Teufelaffe: Rent Party: Teufelaffe: Rent Party: 3 OUT OF THREE (3). 100% success rate. Do you not understand that?

3 PEOPLE DON'T REPRESENT THEIR ENTIRE RACE AND ACTING LIKE THEY DO IS TEXTBOOK RACISM. Do you not understand that?

Acting like the Japanese didn't just attack the United States, and that there were demonstrable instances of US Born citizens of Japanese descent that aided and abetted them is simply farking ignorant.

I know you'd like to believe that Japanese interment was based on nothing other than racism, but it wasn't. It was a decision made in the context of the times, part of which is an abnormally high number of Japanese aiding the Japanese army.

That's not racism, and it would be farking stupid to ignore it.

Number of Japanese in the US put in internment camps: 120,000*
Number of Japanese in the US who they knew at the time had aided the enemy: 3

*Actual census data for 1940 appears to unavailable online, so we'll say this also represents the number of Japanese in the US at the time for the purposes of this discussion.

You like to throw around percentages, so let's see what we get from those numbers, shall we? Hmmm...it looks like the US allowed the decion to inter 120,000 people to be influenced by the actions of 0.000025% of the US Japanese population. I know it's been a while since I've been in a math class, but when 0.000025% of a population assists a single Japanese pilot, that is generally not considered "an abnormally high number" of Japanese aiding the enemy.

The fact that those three men were the only Japanese on that particular island is irrelevant. I know that you really, really want that to be important here, but it isn't. The fact that over a hundred thousand people were herded into camps, partially based on the behavior of those 3 men, is very relevant. And when you consider that these people were interred only because they were Japanese (many were second generation US citizens, so it's not like they were just rounding up people f ...

Yes, I can tell you failed math because you're ignoring the sample set.

It is not "Japanese Americans" it is "Japanese Americans that have had contact with the Japanese army."

And the record there is pretty farking dismal, regardless of how you'd like to deny it.


Oh, you want another fun fact about that War? Guess how many US Japanese were convicted of spying for Japan throughout the entire war. I'll give you a hint: It's less than 1.


Despite the issue not being spying, but lending aid and assistance to the army when it was on our shores, you're not helping your case. If all the Japanese were in camps, it would be hard for them to spy, don't you think? Do you consider that might be the result of interment?

HeartBurnKid: Rent Party: HeartBurnKid: Rent Party: HeartBurnKid:
I probably wouldn't. I'd probably be confused and angry and jumping at shadows, much like we were on Sep. 12, 2001. That wouldn't make those actions any more right, however. And, unless Rent Party is caught in a time warp, he shouldn't be trying to justify them.

Well with the benefit of your time machine, I'm sure you will always be sure to make the right choices in life.

In 1941, they didn't have that. They had an aggressive Japanese government, a well disciplined and equipped Japanese military, a realistic expectation that the Japanese military would be landing at the Presidio in the not too distant future, and an observation that every single Japanese citizen to date with contact with hostile Japanese forces sided with them.

Like I said, context matters.

Like I said, they had an excuse. They were confused and scared, and that explains their actions, but doesn't justify them. You don't have that excuse; why are you defending the practice?


Because they had justification. You act like they just said "Hey Japs! Get in here!" without any cause whatsoever. They had cause, and they had *legitimate* cause. You can deny that all you like, but it doesn't change anything.

They had justification in their minds, sure. Like I said, they were angry, confused, and scared, and they let those feelings influence them to do a horrible thing. It doesn't make that thing any less horrible, but it lets me understand why they did it.

You don't have the benefit of said anger, confusion, and fear, though. You and I are looking back on this with the benefit of 60 years of hindsight. Which is why when you say things like they were justified, or that they had legitimate cause, it just makes me think less of you as a human being.

And by "every single Japanese citizen", you mean 3. Do you not understand that?

3 OUT OF THREE (3). 100% success rate. Do you not understand that?

I understand the sample size is so rid ...

