Saturday, June 18, 2005
Response
Well, here's some responses I can think of to Chris' comments.
I think the "I heart Gitmo" t-shirt bluntly and crudely says "fuck terrorists", something many of us think one time or another.
If someone wore a shirt that said "fuck terrorists" I would react the same way to the "Fuck Bush" t-shirt that I saw, which is a slight discomfort at the bluntness of the message, but no real qualms with what the person was trying to say. These t-shirts seemed to have been created and promoted by the Powerline jerks and other conservative hacks as specifically a reaction to the questions being raised by both Democrats and moderate Republicans to the usefullness and constitutionality of Gitmo. If at least one person completely innocent of terrorism is being held or has been held there, that prison camp is against freedom and against the principles of our country. People have been tortured according to official FBI reports. I hope you read Daily Kos' comments that I linked to. Here's what I believe is relevant from his post:
Does Powerline love a prison camp? Really? How very strange. See the need for it? Definitely.
But that is not what this is about. In context, without expressly saying the words, after the Koran abuse, after defaming Senator Durbin as Powerline has, I think the only fair conclusion as to Powerline's meaning here is this:
"Powerline Loves the Abuses of Guantanamo".
Gitmo as a tool for fighting terrorism I imagine can be argued on its merits, although I personally would not participate in such an argument because I am too passionate against the indefinite detention and Saddam-esque torture of innocent people. But propping these t-shirts up was not done in a news vacuum. It's a reaction to the recent awareness media and politicians calling attention and provoking discussion about the practices and ideals behind Gitmo's existence. It's attrocious that rather than try to even offer arguments that skirt around Gitmo's bad aspects, they say "GITMO-WE LOVE IT!" as a respond to some very troubling concerns about the need for Gitmo to be around. Loving Gitmo is NOT loving Bush terrorist policy, in the current context it is a reaction to the fake liberal boogeymen that somehow hate soldiers and want terrorists to go free.
What it also says, on the link you offer, is that they are designed to support the troops, not moral depravity.
What the manufacturers are saying is that the two can be separated, what you're saying is that they cannot.
I'm curious... do portions of the profits from the "I Love Gitmo" t-shirts go to a fund helping wounded soldiers, etc.? Are there links on the t-shirt website to veterans groups calling for the Bush administration to extend veteran health benefits? Are people promoting the t-shirts calling for those buying the shirts of fighting age to at least consider enlisting and helping out with the troop shortage? Does the be all and end all of supporting the troops consist of silencing any liberal-to-moderate war dissenters in this country by barraging them with clothing and bumpers stickers with absurd and shallow conservative slogans? Is the worst enemy for our soldiers the insurgents that are blowing them up, the administration that sent them over there, or the American citizen that thanks to coverage of Gitmo's controversies a good 4 years later might consider how Gitmo's continued existence in its current form really makes us safer? If the main enemy is the latter of the three, then conservative warbloggers unite, order "I Love Gitmo t-shirts" by the dozens and silence this enemy in the passing chance you come across them in a public place and they happen to glance at your chest or car. The war effort and our soldiers need you!!! a little sarcasm there.
The answer, of course, depends wholly on your point of view, but your assumption "...the loving Gitmo t-shirts profess a depth of moral depravity on the part of the wearer of the shirts that is incredibly sad.", is incorrect. A simple omission caused this, and the error can be rectified, rather simply, by putting the following two words: "I think", directly prior to the above quotation.
That would be a sentence I would agree with. Without those two words, I'd have to disagree, for this reason: There are some who would call you morally depraved for your opinions on Gitmo. They would suggest that you support terrorists by framing our soldiers in controversy (and this scandal has obviously hurt the war on terror, whether it was right or wrong to investigate it).
