Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (363023)	12/16/2007 1:14:44 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578006

" Why do liberals oppose people doing that?" Some liberals are anti-war. Note the qualifier "some". They are because they feel it is bad for the country. They are wrong, but they still have the interests of the country in mind. "First, the people are foreign enemies and aren't on our soil. " First, we don't know if they are enemies or not. Most were served up from bounty hunters with often unknown backgrounds. Secondly, Guantanamo Bay is held on a long term lease and the Cuban government has absolutely no authority, control or even input into the situation. So, given we have legal authority over it, and Cuba has none, it might as well be considered our soil. In fact, the USSC has taken exactly that stance. "Second, if the US had ever been invaded by a foreign enemy, we wouldn't treat the captured enemy as citizen criminals. " Probably true. Although they should then be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. "We haven't jettisoned any laws. " Excuse me, Brumar. What do you call it when the President can, at his discretion, label anybody an "enemy combatant" for any reason and hold them in secret without a trial? That is more like a dictatorship. And, unlike the Roman Republic, we don't have a legal basis for that, nor a legal tradition. "Saddam was believed to be nearing possession of WMD's (especially nuclear weapons). " No. He wasn't believed to possess nuclear weapons at any point by anyone reasonably familiar with the area. He was believed to have chemical weapons by many, although apparently the intelligence estimates of the time were leaning against it. But, in the intervening years, the administration has thrown up many reasons for the invasion. And those reasons have changed over time. Not all of them can be true, so... "That would have been news to them. The term hadn't been coined yet." Whether the term was coined or not isn't really relevant. Spinoza, who died in the 1600's, is considered to have laid the groundwork for the Enlightenment. In some respects, the Enlightenment was just an extension of the Age of Reason, so many of the concepts preceded even that time period. Franklin, Jefferson and Paine are all considered to be major figures in the Enlightenment. To in essence claim that the Enlightenment was new and not very well known at the time is not correct. "He thought he was." Well, it depends. He did reject the divinity of Christ, although he did believe that Christ was a great moral teacher. Now all Christian sects I know of make accepting the divinity of Christ as one of their bedrock, defining issues. Maybe you feel differently.