These are legitimate causes for concern.

The Japanese military had just bombed Pearl Harbor.

Less than one day later, every single person of Japanese descent aided or abetted the ONE Japanese pilot that managed to find his way onto that island.

There was a very real threat that the same Japanese military would be arriving on the west coast at some point in the foreseeable future.

There are 140,000 people of Japanese descent living in that area.

That's not racism. That is legitimate concern.

Rent Party: These are legitimate causes for concern.

The Japanese military had just bombed Pearl Harbor.

Less than one day later, every single person of Japanese descent aided or abetted the ONE Japanese pilot that managed to find his way onto that island.

There was a very real threat that the same Japanese military would be arriving on the west coast at some point in the foreseeable future.

There are 140,000 people of Japanese descent living in that area.

That's not racism. That is legitimate concern.

And you think incarcerating 140,000 people because of the actions of 3 people is a legitimate reaction to that concern?

And you keep repeating 100% as if 100% of a sample size of 3 people is meaningful in any way whatsoever. Do you know the first farking thing about statistics?

HeartBurnKid: Rent Party: These are legitimate causes for concern.

The Japanese military had just bombed Pearl Harbor.

Less than one day later, every single person of Japanese descent aided or abetted the ONE Japanese pilot that managed to find his way onto that island.

There was a very real threat that the same Japanese military would be arriving on the west coast at some point in the foreseeable future.

There are 140,000 people of Japanese descent living in that area.

That's not racism. That is legitimate concern.

And you think incarcerating 140,000 people because of the actions of 3 people is a legitimate reaction to that concern?

And you keep repeating 100% as if 100% of a sample size of 3 people is meaningful in any way whatsoever. Do you know the first farking thing about statistics?

Never mind, I just saw your comment in another thread, and either you're just trolling, or you're one of the worst human beings on the face of the planet. Either way, I'm done here.

HeartBurnKid: Never mind, I just saw your comment in another thread, and either you're just trolling, or you're one of the worst human beings on the face of the planet.

You've clearly never eaten cat jerky. There's a reason the Chinese are beating us at science and technology: cat meat is loaded with riboflavin which stimulates your brain.

HeartBurnKid: Rent Party: These are legitimate causes for concern.

The Japanese military had just bombed Pearl Harbor.

Less than one day later, every single person of Japanese descent aided or abetted the ONE Japanese pilot that managed to find his way onto that island.

There was a very real threat that the same Japanese military would be arriving on the west coast at some point in the foreseeable future.

There are 140,000 people of Japanese descent living in that area.

That's not racism. That is legitimate concern.

And you think incarcerating 140,000 people because of the actions of 3 people is a legitimate reaction to that concern?

And you keep repeating 100% as if 100% of a sample size of 3 people is meaningful in any way whatsoever. Do you know the first farking thing about statistics?

Yes I do. And I can tell you that when I pull three random people out of the crowd and they exhibit the EXACT SAME BEHAVIOR, then I'm probably looking at a trend within that crowd.

Lets broaden the sample a bit, if it makes you happy. There were about 170 people living on that island. THREE of them aided and abetted the enemy. What characteristics do you think they have in common? What characteristics differentiated them from the 167 other folks on that island that did not aid and abet the enemy?

If you were the Japanese government and were looking at expansion on the western edge of the North American continent, where would you place saboteurs? Would you place them on a tiny, privately held island on the far stretch of the Hawaiian islands, or would you place them in major population centers? What does that mean within the context of the first set of questions and the 140,000 other Japanese folks living there?

If you were the US government, how would you react to that? Would you be a complete retard and go "Nuh uh! RACISMZZZ!!!" Or would you reasonably conclude that there might be a problem on west coast? After Pearl Harbor, Midway, Nanking, Manchuria, and every other hostile Japanese takeover prior to Pearl harbor, would you be willing to take that chance with San Francisco or Los Angeles?

We all aught to be damn glad FDR wasn't.