I couldn't quite articulate what I felt about this, so I didn't choose the best words, but if you are so mindless to see those Abu Gharib pictures and read about the Gitmo torture, and if you're first reaction is not "OH MY FUCKING GOD, THIS IS HORRIBLE!" that you are morally depraved. Since this theoretical person who would consider me morally depraved for framing our soldiers in controversy, then he/she is limiting the views on Gitmo from its admitedly more murky legal status to the actions soldiers were allowed to take there and elsewhere. If the line has been drawn by Rush Limbaugh and his ilk that dismiss mistreatment of prisoners as fraternity pranks, or of Jeff Sessions, Senator from Alabama who recently called Gitmo a resort , then I will happy stand on the side of the line far away from them.
I'm sure you would reply by saying that the two can be separated, that no, you do not support terrorists, just the Geneva Convention, and that you don't appreciate someone putting words in your mouth.
Right, fuck terrorists. I'm be the first, second, and third person to say it. I think everyone except the extreme left and the extreme right wing hate terrorism and hate the people that engage in it. The guidelines of the liberal/conservative divide on the more nuanced aspects of hating terrorism have changed... and this change was made not by the liberals or moderates become more extreme in professing the needs to "understand the reasons" behind terrorist actions. Rather, thanks to conservative hacks in the media and on the political podium, any criticism towards anything Bush does has been equated with supporting terrorism and hating troops. That is how simple-minded and absurd it has got, and a moral judgement on my part towards people that find any reason to justify the Bush line on things no matter how awful it is should not be seen as a moral depravity on my part. I am merely reacting to the morally depraved mindset that instead of believing "torture is bad" believes "torture is only bad if it is done by people Bush wants to go to war with and it is good against brown people and Muslims because they are evil".
Ditto.
Let the fools wear their t-shirts. I wouldn't wear this one, but there are definitely some hilarious ones on the Powerline site that I might, indeed wear. The "celebrate diversity" t-shirt, depicting some 16 various guns springs to mind, or the picture of Che Guevara with a no-smoking circle/slash over his face (the idea of a T-shirt not celebrating Che Guevara is indeed revolutionary.)
Gun rights? whatever, wear a shirt about it. Fiendishly dismissing the power of a radical Hispanic activist? Okay, don't know much about that. The shirts you gave seem are only marginally offensive to me.
In closing, I would say the pharse "tacky form of activism", is redundant because, activism, by definition, involves attention getting, stunt-making, goading, and generally making a public ass of one's self for the primary purpose of self-aggrandizing (a political or social cause being a distant second, but then I put words in mouths). Whether you’re an "I heart Gitmo" redneck or a nude-bicycle-riding exhibitionist, the goal is to offend someone with differing sensibilities, by flying in the face of those sensibilities.
Tacky, indeed.
Pretty good point. It is these gestures on the part of legitimate conservative spokespeople like the Powerline guys that twist the knife a little deeper, though. I think its tacky and infuriating on their part to provide a link to these shirts with a statement "wear it close to your heart". And in a macro-view of things their use of their popular blog medium to promote that kind of message in that way further moves me towards absolute judgement of those guys and most of their devoted readers as adopting a conservative line of thought that is morally depraved and sad.
Gitmo as a terrorism-fighting tool should be openly discussed in our political sphere. I mean we want the most cost-effective and useful ways to keep terrorists from getting us right? Instead you've got this t-shirt simplifying everything, Senator Sessions calling it a resort, and another Representative responding to legitimiate criticisms of prisoner treatment by reciting the DAMN GITMO MENU (look for Rep. Duncan Hunter's statements.
If these conservative leaders are defining the argument in this way, should I rise above them to stratospheric levels when judging people who would go out of their way to profess love for a facility which is probably the closest thing (though still far from it) a developed country in the 21st century has to a concentration camp? That's asking a lot for a humble liberal.
Any one else want to chime in? You don't like it when everyone gangs up on you, though, right Lyon?
I think the "I heart Gitmo" t-shirt bluntly and crudely says "fuck terrorists", something many of us think one time or another.
