I can't touch that. I concede the point to DanaC, and I yield the field.

The shattering cognitive disconnect between these two posts shows the positively galactic hypocrisy of this kind of thinking. And what makes it even more tragic, is the broad, unthinking support this kind of sloppy weak lazy pathetic excuse for thinking has.

But.....Duck Duck, you just said that they were justified in detaining those they suspected of being terrorists....now I am confused.

So you're a hypocrite and I can't communicate with you. I don't speak your language and I have only a halting command of others' expressions of it.

I challenge you to answer my question. Pick one. Serious or not serious.

Then, the bonus round, reconcile the contradiction of your own words presented to you by DanaC.

I'll wait.

I find this quit funny considering your idea of a "dialogue" is calling somebody stupid because they do not share your opinion.

To clarify, I'm not condemning the americans for detaining the japanese in WW2, I brought that up to point out the flawed claim that america has this long standing tradition for the rule of law. They have been know to suspend their laws in many cases like in national emergencies or in war time.

I think duck duck's original point was that of course detaining is technically against the law, but that's okay because we've always ignored the law, e.g. the Japanese in WWII.

Can you find somebody else to troll? Are you really that bored?

Sure! In fact, I have a reputation on this board for not calling names. There are (counts on fingers....) about 1 1/2 exceptions. You're not even on that list. I'd love to have such a discussion. But neither do I pander or patronize. I show my fellow dwellars the respect of taking their posts seriously, and responding accordingly. My posts were not insults of commission or omission. You post serious, I post serious back.

Kid, I like you, I really do...but you've been here like five minutes and you've just accused a longstanding member of trolling, just because he called you out. That's really bad form.

You called me stupid because I have opinions you don't like. Now you are implying I can't possibly be serious because you do not like my opinions. So that is one blatant insult fallowed by another you try to cleverly hide.
Looks like you just blew your reputation.

I accused him of trolling since he resorted to insults because he doesn't like my opinion. And he continues to insult me because I'm standing up to him about it.

Maaaaaaaybe. Let's try that one out a little.

My WHOLE point is that arbitrarily locking up people, on suspicion of the potential for some future crime, whether it was during the WWII era or the GWOT era, is wrong. It's wrong to do it and the only thing that rights the ship of state from that perilous course is exactly the rule of law.

The concept that we are a nation of laws; that the laws are supreme, not some particular skin color or nation of birth, or any other arbitrary circumstance.
It is this "longstanding respect for the rule of law" that I speak of. Without it, where could corrections come from, like this:
The internment of the Japanese during WWII was legal. It was made so by Executive Order. The actions you suggest also are legal, covered by the PATRIOT Act. Years later, it has been decided that the internment was wrong. It will probably take years for the same conclusion to be reached about the actions justified by the PATRIOT Act. But you're hearing it from me, and a growing number of citizens, early.

Well put bigv

Duck Duck, get use to it, that is a fairly typical response on here. Stay the course.

Nah, with the exception of the occasional dumb question, I think I will avoid political discussions from now on. I didn't join this site to be called stupid, I get that often enough at school.

Ouch. Duck don't take it to heart. This is a rough and tumble place. People call each other out on stuff and occasionally hand out a cup of stfu. It's just the way the Cellar works.

Got to admire duck for jumping in with both of his/her webbed feet. :)

Her. *smiles* take a looksee at her profile;P

I do actually admire her for jumping in. But.....when jumping in and making quite bold, and some might venture agressive, posts she needs to expect to be tackled on them. BigV wasn't as hard on her as many here are when someone makes those kinds of statements.

But can't you challenge somebody's opinion, bold or not, without resorting to insults? Do the politicians in the congress sessions yell to each other "you're stupid" when they are discussing policy? Is civility impossible here?

Ha ha, they say worse things than that!

duckduck, you don't think is a little inflammatory?

Maybe it is but it isn't a personal attack on another person. If somebody posts an opinion I don't like on a subject I'm not going to respond by calling him stupid or questioning his intelligence. What would be the point?

What if you think what they posted was really dumb? :P

Give her a few weeks, she'll be flaming like a good'un