Is America a nation at risk?

[Shawnee123]

And Shawnee isn't managing a rebuttal. She's locking horns with a mind here, and I don't think she's used to the idea yet. She's not coping.

I'll rebut your face.

Seriously, what in the hell am I supposed to be rebutting?

Keep calling me stupid, UG. It makes no difference to me. That is the difference between you and me: I may not agree with your beliefs but I believe in your right to have them. I don't think you a lesser person because somewhere along the line someone filled your head with mush.

Now get off my ass, and respond to the people who are better equipped to play your little tit for tat game. I honestly don't have the time nor the energy, nor even the gumption, to bring myself to care that much.

Ho hum.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

I'll rebut your face.

Seriously, you're arguing with someone who wouldn't recognize right wing authoritarianism if it locked him in a cattle car and sent him to Auschwitz. Arguing is pointless.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Griff

Seriously, you're arguing with someone who wouldn't recognize right wing authoritarianism if it locked him in a cattle car and sent him to Auschwitz. Arguing is pointless.

Griff, this is the biggest flub I've seen you make. Don't forget that Radar (he's gone dark lately, it seems, having been shown that Obama was not indeed the "more libertarian candidate" he thought he was voting for) notwithstanding, I am a libertarian.

If by "right wing authoritarianism" you mean "Bush at war," your argument will have more holes than a badminton net. And now that the GWOT is being conducted in pretty much the same way by the Democratic Administration, the idea fails at the nonce. Sinks without a trace.

Arguing from bad initial premises -- that is what's pointless. At least if your goal is to persuade someone of the quality of your thinking.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

...And now that the GWOT is being conducted in pretty much the same way by the Democratic Administration, the idea fails at the nonce. Sinks without a trace.

Arguing from bad initial premises -- that is what's pointless. At least if your goal is to persuade someone of the quality of your thinking.

UG...while there certainly are some continuations of the Bush/Neo-con approach to terrorism, more than I would like, there are also significant differences:

Ending the highly questionable (in terms of legality and effectiveness) policy of enhanced interrogation (ie torture) of detainees

A restoration of basic rights for detainees as proposed in the (preliminary) recommendation of Obama's Detention Policy Task Force including prohibiting the admission of statements obtained through cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment; providing detainees greater latitude in the choice of counsel; affording basic protections for those defendants who refuse to testify; reforming the use of hearsay by putting the burden on the party trying to use the statement...

The shutting down of CIA black prisons and the limiting extraordinary rendition (now prohibited to countries that torture their own citizens)

On the domestic front, ending the Bush administration program to expand the use of spy satellites by state/local law enforcement agencies.

And most importantly....restoring diplomacy and dialogue to gain the support of allies and engage adversaries rather than bullying, belligerency and unilateralism, resulting in the restoration of the US image among those allies and adversaries.

IMO, your characterization of those who disagree with your neo-con BS as weak-minded "pacifists" rather than having a respect for the rule of law, is another feeble attempt to justify a failed policy.