If someone wore a shirt that said "fuck terrorists" I would react the same way to the "Fuck Bush" t-shirt that I saw, which is a slight discomfort at the bluntness of the message, but no real qualms with what the person was trying to say. These t-shirts seemed to have been created and promoted by the Powerline jerks and other conservative hacks as specifically a reaction to the questions being raised by both Democrats and moderate Republicans to the usefullness and constitutionality of Gitmo. If at least one person completely innocent of terrorism is being held or has been held there, that prison camp is against freedom and against the principles of our country. People have been tortured according to official FBI reports. I hope you read Daily Kos' comments that I linked to. Here's what I believe is relevant from his post:
Does Powerline love a prison camp? Really? How very strange. See the need for it? Definitely.
But that is not what this is about. In context, without expressly saying the words, after the Koran abuse, after defaming Senator Durbin as Powerline has, I think the only fair conclusion as to Powerline's meaning here is this:
"Powerline Loves the Abuses of Guantanamo".
Gitmo as a tool for fighting terrorism I imagine can be argued on its merits, although I personally would not participate in such an argument because I am too passionate against the indefinite detention and Saddam-esque torture of innocent people. But propping these t-shirts up was not done in a news vacuum. It's a reaction to the recent awareness media and politicians calling attention and provoking discussion about the practices and ideals behind Gitmo's existence. It's attrocious that rather than try to even offer arguments that skirt around Gitmo's bad aspects, they say "GITMO-WE LOVE IT!" as a respond to some very troubling concerns about the need for Gitmo to be around. Loving Gitmo is NOT loving Bush terrorist policy, in the current context it is a reaction to the fake liberal boogeymen that somehow hate soldiers and want terrorists to go free.
What it also says, on the link you offer, is that they are designed to support the troops, not moral depravity.
What the manufacturers are saying is that the two can be separated, what you're saying is that they cannot.
I'm curious... do portions of the profits from the "I Love Gitmo" t-shirts go to a fund helping wounded soldiers, etc.? Are there links on the t-shirt website to veterans groups calling for the Bush administration to extend veteran health benefits? Are people promoting the t-shirts calling for those buying the shirts of fighting age to at least consider enlisting and helping out with the troop shortage? Does the be all and end all of supporting the troops consist of silencing any liberal-to-moderate war dissenters in this country by barraging them with clothing and bumpers stickers with absurd and shallow conservative slogans? Is the worst enemy for our soldiers the insurgents that are blowing them up, the administration that sent them over there, or the American citizen that thanks to coverage of Gitmo's controversies a good 4 years later might consider how Gitmo's continued existence in its current form really makes us safer? If the main enemy is the latter of the three, then conservative warbloggers unite, order "I Love Gitmo t-shirts" by the dozens and silence this enemy in the passing chance you come across them in a public place and they happen to glance at your chest or car. The war effort and our soldiers need you!!! a little sarcasm there.
The answer, of course, depends wholly on your point of view, but your assumption "...the loving Gitmo t-shirts profess a depth of moral depravity on the part of the wearer of the shirts that is incredibly sad.", is incorrect. A simple omission caused this, and the error can be rectified, rather simply, by putting the following two words: "I think", directly prior to the above quotation.
That would be a sentence I would agree with. Without those two words, I'd have to disagree, for this reason: There are some who would call you morally depraved for your opinions on Gitmo. They would suggest that you support terrorists by framing our soldiers in controversy (and this scandal has obviously hurt the war on terror, whether it was right or wrong to investigate it).
I couldn't quite articulate what I felt about this, so I didn't choose the best words, but if you are so mindless to see those Abu Gharib pictures and read about the Gitmo torture, and if you're first reaction is not "OH MY FUCKING GOD, THIS IS HORRIBLE!" that you are morally depraved. Since this theoretical person who would consider me morally depraved for framing our soldiers in controversy, then he/she is limiting the views on Gitmo from its admitedly more murky legal status to the actions soldiers were allowed to take there and elsewhere. If the line has been drawn by Rush Limbaugh and his ilk that dismiss mistreatment of prisoners as fraternity pranks, or of Jeff Sessions, Senator from Alabama who recently called Gitmo a resort , then I will happy stand on the side of the line far away from them.
