I think this is getting off topic but Michael Moore's points about healthcare are so hypocritical as it is people like him that are driving up the cost of healthcare. http://www.newstarget.com/001516.html
How in the Deity's name did YOU get into law school? Did they accept applicants who had no idea what analogies and comparisons are? Here ya go. Try really hard not to move your lips when you read. The United States has a government. Communist states have/had governments. Our government runs ONE detention camp to imprison enemies. THEIR governments ran/run hundreds if not thousands of internment camps to imprison "enemies." Our government has detained just a few hundred goverment enemies in our camp. THEIR governments detained MILLIONS in their camps. Our government allows detainiees to continue worshiping according to their religion. THEIR governements could have cared less Our government feeds these detainees three square meals a day. THEIR governments starved their detainees. Our liberals scream bloody murder, go apoplectic, and have their heads explode because we have a few hundred detainees. THEIR liberals had to keep their mouths shut because if they opened them up, THEY would be thrown into the camp. Really, how hard IS THIS? For a "lawyer" like you, apparently, quite hard.
And dubya shredded the constitution, too. But in his defense, he thought it was just an old tax return.
Nicephoras is one of the most level headed people around here. It's probably best to welcome dissenters like him around here than calling them names. Personally I would love a forum (here or otherwise) where people can have reasonable debate. You can't find that in the politics forum. On the other hand, I wonder why Claymore has such a problem with Karl when he is no different than some of the liberals in the politics forum whose main style of debate is no different than what is displayed here.
Care to expand on that? I don't think I'm in the habit of calling people names and questioning their educational backgrounds as a matter of course.
No but it happens in the politics forum every ten minutes. But the people who have a problem with Karl doing it don't mind when some of the worst offenders do the same, assumingly because they are liberals.
Only with obvious trolls like BMSYNOT. I won't say it doesn't happen, but you don't typically see people making it personal.
OK, if I go over there and start an Ann Coulter thread, what's the over/under for how many posts it takes to get an "I wouldn't fuck her with Claymore's dick" post? I'd make it three
Point proven. I can find 10 personal insults a day over there. Would you like to bet your signature that I can't? Remember, several mods quit because the forum is unmoddable.
You can find 10 without even breaking a sweat. If they were funny insults, it wouldn't be so insufferable, but they are always stale ones you've seen a million times already. And the really insufferable part is, the knuckleheads think that they're being real clever with them. I'll take 1 Microwave (or Archer) insult over 100 of those stale ones. I must say, though, I'm proud of the time that Mel called me hebetudinous over there. You've got to really provoke him to get that kind of action.
Let's fact it, you are hebetudinous. Wait, what does that mean? Hold on. edit: Ok I looked it up. You are hebetudinous.
Hold on, let me look that one up to see how to use it in a sentence. Edit: You are a please select one from here and it makes me so this.
All right..I will confess. Nicephoras does say smart things...on occasion. But then again, he also says the most sophistical and lawyerly things that I simply want to scream. I used to do consulting work with some law firms. I won't do it anymore. No matter how much they would want to pay me. Frankly, there isn't enough money. What I find is that many many lawyers -- but not all -- are so incredibly arrogant about their intellect that when you tell them something so simple, and so obvious, they can't process it. They're so engaged with their own solipsistic thinking that they can't see basic ideas and fundamental principles. They think that because they went to law school, and spent three years huddled over unreadable tomes that they, somehow, have some special intellectual license or privilege. When it comes to matters of common sense, I find that I can argue rings around most lawyers. They're "smart" in an anal and very narrow way. But as I pointed out in my analogy/comparison post, when it comes to the basics, they simply drown in their own intellectual juices. As for Claymore, I will also confess -- a lot of what I say in relation to him is for effect. Then again, I don't think he, and his fellow liberals, are very smart. I think their conception of the world and much of what they insist is "right" and "good" is naive and just plain downright idiotic. So when you combine their inability to think things through, and their total incompetence when it comes to making signficant and useful distinctions (witness their agreeing so easily with the really dumb Eugene Washington about Gore's "smarts")....well, I am sorry, contempt is all I have left. Well, not only contempt...but also a finely honed sense of the absurd and ironic.
No need to get personal. I'll freely acknowledge the comparison is far from perfect, but that's mitigated by the uncertain length of detention. The interned were US citizens, which made it a very clear constitutional violation. However, we can imprison people in Gitmo with no right to trial for the duration of a "war" that has no end. A war on terror can go on forever. For a country like ours, which has the laws that it does and is a signatory to the Geneva convention, I think this is simply inexcusable. And I'm hardly alone in thinking so, either. The Economist called Gitmo Bush"s worst mistake. I don't agree with that - he's made far worse mistakes, but I do agree in principle.