dean Posted March 2, 2008 Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 I'll take the prison issue in the U.S. seriously when U.S. officials start bidding out on Ebay convict's body parts, like they do in China. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted March 2, 2008 Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 People. They have constructed camps. They have passed the legislation. It is only a matter of time... Oh please. Anybody who thinks that Americans are going to round up other Americans and put them in camps or who thinks that Americans are going to allow anybody to round them up and put them in camps just doesn't understand Americans. My Japanese-American neighbours from when I was a kid had a somewhat different story to tell. Of course, that was FDR's doing and we know he was a saint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogueyam Posted March 2, 2008 Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 My Japanese-American neighbours from when I was a kid had a somewhat different story to tell. That was some time ago, it was in entirely different circumstances, and is an exception that proves the rule, but you knew all that didn't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted March 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 True but given the right circumstances (national emergency/disaster), suspension or habeus corpus, instituting martial law and suspension of rights can easily occur via FEMA. It sounds like some Idaho militia group rhetoric but in theory (and practice) its very possible. In the right "emergency", probable. Via FEMA the government has almost total dictatoral powers. Also, we have suspended certain rights in moments of war and national emergency (Civil War, WW2) and I'm not comfortable at all with the Patriots Act. Me off on a tangent, but the Republicans have been running ads for the house to pass the bill to allow the government to spy on us via the internet, etc. They use pics of bin Laden and mention 'terrorists' to get us to be fearful and support but what they don't say is that the bill contains language that gives the companies immunity from any pass or future lawsuits, some of which are already in court. A once great republic built on civil liberties is in name only nowadays. Who is the Libertarian candidate again? :smirk: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted March 2, 2008 Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 Homeland Security scares me. Here, in Arizona, one Sheriff has cross deputized some of his deputies to be border patrol agents. Doesn't sound like much, but the Border Patrol has virtually unlimited power. They can stop you without reason. The Border Patrol is under the direction of Homeland Security. If the local police should fall under the control of Homeland Security, this ould give the local police unlimited power. Instead of the Federal Government being small like our Founding Fathers wanted, we could be under the umbrella of a larger government. As far as camps are concerned, their are some for illegals which some say maybe used against us. Arizona has several Indian reservations which are a story in of themselves and there are remmants of interment camps that were used against USA citizens during WWII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted March 2, 2008 Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 << an exception that proves the rule >> That saying has never made a lot of sense to me. Someone makes a rule, and then when a situation or whatever comes along doesn't fit the rule they say, "See ... the exception proves the rule!" So just how many exceptions does it take to prove a rule is wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted March 2, 2008 Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 Surely, you've seen this explanation: "The whole point of this saying is that it doesn't make sense. It's what you say to confound your enemies when your argument has been shot out from under you by some pesky counterexample. From the point of view of advancing the debate it's about one jump ahead of "yo mama," but it beats standing there with your mouth open." 555555 HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogueyam Posted March 2, 2008 Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 << an exception that proves the rule >> That saying has never made a lot of sense to me. The expression makes perfect sense to sane people. Here's how it works: Person A makes a general statement about a situation. Person B comes up with an exception to the general rule, an exception that everyone agrees is exceptional and not at all typical. Therefore the exception proves the rule because it is so exceptional. Examine the present case, the internment of the Japanese during WWII. This happened over 60 years ago and is a complete one-off, an event unlike any other. Therefore this proves that generally speaking Americans do not do such things. See how easy that is? Of course it helps to be sane, intelligent, and not a leftist but really anyone can play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiceMan Posted March 3, 2008 Report Share Posted March 3, 2008 Wrong again. prove c.1175, prouwe, from O.Fr. prover (11c.), from L. probare "to test, prove worthy," i.e. it is the exception that tests the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khunsanuk Posted March 3, 2008 Report Share Posted March 3, 2008 Hi, "Therefore this proves that generally speaking Americans do not do such things." No, it doesn't. It could just as easily be argued that it proves that Americans are capable of doing such things if they think it is needed. Sanuk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.