I'm sure you would reply by saying that the two can be separated, that no, you do not support terrorists, just the Geneva Convention, and that you don't appreciate someone putting words in your mouth.
Right, fuck terrorists. I'm be the first, second, and third person to say it. I think everyone except the extreme left and the extreme right wing hate terrorism and hate the people that engage in it. The guidelines of the liberal/conservative divide on the more nuanced aspects of hating terrorism have changed... and this change was made not by the liberals or moderates become more extreme in professing the needs to "understand the reasons" behind terrorist actions. Rather, thanks to conservative hacks in the media and on the political podium, any criticism towards anything Bush does has been equated with supporting terrorism and hating troops. That is how simple-minded and absurd it has got, and a moral judgement on my part towards people that find any reason to justify the Bush line on things no matter how awful it is should not be seen as a moral depravity on my part. I am merely reacting to the morally depraved mindset that instead of believing "torture is bad" believes "torture is only bad if it is done by people Bush wants to go to war with and it is good against brown people and Muslims because they are evil".
Ditto.
Let the fools wear their t-shirts. I wouldn't wear this one, but there are definitely some hilarious ones on the Powerline site that I might, indeed wear. The "celebrate diversity" t-shirt, depicting some 16 various guns springs to mind, or the picture of Che Guevara with a no-smoking circle/slash over his face (the idea of a T-shirt not celebrating Che Guevara is indeed revolutionary.)
Gun rights? whatever, wear a shirt about it. Fiendishly dismissing the power of a radical Hispanic activist? Okay, don't know much about that. The shirts you gave seem are only marginally offensive to me.
In closing, I would say the pharse "tacky form of activism", is redundant because, activism, by definition, involves attention getting, stunt-making, goading, and generally making a public ass of one's self for the primary purpose of self-aggrandizing (a political or social cause being a distant second, but then I put words in mouths). Whether you’re an "I heart Gitmo" redneck or a nude-bicycle-riding exhibitionist, the goal is to offend someone with differing sensibilities, by flying in the face of those sensibilities.
Tacky, indeed.
Pretty good point. It is these gestures on the part of legitimate conservative spokespeople like the Powerline guys that twist the knife a little deeper, though. I think its tacky and infuriating on their part to provide a link to these shirts with a statement "wear it close to your heart". And in a macro-view of things their use of their popular blog medium to promote that kind of message in that way further moves me towards absolute judgement of those guys and most of their devoted readers as adopting a conservative line of thought that is morally depraved and sad.
Gitmo as a terrorism-fighting tool should be openly discussed in our political sphere. I mean we want the most cost-effective and useful ways to keep terrorists from getting us right? Instead you've got this t-shirt simplifying everything, Senator Sessions calling it a resort, and another Representative responding to legitimiate criticisms of prisoner treatment by reciting the DAMN GITMO MENU (look for Rep. Duncan Hunter's statements.
If these conservative leaders are defining the argument in this way, should I rise above them to stratospheric levels when judging people who would go out of their way to profess love for a facility which is probably the closest thing (though still far from it) a developed country in the 21st century has to a concentration camp? That's asking a lot for a humble liberal.
Any one else want to chime in? You don't like it when everyone gangs up on you, though, right Lyon?
Comments:
<< Home
Lawmakers are calling Gitmo a resort? That's awful, much worse, than, say, calling it a CONCENTRATION CAMP! I remember seeing detainees playing soccer there, on the evening news. I'm sure Gitmo isn't a resort, but it's not a concentration camp.
Qualifiers? Okay, to be fair you didn't say it was a concentration camp, you said it was "the closest thing" to a concentration camp has (though still far from it).
What is the closest thing to a quasar? There's no such thing as "the closest thing" to a concentration camp. Either it's a concentration camp, or it isn't.