Teufelaffe: Rent Party: Yes, I can tell you failed math because you're ignoring the sample set.

That's pretty rich coming from the person holding up a sample size of 3 as being statistically significant.

The sample size is actually 170, there, Einstein.

HeartBurnKid: HeartBurnKid: Rent Party: These are legitimate causes for concern.

The Japanese military had just bombed Pearl Harbor.

Less than one day later, every single person of Japanese descent aided or abetted the ONE Japanese pilot that managed to find his way onto that island.

There was a very real threat that the same Japanese military would be arriving on the west coast at some point in the foreseeable future.

There are 140,000 people of Japanese descent living in that area.

That's not racism. That is legitimate concern.

And you think incarcerating 140,000 people because of the actions of 3 people is a legitimate reaction to that concern?

And you keep repeating 100% as if 100% of a sample size of 3 people is meaningful in any way whatsoever. Do you know the first farking thing about statistics?

Never mind, I just saw your comment in another thread, and either you're just trolling, or you're one of the worst human beings on the face of the planet. Either way, I'm done here.

Cats are pets. They are not family. If my options are $2K for a sick cat, or $100 for a healthy one, I'm going with the healthy one.

Rent Party: Cats are pets. They are not family. If my options are $2K for a sick cat, or $100 for a healthy one, I'm going with the healthy one.

And that is what makes you a horrible person. If your pets are not family, why bother having them?

I created this alt just for this thread: Rent Party: Cats are pets. They are not family. If my options are $2K for a sick cat, or $100 for a healthy one, I'm going with the healthy one.

And that is what makes you a horrible person. If your pets are not family, why bother having them?

One would think that a woman giving birth to a cat would be much more damaging to a family than putting down a direly sick cat.

Teufelaffe:
Maybe you're just not understanding where I'm coming from here. I'm not saying, "OMG, the US government was totally not justified in interring US Japanese and Japanese-Americans!"

You're not? Really?

OK then, lets hear some of the justification for the US interning Japanese people during WWII.

I created this alt just for this thread: Rent Party: Cats are pets. They are not family. If my options are $2K for a sick cat, or $100 for a healthy one, I'm going with the healthy one.

And that is what makes you a horrible person. If your pets are not family, why bother having them?

Because my family enjoys them.

My kids are my family. Cats are livestock. Do you see the difference?

Consider the modern conservative voter in this country and those they support.

Is it any wonder that with that much support we've ended up with an authoritarian democrat?

It is America, collectively, that pisses in it's pants about terrorism. We are getting what we want as a country, and this president is considered a pandering wimp on foreign policy by many.

I'll continue speaking out against some of his actions, but you won't see me surprised to find that the average American lies to my right. many farkers seem consistently amazed that our internet discussion chambers are not representative of the nation as a whole.

Rent Party: My kids are my family. Cats are livestock. Do you see the difference?

If your posts in this thread are any indication, the cats are probably smarter and more classy than you or your kids, so yeah I do see the difference, though you labeled the wrong animals as livestock.

I created this alt just for this thread: Rent Party: My kids are my family. Cats are livestock. Do you see the difference?

If your posts in this thread are any indication, the cats are probably smarter and more classy than you or your kids, so yeah I do see the difference, though you labeled the wrong animals as livestock.

Right. You equate people with animals, and you're the classy guy.

I'll grind the little buggers into sausage if I see fit. They are, after all, property.

Rent Party: I created this alt just for this thread: Rent Party: My kids are my family. Cats are livestock. Do you see the difference?

If your posts in this thread are any indication, the cats are probably smarter and more classy than you or your kids, so yeah I do see the difference, though you labeled the wrong animals as livestock.

Right. You equate people with animals, and you're the classy guy.

I'll grind the little buggers into sausage if I see fit. They are, after all, property.

And you think rounding up 100000+ people into camps based entirely on what race they are isn't racist, so yeah, I'm definitely the classier one.

