posted
I don't believe anyone's said it'd be OK, Snay. I do, however, believe that you know that.
I see three possibilities:
1) You actually believe that Rob said what you say he said. You are therefore either not reading the thread, or you are mentally damaged.
2) You are trying to convince others that Rob said what you say he said. You must therefore assume that said others must either not be reading the thread, or be mentally damaged.
3) You're purposefully trying to cause a distraction.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:1) You actually believe that Rob said what you say he said. You are therefore either not reading the thread, or you are mentally damaged.
I believe Rob said that the Administration has had an easily dismissed thought of this subject. This is where we disagree. Rob apparently believes that if someone is gathering material to attack or kill someone, it isn't illegal because "it's just thought." In other words, if he gets cut off in rush-hour traffic, he places the same weight in his quick "I WANA KILL YOU ASSHOLE!" thought that he does to the above.
I believe that if you're in the planning stage of something illegal (even if you're considering whether its possible to commit and/or get away with a crime), you're comitting an illegal act. I believe there's a big difference between this and a quick, off-the-cuff, easily dismissed thought made in the heat of the moment.
Do you disagree? Oh, right, you didn't read the thread at all.
quote:2) You are trying to convince others that Rob said what you say he said. You must therefore assume that said others must either not be reading the thread, or be mentally damaged.
You're the biggest fool I know Omega. Go back and read the thread. I do believe what I said was that there's a different in levels of thought. Some people want to kill someone after being cut off in traffic. This is rarely acted on. On the other hands, some people begin making preperations to kill someone. By the time thought reaches this stage, it is illegal and the people should be arrested and prosecuted for it (some examples of it are conspiracy to commit murder, etc). You are quite clearly devoid of mental capacity.
quote:3) You're purposefully trying to cause a distraction.
I'm trying to cause a distraction? Rob's every post are attempts at distraction: "Oh, they've got AC ... and I DON'T. Oh, it's an unnamed source. Oh, ya'll silly liberals want to make thought illegal!" I'm sure "blasted left-wing media" is coming in a post near you soon.
And you say I'M trying to make a distraction? To quote Mr. T, "FOOL!"
I really don't know what your whole point of posting is, since you don't seem to know point one about what this thread is about. Go back, read, and make a relevent post. You might throw in something along the lines of, "Gee, Rob, that's all interesting but how is your air conditioning relevent to anything?"
Oh. Right. Hah! Al-Queda prisoners have AC. Rob wants AC. Obviously, Rob wants to be at Camp X-Ray. Hopefully, you'll join him. I'll make sure to arrange for you to drop your soap in the shower (bet you don't have to deal with THAT in your apartment, Rob).
listen Rob ... you think its okay to try people without evidence, that's your business
Rob has never stated that he thinks this.
My statement in my previous post stands.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I'd prefer that governmenst maybe have the whole "no, we couldn't do that because it'd be wrong" phase kick in between the "thinking about doing something" phase and the "considering it" one (or even before that). Because one day the pro's will suddenly outweigh the cons and the "it's wrong" phase will become "ahh, there are worse things."
posted
Well, Omega, Rob sure doesn't think its the worst thing ever. You and he sure throw a fit about Bill Clinton lying about a blow job ... but George Bush considers something like this, and you're both not only rather silent, but Rob's very much an apologist. His posts have defended the concept (oh, they've got AC! So whatever we do is okay), and you've been rather silent on the whole thing except when you're trolling to draw attention from this plan instead of contributing to the arguement. So, you know, yeah, I think its a reasonable inference to draw.
posted
Robs whole argument here is that they are just considering it. Well isn't the point where they are considering something like this the time that the people should come forward and say yes or no to a course of action. Are these means within the law? Do these means fall within our morally excepted norms of our society? Does it fall withinn the norms of your allies societies? This is the time to debate not argue about the wording of the article. Because once a government goes down to planning on the list it is a very short time before they execute the plan.
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Considering the lack of a declaration of war, I assume the repeatedly-used term "POW" stands for "Prisoner Of Dubya"?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
So far I think Grokca has summed it up the best.
For all the smoke and mirrors, Rob hasn't even, as his chum Omega stated, said what he thinks trying people based on guilty-by-association evidence...
And for that matter, neither has Omega, who comes in to clarify Rob's rather muddy posisition...
All the while Snay appears, stick in hand, to wack the hornet's nest...
In other words, par for the course.
The question remains, is this something that the present administration should be planning?
[ April 24, 2002, 15:52: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
No, it's, as Rob pointed out, whether this is something the administration should be CONSIDERING, which is a different concept entirely.
As for an answer, "yes". One should thoughtfully consider ALL one's options, regardless of what they may be. If you hear that they're SERIOUSLY considering it, get back to me.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Ok, let's plan poking them in the eye with a stick. That's AMONG the OPTIONS at this time.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
How about we throw them in a cell with Omega? I know that after about an hour, I'd be slamming my head into the wall in an effort to kill myself. Might work with them, too.
posted
Oh, and I would like to point out that the time to discuss such things is right now, not as the the present administration is standing these prisoners of war before a tribunal with no direct evidence.
[ April 24, 2002, 16:15: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