Despite the pains you took to qualify your statement, the fact that it is unqualifiable is belied by your previous statement--that the torture there was "Saddam-esque".
Another thing I saw on the evening news was a CGI demonstration of what "Saddam-esque" torture really is: A "detainee" would have his arms bound handcuffs-style behind his back, then tied to the rafters of a building. Then, said "detainee" would be made to balance on a huge barrel, about ten feet high. The result of course, is that this is an untenable position to be in, eventually, the turtored grows weary, and eventually, the "detainee" falls off of the barrel, and has both arms violently and horrificaly dislocated.
This is the difference between a detainee and a "detainee", a concentration camp, and a "concentration camp". The difference is huge, and thus incomparable. So I see no reason to call Gitmo a concentration camp, even if it's qualified with quotation marks, parentheses, or closest things to's. Like I said your equivocations were belied by your unequivocality.
Is it any wonder, then, that republican lawmakers are calling Gitmo a resort? Or controversial t-shirts are being make? Of course it's a reaction, I absolutely agree with you on that.
Other than that, I have very little to disagree with you on.
What I would suggest is that, in your rush to portray the Guantanamo Bay prison camp as a Saddam-esque torture chamber, you have just as much a warped viewpoint on Gitmo as do those that call it a resort. This is not saying that investigating prisoner abuse there isn't reasonable, although I would have preferred the investigators do it at a time wehen much less is at stake (after all, if you can view what goes on at Guantanamo as reminiscent of the torture of Saddam Hussein's regime, or reminiscent of concentration camps, then there are others in the world who will see this also, and are willing to die--and kill--in protest of what they consider "morally depraved").
I think this is mostly about going after powerline, and by extension, conservatism. Instead of picking some substantive issues that the three have raised, Daily Kos took one of the smallest posts on powerline, a mere sentence, and made it the end all, be all of consertiveness. What a surprise that powerline's response was so dismissive: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010768.php
Qualifiers? Okay, to be fair you didn't say it was a concentration camp, you said it was "the closest thing" to a concentration camp has (though still far from it).
What is the closest thing to a quasar? There's no such thing as "the closest thing" to a concentration camp. Either it's a concentration camp, or it isn't.
Despite the pains you took to qualify your statement, the fact that it is unqualifiable is belied by your previous statement--that the torture there was "Saddam-esque".
Another thing I saw on the evening news was a CGI demonstration of what "Saddam-esque" torture really is: A "detainee" would have his arms bound handcuffs-style behind his back, then tied to the rafters of a building. Then, said "detainee" would be made to balance on a huge barrel, about ten feet high. The result of course, is that this is an untenable position to be in, eventually, the turtored grows weary, and eventually, the "detainee" falls off of the barrel, and has both arms violently and horrificaly dislocated.
This is the difference between a detainee and a "detainee", a concentration camp, and a "concentration camp". The difference is huge, and thus incomparable. So I see no reason to call Gitmo a concentration camp, even if it's qualified with quotation marks, parentheses, or closest things to's. Like I said your equivocations were belied by your unequivocality.
Is it any wonder, then, that republican lawmakers are calling Gitmo a resort? Or controversial t-shirts are being make? Of course it's a reaction, I absolutely agree with you on that.
Other than that, I have very little to disagree with you on.
What I would suggest is that, in your rush to portray the Guantanamo Bay prison camp as a Saddam-esque torture chamber, you have just as much a warped viewpoint on Gitmo as do those that call it a resort. This is not saying that investigating prisoner abuse there isn't reasonable, although I would have preferred the investigators do it at a time wehen much less is at stake (after all, if you can view what goes on at Guantanamo as reminiscent of the torture of Saddam Hussein's regime, or reminiscent of concentration camps, then there are others in the world who will see this also, and are willing to die--and kill--in protest of what they consider "morally depraved").