I created this alt just for this thread: Rent Party: I created this alt just for this thread: Rent Party: My kids are my family. Cats are livestock. Do you see the difference?

If your posts in this thread are any indication, the cats are probably smarter and more classy than you or your kids, so yeah I do see the difference, though you labeled the wrong animals as livestock.

Right. You equate people with animals, and you're the classy guy.

I'll grind the little buggers into sausage if I see fit. They are, after all, property.

And you think rounding up 100000+ people into camps based entirely on what race they are isn't racist, so yeah, I'm definitely the classier one.

No, I think that based on the circumstances of the time (you know, a whole nation of "what race they are" bombing us after years of aggressive expansion) is a legitimate factor in policy making.

But you go on ahead and pretend that never happened. Hell, go on and tell us how Hiroshima was a war crime, too, while you're at it, sport.

In the mean time, I'm tossing the cats out of the house for the night, just to piss you off.

sprawl15: The Numbers: Well then I guess that's where we disagree, because I find this line of thinking moronic. We absolutely must attack it, and oppose anyone involved in making it law. That's how you make politicians realise they can't keep passing this shiat and still expect to be elected.

You find a suggestion to attack the source of the problems instead of a side effect of the problems 'moronic'? Fascinating. Are you 12?

Heh. I've got Temple of Doom on in the background (funnily enough, I was twelve when it came out). This kinda reminds me of the scene where Indy's been drugged and is serving the priest, except you're screaming at Short Round that he should only be trying to kill Mola Ram. I mean, you're right he's the main bad guy, but you aren't going to beat him with one little Asian kid with a torch.

Nor are you going to beat the AUMF when you've got a Democrat President and Senate who'll sign off on the NDAA. Like the film, when the good guys are doing wrong, you've got to hold the fire to them until they remember what side they're on.

Thus ends my rather tortured analogy. I'm sure you can figure out who / what the characters are meant to represent.

Teufelaffe: The Numbers: Ok, firstly you missed the point of the text I highlighted. The President of the United States has a responsibility to do the right thing for the health of the nation. That's the job. Whether or not his political opponents will start spouting off in front of tv cameras should not enter into the list of considerations, and you're a moron for stating otherwise.

If it were just them spouting off for the cameras, it wouldn't be a big deal, but we're talking about the party that nearly shut down the US government just because Obama wanted to do something that, like it or not, has been SOP for 30+ years. We're dealing with people who have shown time and time again that they will put party before country and will do potentially irreparable harm to the American people if they think it will score them points against Obama. Sometimes avoiding a confrontation is the best option.

If you think of the GOP as terrorists, do you ever wonder just why you don't negotiate with terrorists?

Teufelaffe: Secondly, you think what happened with the NDAA represents Obama getting what he wanted? You think he's in favor of having these provisions as law?

No, I don't think he's in favor of those provisions being part of law, but given my point above, I do believe that he felt that a "workaround" was the better option in this matter than some sort of macho face-off with the GOP who would likely once again be trying to do more damage to our country in the name of "making Obama a one-term president."

And that isn't good leadership. A good leader can see far enough down the road to recognise that a temporary workaround still leaves the provisions as law, so would glove up for the fight whilst he still has the opportunity to stop it becoming law. It's a weak President who ducks out of the bigger fight because they've devised a plan that just covers their time in office.

timujin: Rent Party: timujin: "'Due process' doesn't mean 'court process'"? WTF is up with that shiat?

That is an accurate statement. Due process means "according to law" and has nothing to do with courts.

sprawl15: Duh. And it's absolutely, completely correct. A crazed gunman shot down by a policeman receives full due process because our laws allow a policeman to use lethal force in the interest of public safety. Due process does not mean 'court process', it means that the government shall act according to its laws. Just because criminal acts require a court for conviction doesn't mean that all government action requires a trial first.

qorkfiend: The targeted killing of al-Awlaki was fully authorized under the 9/11 AUMF, duly passed by Congress and signed into law by then-President George W. Bush. Don't try and pretend there was no legislative authorization or that the President somehow exceeded the authority granted by Congress by taking a "measure he deems necessary".

keithgabryelski: you understand that due process is not defined in the constitution, right? and as such the definition of due process has been left to the people and their representatives to figure out.
and that the procedures that are incorporated in due process need not be the same in all situations.

