She probably is, too. I mean, what's she holding in her right hand? And is it battery operated,or does she have to plug it in?
Really? What's your source for that classified information? Or is this another one of those many there goes matt pretending to know something he doesn't know moments?
I'm not disagreeing with your larger point, but the situation in the former Yugoslavia--where hatred and bigotry were artificially inflamed and encouraged against the indigenous Muslim population--was a very different situation than the problems Western Europe is having in dealing with their first-and -second generation Muslim immigrants. That's not to say you're otherwise wrong--I think you're right--but your analogy isn't apt.
You asked for stats showing anti-muslim sentiments being high. He answers it. Rather than change your point, why don't you just shut up.
And you know the other way, I'm sure. You keep on avoiding my question. Why would Bush expand the imprisionment at Gitmo. Does he enjoy torture and capture for their sake alone or is it something else?
FDR interred thousands of innocent Japanese-American CITIZENS and took away their property and he's still a hero and an example to many if we got over that, we'll get over this
We "got over" it because we stopped doing it, and later realized it was wrong. FDR is well regarded in spite of the interrment camps.
Not so much. We stopped doing it because the war was over, not out of any moral obligation. Edit: That's better
Bull. There are poll numbers, some of which Foos put up, that say otherwise. There has been talk in Congress of internment centers already. You're welcome to brush off these people as fringe elements, but that either means the fringe is bigger than we might think or the beliefs can be found in a portion of the general population.
You've stopped reading entirely haven't you? What book on tape you listening to lately, and is it any good?
20% is not enough to make a lick of difference. Everything else is a reasonable, measured analysis even if you choose to disagree with it.
This is the difference between you and me, matt. I have no idea whether or not there are other people in US custody who are in the same category of the guantanomo detainees, so I don't pretend to know. So just for the record, we have documented another time when matt has made something up and passed it off as fact. So when I remind you later, you won't deny it. Anyway, if the administration has detained so many muslims for so long on the thinnest whisp of dubious hearsay evidence, because presumably they feel there is some intelligence, deterrence, or punishment reason to do so, I have no reason not to believe that he would go further if he believed the american public and the international community gave him a freer hand to do so. To this day, we'd have remnants of the Northern Alliance handing over people they deem to be taliban and al qaeda elements and torturing them in guantanamo for punishment and intelligence purposes. This administration has shown that they are not interested in the guilt or innocence of the detained individuals, they're willing to hold these people for so long, and torture some of them, on the off chance that one or two might have a morsel of relevant information. Why would they stop now unless they were forced to.
This isn't World War II. As of right now there doesn't seem to be a VJ Day for us in the near future. So without a finite end, will the problem really just end? I think this is a different scenario, and while I think (I repeat) it is unlikely such sentiment is ever likely to result in seriously negative actions, it isn't out of the realm of possibility.
I edited my comment because I realized I was implying otherwise. The point is--it did stop, and there was a definate time frame. But I see that you realized that. Which is beside the point--it was wrong, and we now know that. The interrment camps were a stain on FDR's otherwise strong legacy.
There is also nothing in the platform about growing government or setting spending records. This is not your father's conservative Republican party.
20% feel that enemy combatants should be held indefinitely without trial. That is the smallest percentage available, and has little to do with what I'm talking about, but I see you jumped on it nicely. That isn't what I'm concerned about. It is the 60% who see torture as justifiable. The 40% who believe that captives should be afforded no legal rights. Those are the people who need a 2x4 to the head.
He's got a couple of innocent Mexicans there too, I think. So it's not just an Arab thing. 1984 ain't so bad if it's egalitarian.
You are positivly obnoxious. I never calimed to have absolute knowledge of anything. Your assumption that George Bush jerks off to the thought of imprisioning people is just as much of an assumption as my belief that if the United States believes that someone is a threat, they will detain them just as they have before. But you have no interest in talking like a human being. I was only interested in having a conversation about what you thought the presidents motives were. But instead you decided to be a raving douchebag. So, thanks for the chat, dickhole. It has once again been a pleasure.
Bigot??? my, you must be one of the open-minded people around here FDR abused the rights US Citizens, he imprisoned them and took their property in violation of the US Constitution if he's still a hero to you then look in the mirror before you start calling people names
Okay, stupid, virtually one off obviously insane statemets on moronic talk show radio stations are hereby condemned. Can we get a voice vote?
Yeah, exactly, you swarthy belgian dutch wannabe. I mean Serbia is the country right above Italy that is "allegedly" neutral, right? Flemish Hombre, are you saying that Muslims are treated worse here in the states, that violence against Muslims is more likely here in the states, than in Western Europe? I just think it's a given that tensions in Europe surrounding Muslim immigrants are far greater than in the states. Not even worth debating. We love our whirling dirvishes more than you do, even though we give them shit on AM radio.
I asked for stats and he doesn't show stats and that is good enough for you? Guess I didn't shut up, did I?
Wait, do you think the radio station host made the objectionable comments? If the he you're referring to is me, you're not helping your case for competency.