Originally posted by PVS
nor do you see human rights or really any freedom at all....right mr "i love tyranical dictatorships" communist?
I love being safe mr "lets wait until a million more people are killed in a terrorist act, and then maybe start using more aggressive force when interrogating terrorists" liberal
Originally posted by KidRock
I would rather have some freedoms taken away (omg they are gonna tap my phone..WHAT EVER WILL I DO!) and still be alive, but I guess thats just me and you would die becuase your phone might be tapped.
no, id rather die than become stupid to the point of lying consciously distorting a topic in order to win (changing the topic from torture/imprisonment/kangaroo courts to phone tapping), for self gratification and to praise a dictator-in-training whom i secretly want to pound my ass raw.
Originally posted by KidRock
I would rather have some freedoms taken away (omg they are gonna tap my phone..WHAT EVER WILL I DO!) and still be alive, but I guess thats just me and you would die becuase your phone might be tapped.
The only freedoms you have to worry about right now is if you get grounded.
Losing small freedoms today opens the door for more tomorrow.
Originally posted by docb77
slippery slope fallacy?
slippery slope is not automatically a fallacy.
the illogical use of it with false connections is.
please, dont quote fallacies when you dont understand them
nor refer to them properly. example:
Originally posted by KidRock
Well it wouldnt really matter cause if the liberals had it their way we would all be dead tommorow due to terrorism.
see, that is the logical fallacy known as "dipshit"
Re: Re: Congress Grants Unconditional Power to Bush
Originally posted by docb77Oh way worst than that ::insert puking smilie here::
Definitions of tortureWhen we do it - Sleep deprivation, mild hypothermia
When they do it - beatings, kanings, fire ants, near drownings, witnessing companions executions.
Yeah, those are totally the same. 😘
And yesl I agree with the moral Standards. Bush made millions at a republican event earlier. Pretty suprised with that and how.
Originally posted by PVS
i have a better idea. why dont all you paranoid "please control every aspect of our lives and torture/imprison/kill us if you find us suspicious" freaks all just...oh i know...kill yourselves and end your constant mental anguish. then the terrorists become ineffectual, and so really its a win win
Originally posted by PVS
no, id rather die than become stupid to the point of lying consciously distorting a topic in order to win (changing the topic from torture/imprisonment/kangaroo courts to phone tapping), for self gratification and to praise a dictator-in-training whom i secretly want to pound my ass raw.
Cranky much? 😛
I guess I would be too if my own political party leaders came to an agreement with the president I hated, and decided that they didn't mind him giving our boys a little wiggle room.
Sucks when YOUR heroes don't follow your rhetoric, eh?
Coincedentaly, most high profile dems thought Saddam had WMD:
John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Kennedy, Nancy Palosi and more all agreed and believed that Sadam was a threat and voted for the war.
Bill Clinton even said 3 months in that we did the right thing.
Now that it isn't going so well its: "G.W. is a fool, this was wrong."
I cry BULLSHIT!
Originally posted by debbiejo
Push push in the george bushLyrics in Michigan.......not flattering........kinda sexual.........sorry. 😮
And shit, don't forget shit.
Originally posted by Robtard
Well, G.W. has been likened to a butt-plug, so it fits (no pun intended).
Damn, why are the best puns always not intended...you people suck so much.
Originally posted by PVS
slippery slope is not automatically a fallacy.
the illogical use of it with false connections is.
please, dont quote fallacies when you dont understand them
nor refer to them properly. example:
Not automatically, but I don't see how "losing small freedoms now can lead to losing greater freedoms later". False connection. It's like saying, "lowering the speed limit to 55 now will lead to lowering it to 25 later"
I remember the logical fallacy thread quite well thank you.
Originally posted by PVS
see, that is the logical fallacy known as "dipshit"
I believe it's more commonly called "leaping to conclusions". It may be valid, but the reader has no idea how the proponent of the argument got from A (if liberals had their way) to B (we'd all be dead from terrorism).
Could be true, just no evidence presented to back it up.
Originally posted by docb77
Not automatically, but I don't see how "losing small freedoms now can lead to losing greater freedoms later". False connection. It's like saying, "lowering the speed limit to 55 now will lead to lowering it to 25 later"I remember the logical fallacy thread quite well thank you.
oh fine, now you forced me on a tangent.
how can you compare both patterns of logic? authorities would have nothing to gain by lowering the speed limit to 25, in fact it would lead to a disaster. not to jump on your analogy, but the point im making is that nobody in power would have anything to gain by creating that scenario, and they could only lose in terms of popularity and probably revenue from people avoiding those roads...well many possibilities.
HOWEVER when they raise it to 55 people complain that its a slippery slope and that people wont be happy and will just want to go faster, and that raising the limit is just encouragement. sure enough, they were right. now some roads in jersey were bumped up to 65 and people cried slippery slope, and they were correct. proof is driving down the parkway in the left lane at 80 miles and hour with a line of assholes behind you tailgating you because they want to go 95. they have something to gain, so they look the gifthorse in the mouth.
the point of this tangent, to shed some use, is that slippery slope applies when there is something to gain by those who demand it. torture is a quick and easy way to extract information, as unreliable as that information is (especially when if you or i were tortured for long enough, we would confess to being terrorists and give out random false information to make it believable....just to make the pain stop.) those in power have even more to gain by increasing the sadism of that torture and there really is no limit. thats the whole point.
slippery slope is entirely valid.
Originally posted by KidRock
We should line em up like they do in china and shoot all the terrorists in the head. You dont see any terrorism in china, do you mr liberal?
I thought you conservative types hated communism and everything to do with it.
I also thought the lot of you were hypocrites, so it fits, actually.
Originally posted by grey fox
Nah , because then they'll be bleed out to quickly , you need to get THROUGH the bone (which is a *****)
Originally posted by Robtard
What am I deliberately lying about?Abu Ghraib prison right? Yes it was wrong and the people responsible are being dealt with.
'The people responsible are being dealt with'? Really? Last time I checked, George and Donald were still in office. They are the ones who are ultimately responsible due to the culture of torture that they practice and preach. As demonstrated by this latest congressional approval of using torture.