Alright, I see your points. I don't agree that the policeman one fits the situation, that is an immediate need, not a premeditated act. However, I am still very uncomfortable with the idea that anyone, even the President, can point at an American citizen and say "kill that dude" without at least going through some sort of approval channel. It doesn't seem like "due process" when there's no process.


/I am completely willing to admit that my concern is unwarranted if I have misunderstood the situation and this went down in a different manner

The president can't do that, you are really, really confused.

When constitutional scholars claim you have done more damage to the Constitution than any previous administration, you might have a problem.

Extension is carrying on the same, worse is adding more.

The Numbers: Thus ends my rather tortured analogy.

You could have saved yourself a lot of pixels by just typing "yes".

sprawl15: The Numbers: Thus ends my rather tortured analogy.

You could have saved yourself a lot of pixels by just typing "yes".

Indeed. I realised when I read this: sprawl15: That doesn't make attacking it a fruitful exercise, even in theory. that you didn't have enough of a grasp of the realpolitik for a proper debate, so I tried to dumb it down a bit for you with a movie reference.

Teufelaffe: Rent Party: Yes I do. And I can tell you that when I pull three random people out of the crowd and they exhibit the EXACT SAME BEHAVIOR, then I'm probably looking at a trend within that crowd.

A behavior exhibited by 3 people out of 170 (~1.8% if you're curious) is not indicative of a trend. If you honestly knew anything about statistics, you would already know this and you wouldn't be saying really stupid things like this.

Rent Party: Lets broaden the sample a bit, if it makes you happy. There were about 170 people living on that island. THREE of them aided and abetted the enemy. What characteristics do you think they have in common? What characteristics differentiated them from the 167 other folks on that island that did not aid and abet the enemy?

I thought it wasn't about race? You can't have it both ways. The internment camps cannot simultaneously be about national security and not race AND be a place where they sent a bunch of people (over 60% of which were American citizens by the way) only because they were the same race as one of our enemies. Whether you like it or not, the internment camps were government sanctioned racism. You can sit there and insist that the US Government was justified in what they did until you're blue in the face, but you cannot change the facts.

Maybe you're just not understanding where I'm coming from here. I'm not saying, "OMG, the US government was totally not justified in interring US Japanese and Japanese-Americans!" What I am saying is that the US government used the fact that more than 100,000 people in the country shared an ethnicity with one of our enemies as justification to round these people up into internment camps, and that action was racism. FFS, our own government later declared that the internment camps were the result of "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership."


Actually it was mostly about race (for the japenese-American citizens) and at the time most people were racist. I see this a lot we with the 60's behind us and the benefit of our normal daily tolerances as example attempting to condemn an entirely differing mindset that most of us don't understand. (with the exeption of white supremists and the neo-nazi groups)

Attempting to put your morals into the past will only give you a headache and accomplish fark-all. Was the internment wrong? Yes in modern times we would ays definitely wrong. At the time with prevailing prejudices and an easily identifiable "enemy" even the most progressive liberal peac-nics didn't have much to say while the Japenese were taken away.

The non-citizen Germans and Italians were also interred so It wasn't entirely about race . The whole deal was rotten and cruel but it was deemed necessary by the powers that were.

Not a whole lot of differant than the current hysteria about terrorists and the posers that are being accumulated in the presidency today. The powers that be deem them necessary.

As I said when the Patriot Act came out-Even if you trust this president to not abuse the power today whose to say what kind of person comes into power next. For example would you trust a Rick Santorum with the kind of power that allows for extra-judicial execution based on the accusation (no trial no legal proof) of being associated with terrorists? The wording of the NDAA is vague enough to allow for more liberal interpertations to include almost any group in who needs to be targeted for either detention or execution. This shyte goes too far.

