A debate is kinda like a tennis match. Someone will serve up a topic, someone else will refute it and try to make a point of his own. Back-and-forth, sometimes a little spin…
Right now, I’m picturing Starving Artist yelling “you cannot be serious” at the umpire.
Either that, or he is deliberately shagging balls into the ivy.
Balls to your partner, arse against the wall. If you’ve never been shagged on a Saturday night, you’ve never been shagged at all!
I just explained it in that thread that you’re thinking about starting. But since nobody else besides you and me are able to access that thread (and hey, if you didn’t want me accessing it, shoulda kept the tinfoil hat on), would you mind terribly explaining the glaring flaw here?
Because, joking aside, the only flaw I can see in the post to you is some sort of singular/plural problem, which I really don’t see as a major flaw. You’ve spewed tremendous verbiage hinting that there’s a flaw in the argument, when presumably it would have been much easier just to say what the flaw is. I try not to guess at other folks’ motives for their baffling decisions, but there is a motive that suggests itself here.
I didn’t allege anything. You asked a question and I answered. If you don’t like my answer, it’s on you to point out why. Instead you’ve spent your Saturday dicking around with insinuations, in typical doper tradition, about how smart your imaginary argument is. Then you made up shit about what I posted.
You did make an argument about POWs but none of the people being brought to NYC for trial are POWs. The Yousef (now I’m bringing him up to make a point) and Abouhalima trials in NYC demonstrated how the issues you brought up would be handled. I could make up all kinds of guesses (and allegations) about your argument but I’d rather see you make one.
No, instead I let it drop because I’ve grown very tired of and disgusted with the nature of discussion around this place. I only came back into the thread to counter Euphonious Polemic’s silly apology that I should make to you for pointing out that Yousef was captured abroad and successfully tried here. I will acknowledge that I didn’t go back and look up your post when he said:
and as a result I carried away from his comment the impression that you had stated foreign captured terrorists had been tried here in the past and that they had worked out well, and it was in the spirit of that impression that I said what I did regarding your post. However, even though you are correct in that you said little but that Yousef had been captured abroad and tried here successfully, my point, which is that it makes no difference, still stands.
Not so. I’ve stated quite clearly several times that the problem is perfectly obvious and that anyone not afflicted with liberal thought processes should be able to see it quite easily. I’m no smarter for having seen it than I would be to deduce the fall of hail from the sound of it on the roof.
And besides, it is rarely the case that the board’s conservative posters engage in the ‘typical Doper tradition’ of boasting about how smart we are. Attempting to win arguments (or to mold societal direction, for that matter) by claiming the other side is stupid is almost always a liberal conceit, and at one time or another I’ve seen it leveled at every single conservative poster here.
Not so, as I explained above. However you are making shit up yourself with your claims that I’m making insinuations about how smart I think my arguments are and that their merit is ‘imaginary.’
When you answered me by bringing up Yousef, you quoted words of mine which pertained to ‘enemy combatants.’ Are you saying now that you have no problem with enemy combatants remaining in Gitmo?
If so, you would seem to be at odds with most other posters around here who seem to feel that everyone currently being held in Gitmo should be brought here for trial or freed. If you will recall, most of the discussion prior to your post about Yousef pertained to the alleged Constitutional right of all ‘persons’ to habeus corpus. I recall no distinction being made to the effect that POWs are fine right where they are.
But no matter. Whether the people in question are alleged to be terrorists or enemy combatants, the problems inherent in trying them in U.S. civilian courts, with all rights, prviliges and protections thereof, remain exactly the same.
And different from the case with Yousef, which is what I’m claiming should be obvious.
Go ahead and make one. Or some, I don’t care. I’d really like to see at least one of the board’s liberals take a stab at trying to come up with the reason why Yousef’s trial has no bearing on the ability to properly try Gitmo detainees.
Erm…
Ok then.
Well, of course! It’s because he’s guilty!
I can’t make judgments about the merit of your argument because your argument exists only in your head.
There are no problems.
I’m not much for dancing, I’m more the short conversation and back to my place for a good fuck type of guy. If you want to keep dancing around your imaginary argument keep going all day, I’ll be at the WingHouse ogling the waitresses bending over the server’s station.