Reasons why the NeoCons aren't real Republicans

What I asked for was the same level of outrage. Moreover, what I asked for was historical incidents of outrage at comments Republicans had already made. (What I asked was "have we?")The Rove comments are an emerging situation and not typical of Dem response to the pattern of Republican outrage. Like I said, he's one for twelve. That's hardly the same pattern of consistently feigned offense and posturing coming from the Republicans literally any time the words "Nazi" or "gulag" are used by someone they oppose.Hopefully what's going on with Rove is an example of an emerging Democratic spine. I suspect, however, that what's going to happen is that the White House is going to keep saying "we support Rove's statements" and Rove will be safe behind that invincible bullwark. Rove will not apologize and the Democrats will suffer politically, which is what always seems to happen when they turn Republican tactics against them.Republicans have perfected feigned outrage to a political art. Something unknown among Democrats, as I showed.

That's what an "unlawful enemy combatant" (a concept, btw, that does not appear in any of the Geneva Conventions) is - a criminal.What it means to be a lawful combatant is that you're immune from criminal prosecution for the "regular" acts involved in prosecuting a war. I.e. you can't be tried for murder for shooting people on a battlefield.On the other hand, if you don't fall under that rubric, then your wartime activities are inherenly criminal acts, and you're a criminal.But to suggest that members of an irregular insurgency have such a unique status that they fall outside of even the universal human rights granted to all individuals regardless of status in the Geneva Conventions is an unsupportable legal fiction. It's an outright lie, and it betrays a staggering ignorance of international wartime law. It's bad enough coming from someone like you. That our government officials also parrot this ridiculous, dangerous lie is one more reason we're losing the war on terror.

Oh, come on. How dumb do you think I am? You've continually argued that their "unlawful enemy combatant" status sets them outside of protections against coercive, torturous interrogation. All sorts of things that you've said before. What, you think I didn't remember? If you'll read more closely, you'll see that the Wikipedia article actually contradicts your stance:

quote:

---

The critical distinction is that a "lawful combatant" (defined above) cannot be held personally responsible for acts prosecuting that combat, unless they commit war crimes or crimes against humanity. And if captured, they have to be treated as prisoners of war - basically they can be detained (more humane than killing them), but must be provided for, treated with respect, and so on.

---

If a lawful combatant cannot be held personally responsible for acts prosecuting that combat, then the logical consequence of that is that an unlawful combatant can be held so responsible; in other words, can be charged with crimes, etc.What do we call someone who commits crimes? A criminal. Unlawful combatants are criminals, Monk. What do we call people who are tried and punished for committing crimes? Criminals.Unlawful combatants are criminals. Possibly war criminals. We try them via military tribunal because they're outside of a functional civil jurisdiction, not because they're not criminals.It was suggested that they be tried and punished, and you disagreed. Why on Earth you tried to support your position with the articles of the Geneva Conventions that literally call for their trial and punishment is beyond me. Illiteracy, perhaps? I think you can take classes for that.

I don't see the difference between instituting Sharia law by fiat and merely subverting a democracy by electing officials to establish Christian theocracy "consistent with the principles of the faith."If Christianity won't allow laws inconsistent with their faith, no matter how widely supported, then Christianity has as little claim to being consistnt with democracy as you claim Islam does. We've established, as you'll recall, that the need for affirmative action continues to this date. The end date will be when minorities are no longer disadvantaged in employment and education. Well, wait now. You just said that the basis of liberal democracy was the recognition that the individual, and not the collective, was key. Now you're faulting immigrants for not assimilating into the collective? Which is it, Steve? You don't seem to sure, which makes rather suspect your conclusions on democracy.

You always act like empircism has such a narrow application that its utility lies only in the field of very technical science. How on Earth do you come to hold such a ridiculous view? What makes you think the burden of evidence and rigorous argumentation is any less simply because the discussion is not about physics or biology? For that matter haven't you ever heard of political science?

C'mon, that's stupid. There's only one history. You can't have competing facts about one single occurance.History, and even politics, is just as amienable to empirical inquiry as anything else that happens. You only suggest otherwise because its a necessary foundation for your constant attempts to promulgate perverted revisionist history.

No, there's not, if you apply some common sense. Murders based on prejudice are rare and therefore newsworthy. Murders based on sexual assault are common and therefore not newsworthy.No "liberal agenda." Just the calculus of of corporate news.

What, are you kidding? Why don't you ask your buddy Eric Rudolph about peace, tolerance, and restraint? What? How does that make any sense? If laws were all that were holding black people back, then all that was needed was the repeal of those laws. The very fact that affirmative action was instituted in the first place is proof that certain conditions mandated it; conditions that persist to this day. You can't know that. The reverse could very well be true. Well, then don't wonder. The fact that you wonder when it's a black woman, but you don't wonder if your white male doctor was top of his class or barely passed his exams is a pretty good indication that, like most people with a big hard-on about affirmative action (which will almost certainly never affect them), you're probably a racist. Hey, you're right. That must be why all us Americans and all you Canadians live in teepees, pass the peace pipe, and hunt with the bow and arrow.Oh, wait. It's funny how you can decry ethnocentrisim living, as we both do, in cultures that were imported from Europe and imposed without mercy on the native inhabitants of these lands. Uh-huh. And when the Native Americans want to live as Native Americans, where are they supposed to go?

Who believes them? You? If you don't then why do you bring them up? The simple truth is that you haven't even begun to address my post. Why is that, exactly?

No, that's exactly racism, when you use it as a predictor for the performance of black persons you have no experience with. And only racists conclude that their negative experiences with individuals of a certain race will apply to persons who have black-sounding names.You seem to have forgotten that part. The actual race of the individual was not communicated to the employer. Merely the applicant's name.When a person is declined opportunity for reasons that have everything to do with race and nothing to do with their capacity as a worker, the term for that is "racism."

In other words, you have no rebuttal. Well, what else is new? Uh-huh. Sorry but I don't take the word of racists.

Yes. Technically "speciesist", but a bigot either way. So you say, but you're the one who can't cobble together a coherent rebuttal to any of my posts to you. Morever you're the one who always instigates the name-calling. Why is that?

It's funny to see you leap to his defense when almost 100% of your threads devolve into your shrieking, ad hominem rants. Like I suspect you're about to do right now.Welcome back, Faith. The place is a whole lot less funny without you around.

You have to prove that those marks are lower, though. That's what she asked yout o do.And that's how we know you're a racist. You just automatically assume that, because someone is black, their score is 5% less than a white kid's. Yeah. You know what you call someone who believes, in the absence of any evidence, that persons of one race or another are "naturally" inferior? A racist. They did. Every single one of them. The fact that you summarily dismiss their accomplishment due to the color of their skin is how we know you're a racist.

Do you believe the word "racist" has no meaning? That no one, ever, is or has ever been a racist? Canadian Steve used the word before I did, you know. Did you criticize him for calling people racist? No, I guess you didn't.