/Scary thoughts.

eddiesocket: LasersHurt: I can't take the article seriously when it says "a candidate is getting donations in an election year" and uses that to bolster an argument that it just wasn't fair for ol' Bush.

Well, maybe you should read the entire rest of the article, instead of cherry-picking one sentence you didn't like and using that as a pathetic excuse to dismiss the whole thing.

/I'm a liberal Dem, but there's no farking way in hell you can tell me that the Dems aren't being total hypocrites here. If Bush were sending attack drones to kill US citizens we would never hear the end of it on the Left.

You've got a point there but I think it would've depended on when he did it. 2002-04 they probably wouldn't have said a thing because terrorists win or what ever. From then on some Democrats would have made hay about it but not all of them.

Democrats only recently found these dusty old things in their desk called balls.

/I find the erosion of our rights alarming and I'm a left-leaning.

The Numbers: Indeed. I realised when I read this: sprawl15: That doesn't make attacking it a fruitful exercise, even in theory. that you didn't have enough of a grasp of the realpolitik for a proper debate, so I tried to dumb it down a bit for you with a movie reference.

You're really, really scrambling to not justify your nonsense. It's pretty funny, please continue.

Zombie Butler: Democrats only recently found these dusty old things in their desk called balls.

nope.jpg

yousaywut: The wording of the NDAA is vague enough to allow for more liberal interpertations to include almost any group in who needs to be targeted for either detention or execution. This shyte goes too far.

This existed previous to the NDAA. Read the 9/11 AUMF. It essentially declares war on a set that includes anyone the President chooses to include. While the NDAA codifies a lot of the implied/assumed powers granted by the AUMF, it does not create these powers.

sprawl15: The Numbers: Indeed. I realised when I read this: sprawl15: That doesn't make attacking it a fruitful exercise, even in theory. that you didn't have enough of a grasp of the realpolitik for a proper debate, so I tried to dumb it down a bit for you with a movie reference.

You're really, really scrambling to not justify your nonsense. It's pretty funny, please continue.

I like you, welcome to my favorites list. It's pretty obvious that for a while now we've been arguing with some degree of crossed purposes. You're arguing the relative legal relevance of the AUMF / NDAA and where changes need to happen whilst I'm arguing the relative political relevance of the AUMF / NDAA and how changes could happen, and my, what fun times they've been.

What I am wondering though is whether it's the fact you had to cede ground on the legal relevance of the NDAA that's prompted the angry schoolgirl act with regards the political relevance part of our argument?

The Numbers: What I am wondering though is whether it's the fact you had to cede ground on the legal relevance of the NDAA that's prompted the angry schoolgirl act with regards the political relevance part of our argument?

Cede what ground? I've been aware of the point you brought up for a long time. Thus language like this upthread:

sprawl15: The NDAA was a very minor expansion of powers. It mostly codified a lot of powers implicit in the AUMF.

I've actually dialed back my earlier anger at this portion of the NDAA because I've had some very good discussions on the fragility of this expansion. Fragility or no, it remains the only real change at all to policy within the NDAA (unless you're counting the clusterfark of jurisdiction shenanigans that comes into play when trying to codify seat-of-the-pants executive action, but that's always been there as well). I mean, gratz and all for finally catching up, but don't expect me to be impressed that you didn't manage to catch any of the flow of conversation before you jumped in.

The Numbers: It's pretty obvious that for a while now we've been arguing with some degree of crossed purposes. You're arguing the relative legal relevance of the AUMF / NDAA and where changes need to happen whilst I'm arguing the relative political relevance of the AUMF / NDAA and how changes could happen

When a bill changes nothing substantial, it has no relevance. Arguing that the NDAA has relevance wastes steam that needs to be expended upon the AUMF, or - much more appropriately - at the government's inability to define roles properly in an asymmetric war, and their over reliance on definitions and assumptions that simply do not apply anymore.

