before you embarrass yourself further.

Oakman wrote:

could find nothing

Then you obviously didn't try.

[Oakman]

oilFactotum wrote:

Do read the report(Including the title:The Current threat) before you embarrass yourself further.

I did. Which makes one of us.

oilFactotum wrote:

Then you obviously didn't try.

My guess is this means you did and your search was as fruitless as mine. Why don't you just admit it when you make a mistake?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Rob Graham]

"You did it first" - what a terrific defense of the hypocrisy shown by the left in seizing the surveillance powers they once railed against with more gusto than ever shown by the right... You should be very proud of yourselves.

[Synaptrik]

Unfortunately the tactic is wrong, but the underlying message I think was lost, which was this is the result of selective support. And why its dangerous to support under any administration. Power received is rarely relinquished. So arguing for surveillance under Bush, which turns out Cheney was using against democrats in office, has the backlash of the next incoming party using it for much the same. If you rail against it at all it should be against all.

This statement is false

[oilFactotum]

Rob Graham wrote:

"You did it first" - what a terrific defense of the hypocrisy

I made no defense of gov't surveillance. But Stan has, and very vigorously. He really has no room to complain, as a result.

[Rob Graham]

Synaptrik wrote:

If you rail against it at all it should be against all.

I couldn't agree more, and find defenses like "you started it" and "Serves you right for having started it" to be feeble and hypocritical. Those who make such statements reveal clearly that their objection was a partisan in nature all along, rather than a sincere opposition out of principle. Stan and Oily both fail that test, IMO.

[Rob Graham]

You certainly don't seem to disapprove now. Silent acceptance differs little from tacit approval, and "you reap what you sow" strongly suggests that you actually approve.

[oilFactotum]

Rob Graham wrote:

You certainly don't seem to disapprove now.

Why should I care how it seems to you?

Rob Graham wrote:

Silent acceptance differs little from tacit approval

And you have been silent for the past 8 years. Clearly you must really approve.

Rob Graham wrote:

"you reap what you sow" strongly suggests that you actually approve.

What it strongly suggests is schadenfreude.

[Oakman]

Synaptrik wrote:

So arguing for surveillance under Bush, which turns out Cheney was using against democrats in office, has the backlash of the next incoming party using it for much the same. If you rail against it at all it should be against all.

Well said. But I doubt that any of the True Believers will think you are talking to and about them.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

oilFactotum wrote:

And you have been silent for the past 8 years.

Same technique, just with a twist. But the truth is that you are either lying, if you know - as I do - that Rob has spoken out against government intrusion often during Bush's presidency, or you are making up something to attack him with because you have no better method of countering what he said.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Stan Shannon]

I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I fully support government surveillance of terrorists of any stripe. I sure as hell hope the Obama administration is keeping tabs on them. You know, people like his buddy Bill Ayers. However, it is very revealing that you are outraged by the notion of government spying on terrorists who are not white christians, but applaude it when they are. As usual, oily, you are the bright shining example of political hypocrisy here, not me.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

union workers

You mean these guys?[^] Why? Is that a problem? But, yeah, Jon, you are absolutely correct. I believe exactly the same thing about the people who put Obama into power as they feel about me. I don't consider them to be my countrymen. I want to be liberated from them. And, yes, if there were a political movement, with a real, elected, political head, to achieve that, I would lend it my support without hesitation. I hate these people. I wish them nothing but ill. Not very christian of me, I know, but there it is.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

Le Centriste wrote:

I remember you calling people that did not agree with you "communists", "leftits", etc, even if they are not.

No, I call people who are "communists", "leftists", etc, "communists", "leftists", etc. You know, people like you and B.Obama.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

No, I call people who are "communists", "leftists", etc, "communists", "leftists", etc.

Of course you disagree with them but only because they are communists, leftists, etc. And the proof that they are communists, leftists, etc. is that they disagree with you. What a wonderfully neat closed system.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

But, yeah, Jon, you are absolutely correct. I believe exactly the same thing about the people who put Obama into power as they feel about me. I don't consider them to be my countrymen. I want to be liberated from them. And, yes, if there were a political movement, with a real, elected, political head, to achieve that, I would lend it my support without hesitation. I hate these people. I wish them nothing but ill. Not very christian of me, I know, but there it is.

As a not very good Christian, perhaps you should change your religious affilation. It's obvious that except for the name of the Suprememe Being, you and Osama agree on just about everything. Especially the hating most Americans part.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Le centriste]

Thank you for proving my point.

[Stan Shannon]

Your You're welcome.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

I've disagreed with Illion on any number of issue. I've never called him a leftist.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[oilFactotum]

Oakman wrote:

if you know

I don't know that it is true. Every conversation that I have had with him, he has either fully supported Bush's actions or denied that anything was even done. So, in one way, I was wrong - he was not silent.

Oakman wrote:

you are either lying

Your ad hominem attacks bore me.

Oakman wrote:

no better method of countering what he said.

I have no need to counter him. I have not been silent about the expansion of the surveillance state.