I think this is mostly about going after powerline, and by extension, conservatism. Instead of picking some substantive issues that the three have raised, Daily Kos took one of the smallest posts on powerline, a mere sentence, and made it the end all, be all of consertiveness. What a surprise that powerline's response was so dismissive: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010768.php
Do not believe everything you see on tv...it is sad to hear of someone who does.
# posted by 
: 12:54 PM
: 12:54 PM
tallfleur...I assume you were just kidding, and you're comment was just well-intentioned joking. Just in case it wasn't...
I would like to know where in my comments you found evidence that I believe everything I see on TV. Prove it.
What your comment suggests to me is that if you think citing two bits of the evening news constitutes a wholesale belief in every piece of information I get from the Television media, then you don't believe ANYTHING at all on the TV is true.
This is just as sad, and just as gullible, as the characteristic you have incorrectly attached to me.
Jonah submits on his weblog a number of links and citations, which support his assertions. I respectfully disagree, and offer my refutations.
If you would like to submit evidence that contradicts my assertions, or even if you would like to attack my character with evidence, I'll be happy to discuss. But I will not be lured into raising my voice or throwing rude insults, simply because you have chosen to approach my side of the argument at hand, with superstition masquerading as disdain.
I would like to know where in my comments you found evidence that I believe everything I see on TV. Prove it.
What your comment suggests to me is that if you think citing two bits of the evening news constitutes a wholesale belief in every piece of information I get from the Television media, then you don't believe ANYTHING at all on the TV is true.
This is just as sad, and just as gullible, as the characteristic you have incorrectly attached to me.
Jonah submits on his weblog a number of links and citations, which support his assertions. I respectfully disagree, and offer my refutations.
If you would like to submit evidence that contradicts my assertions, or even if you would like to attack my character with evidence, I'll be happy to discuss. But I will not be lured into raising my voice or throwing rude insults, simply because you have chosen to approach my side of the argument at hand, with superstition masquerading as disdain.
I don't think everyone is visiting my blog to get into heated political debate and discussion, and since you provoked it, take it easy on my friend (her name is Leigha and I'm glad she's visiting my blog and saying hi).
That being said Lyon I know you don't believe everything you see on TV. But the thing is, some lesser intellectual types probably do see the Gitmo soccer playing coverage on the teevee, and not only use that evidence to dismiss all the FBI reports about detainee abuses there, but to actively wonder why our tax-paying dollars are being used to imprison Osama's Bin Laden's bodyguards in a life of luxury along the Cuban coast. That's not overflourishing, that's a combination of the sentiments of both Sen. Sessions and Rep. Hunter.
And how do you think that lovely footage of soccer players was taken? Did an intrepid reporter swim to Cuba, scale the masses of barbed wire fences, sneak around behind soldier's backs in the new wing of Gitmo that is being constructed, and shockingly found footage of detainees having fun recreational time? You would think the soldiers and U.S. DOD would somehow want to arrange to set up that kind of footage rather than let some reporter snoop around... well it's not as bad as I thought down there I guess.
Again, I know that a TV clip is not enough evidence for you, but it is for a lot of people, including Gitmo defenders who aren't pundits or bloggers or political junkies.
That being said Lyon I know you don't believe everything you see on TV. But the thing is, some lesser intellectual types probably do see the Gitmo soccer playing coverage on the teevee, and not only use that evidence to dismiss all the FBI reports about detainee abuses there, but to actively wonder why our tax-paying dollars are being used to imprison Osama's Bin Laden's bodyguards in a life of luxury along the Cuban coast. That's not overflourishing, that's a combination of the sentiments of both Sen. Sessions and Rep. Hunter.
And how do you think that lovely footage of soccer players was taken? Did an intrepid reporter swim to Cuba, scale the masses of barbed wire fences, sneak around behind soldier's backs in the new wing of Gitmo that is being constructed, and shockingly found footage of detainees having fun recreational time? You would think the soldiers and U.S. DOD would somehow want to arrange to set up that kind of footage rather than let some reporter snoop around... well it's not as bad as I thought down there I guess.