Like the way the government handles terrorists as both military and criminal prisoners. That's the justification for insane stupidity like Guantanamo. We indefinitely detain them under POW powers, then take away POW protections because they pose a criminal threat. We need to properly address these situations instead of shouting and pulling our hair out about bills like the NDAA that don't substantially affect a farking thing. The entire conversation needs to shift.

sprawl15: Cede what ground?

I'm looking at at subtle climbdown from comments like this:

sprawl15: If you could, right now, wish away the NDAA provisions, nothing of significance would change.

and the condescending tone of this:

sprawl15: What do you think the NDAA actually changed?

I'm perfectly happy to be shown to be wrong. I'd just, you know, have to actually be shown to be wrong. Feel free!

to comments like this:

sprawl15: Which is the only real change i can think of in the bill.

and this:

sprawl15: Was it completely irrelevant? Of course not.


sprawl15: The entire conversation needs to shift.
And were you to apply this apparently prophetic mind of yours to the practical politics of how you make the conversation shift, you'll actually come to recognise the political relevance opposing the NDAA plays in making this happen.

The Numbers: I'm looking at at subtle climbdown from comments like this:

You're really, really grasping at this straw. Let it go.

The Numbers: And were you to apply this apparently prophetic mind of yours to the practical politics of how you make the conversation shift, you'll actually come to recognise the political relevance opposing the NDAA plays in making this happen.

Lying about the NDAA's impact only makes you sound like an idiot to people who know anything about the topic. Actually believing the lies about the NDAA's impact makes you an idiot. 'Shifting' the conversation by trying to out-fearmonger everyone else isn't really the shift I'm looking for, hoss.

sprawl15: You're really, really grasping at this straw. Let it go.

Dude, the frequency that your debate styles tends towards the single line dismissive response like this, it is pretty clear that your the one grasping at straws. Basically you're just going 'Nuh-uh' all the time.

And I've just finished my milk: Dude, the frequency that your debate styles tends towards the single line dismissive response like this, it is pretty clear that your the one grasping at straws. Basically you're just going 'Nuh-uh' all the time.

Nuh-uh.

Seriously, though. There's no other response to someone beating a dead horse when they've already been shown to be completely wrong. His entire point is that I somehow didn't know something I've known for months, as evidenced by this exchange:

"The NDAA has no substantial changes."
"But it has this change!"
"Yes, but it's not substantial."
"OH LOOK BACKPEDALING! CHECKMATE! I WATCHED INDIANA JONES"

You're right, though. I should just call him a douchebag and move on, but he seems so motivated! It's inspiring.

sprawl15: When a bill changes nothing substantial, it has no relevance.

You know, I think what must have been 'motivating' me in this argument has been the amusing irony behind your continued repetition of this claim. I'll leave you with these questions to ponder:

Why are we talking about this now? I mean, you talk of the need to shift the conversation but what is it, do you think, that has suddenly given rise to there being a national conversation to shift?

What factor, do you think, might cause enough protest votes in 2012 to make Democrats rethink their approach to civil liberties?

Or you could just keep farking that 'NDAA has no relevance' chicken. In which case I guess I can do no more than point you in the direction of my Weeners to you in this thread.

The Numbers: Why are we talking about this now?

The first thing you should know is that Fark.com isn't a Weblog. Fark.com, the Web site, is a news aggregator and an edited social networking news site. Every day Fark receives 2,000 or so news submissions from its readership, from which we hand-pick the funny and weird notable news -- and not-news -- of the day.

Fark isn't an acronym. It doesn't mean anything. The idea was to have the word Fark come to symbolize news that is really Not News. Hence the slogan "It's not news, it's Fark." Fark was originally a word Drew became known for using online back in the early 1990s. He can't remember why, but his guess is that it was either to replace another F-word or that he was just drunk and mistyped something. He tells everyone it was the former since it's a better story that way.

The Numbers: I mean, you talk of the need to shift the conversation but what is it, do you think, that has suddenly given rise to there being a national conversation to shift?

The waging of asymmetrical warfare.

The Numbers: What factor, do you think, might cause enough protest votes in 2012 to make Democrats rethink their approach to civil liberties?

This is key to the whole point: the NDAA violates no civil liberties. It's mind bogglingly stupid, and it codifies a lot of raw ignorance that was vomited out of the AUMF, but this is not really a civil liberties issue. It's an issue of the laws and method of war in an asymmetric environment and the Constitutional separation of war powers from criminal prosecution powers when fighting disorganized forces. The NDAA is only one factor of this, so is the Counterinsurgency methodology in Afghanistan, so is the detainment at Guantanamo, so is a general look at our foreign policy in the middle east (like Syria, Libya, etc). Attacking the NDAA is attacking the fundamental, underlying issues facing the nation as much as defending Solyndra is pushing for a strong pro-technology government. Yeah, your heart's in the right place, but holy shiat is that a meaningless stand to take.

That the white noise of public opinion shifted to the NDAA for a few weeks is just as meaningful as the Kony Facebook campaign, and I give it just as much credence. Until and unless people stop chasing after these fearmongering statements like OMG INDEFINITE DETENTION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL or DUE PROCESS = JURY TRIAL, we won't have any rational discussion. Just look at how difficult it is to get you to realize that I can both be aware of something and consider it insubstantial.

The Numbers: In which case I guess I can do no more than point you in the direction of my Weeners to you in this thread.

I'm flattered, but no.

sprawl15: The Numbers: Why are we talking about this now?

The first thing you should know is that Fark.com isn't a Weblog. Fark.com, the Web site, is a news aggregator and an edited social networking news site. Every day Fark receives 2,000 or so news submissions from its readership, from which we hand-pick the funny and weird notable news -- and not-news -- of the day.

Thrilling reading I'm sure, but since it smacks of desperate avoidance, I'm sure you won't mind that I'm going to skip ahead.

sprawl15: Until and unless people stop chasing after these fearmongering statements like OMG INDEFINITE DETENTION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL or DUE PROCESS = JURY TRIAL, we won't have any rational discussion.

Hallelujah, a breakthrough! You're arguing on the basis of the world as you want it to be, rather than the world as it is. Absolutely the NDAA shouldn't be politically relevant, but that doesn't change the fact that it is.

sprawl15: The Numbers: In which case I guess I can do no more than point you in the direction of my Weeners to you in this thread.

I'm flattered, but no.

Probably a wise decision. Few of the people I've pointed in the direction of my Weeners have reported back as having enjoyed the experience.

The Numbers: Absolutely the NDAA shouldn't be politically relevant

Jumping into the nearly dead thread: I think you're talking about political relevance and sprawl15 is talking about legal relevance.

qorkfiend: Jumping into the nearly dead thread: I think you're talking about political relevance and sprawl15 is talking about legal relevance.

Well, really, I'm talking about both. People get outraged over stupid shiat all the time. Educating the populace so they don't elect idiot politicians in the first place is much more important than riding the wave to score political points that don't actually change any of the things you're protesting.

Would it be cool to see a huge popular uprising that got the NDAA provisions repealed? Sure. Just like it was cool to see a huge popular uprising against SOPA/PIPA. But remember that the government flexed their muscle with Megaupload, and people stopped caring. People don't want a long slog of a fight, they want to like a Kony picture on Facebook and learn a week later that he gave up fighting because of how much the internet frowned on his shenanigans.

A popular uprising against the sentiments within the NDAA should be a side effect of an educated populace, not an end goal. When you base your cause on fleeting issues - and when you rely on outrage to propel you instead of a moral imperative - you can't sustain the change that needs to occur to create a real difference. The Numbers simply doesn't understand any of the argument but is absolutely determined to win regardless. That's exactly the mindset of person that likes to shout about shiat like the NDAA: full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.