Again, I know that a TV clip is not enough evidence for you, but it is for a lot of people, including Gitmo defenders who aren't pundits or bloggers or political junkies.
Sorry Jonah, and sorry, Leigh, I did not realize that:
"Do not believe everything you see on tv...it is sad to hear of someone who does.",
was merely intended as a greeting to Jonah, otherwise, I would not have considered it part of the current political conversation.
Although, Jonah, I'm not sure why you feel I started this argument, when it seems plainly clear the argument was started by powerline and Daily Kos, and has now spilled over here. My role has mainly been responsory, trying to defend my politics, and my right to exist as right.
As for the clip of the soccer, were venturing into the realms of hearsay, here. I concede, your assertion might very well be true. But unless you have evidence, then it remains just a question. Are you sure of the sources you cite in your recent posting? Did the "I" you quote in bold have any axes to grind with the bureau or other federal agencies? Are you sure they didn't embellish the facts(it can be easy, even by accident)? How would you rate your source's ability to visually judge the reaction of the detainees to their living conditions?
This is all questionable to me, but without evidence, I chose not to question your source, and take it at face value. But perhaps I shouldn't believe everything I read on blogs either!
Anyway, I believe in fair play, and I won't question your evidence, unless I have evidence to the contrary. I just wish this would be either reciprocated, or maybe all evidence (and thus, conclusions) should be thrown out as the betrayal of our senses.
"Do not believe everything you see on tv...it is sad to hear of someone who does.",
was merely intended as a greeting to Jonah, otherwise, I would not have considered it part of the current political conversation.
Although, Jonah, I'm not sure why you feel I started this argument, when it seems plainly clear the argument was started by powerline and Daily Kos, and has now spilled over here. My role has mainly been responsory, trying to defend my politics, and my right to exist as right.
As for the clip of the soccer, were venturing into the realms of hearsay, here. I concede, your assertion might very well be true. But unless you have evidence, then it remains just a question. Are you sure of the sources you cite in your recent posting? Did the "I" you quote in bold have any axes to grind with the bureau or other federal agencies? Are you sure they didn't embellish the facts(it can be easy, even by accident)? How would you rate your source's ability to visually judge the reaction of the detainees to their living conditions?
This is all questionable to me, but without evidence, I chose not to question your source, and take it at face value. But perhaps I shouldn't believe everything I read on blogs either!
Anyway, I believe in fair play, and I won't question your evidence, unless I have evidence to the contrary. I just wish this would be either reciprocated, or maybe all evidence (and thus, conclusions) should be thrown out as the betrayal of our senses.
I probably shouldn't have responded to you snapping at Leigha, I just like my blog visitors and want to offer a counterbalance to the shift in tone that occurs when have to vent about the political news and not about my silly daily activities. Besides, the last discussion you had with me here, you ripped my friend's supporting arguments apart without ever adressing my original ones. I didn't know if that was a tactic you were going to use again. So I was reacting to that as well.
I am sorry, I wanted to contribute to the discussion, but in the time crunch I had the other day, I did not have time to finish my thought. I did not mean my statement as it was taken (nor did I mean to take a side), so 0023 - Lyon, I apologize. However, if given the appropriate time, I was going to point out that tv sourcing, even though print is really no better, should all be taken with a grain of salt...I was just taken aback by the people playing soccer reference...this is a tactic that good and bad governments use as a cover-up for their treatment of anyone in prison (foreign and domestic), and it sort of dropped your score in my mental tally. Thank you Jonah for jumping to my defense, but it was not necessary...I apologize again if I raised any blood temperatures. This form of communication, though easy, has its drawbacks (especially the loss of nonverbal cues), and, again, 0023, I would never have bluntly attacked you in person, as I assume you had taken my comment. I have thoroughly enjoyed this debate (making me out right laugh at times), and I truly hope you two stay friends. Still reading...
Post a Comment
# posted by : 6:30 PM
: 6:30 PM << Home
