Fearmongering Begets Concentration-Camp Rumors

[Big Phil]

Unlike me? Strawman much? Einy posted an article that even he doesn't really believe, and you just right on the non-existent bandwagon: THE GOVERNMENT IS SETTING UP CONCENTRATION CAMPS! EVERYBODY RUN! THE HOMECOMING QUEEN'S GOT A GUN!

I did nothing of the sort, and you know it. I just pointed that it's not the wild lunacy that you want to portray it as that a government like ours would do such a thing. You remind me of the people who claimed that it was WILD ! and CRAZY ! and a "conspiracy theory" to claim that Bush would invade Iraq without evidence of WMD, or that we'd torture innocent people, or any number of things that we actually did. You can't actually produce a good argument against that, so you try to pretend that I'm ranting and raving, and use the magic words "conspiracy theory", which these days is just a means of brushing off accusations without bothering to argue against them.

Strawman again - show me where I've claimed the US doesn't torture people.

How about some proof, rather than wild-eyed conspiracy theories? Flagg pointed out Jose Padilla, who I'd forgotten about, but in case you forgot, you do need to prove your bullshit point, and a single example does not prove.

Hello ? Are you denying that we've tortured people ? Held them without evidence ?

Again, proof that I ever suggested otherwise

There is a huge difference incarcerating "terrorists" picked up in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, and imprisoning political opponents to remain in power in perpetuity. So prove your larger point, dumbass. Where are the concentration camps filled with political prisoners?

I never said there were any; again, you are lying about what I said. And the "huge difference" is only in your mind.

No wonder you have a VI title... you said:

Um, this IS the same Administration that has no problem with kidnapping people, sending them to secret prisons, torturing them, and so on. While right NOW, given the disarray of the Right it's unlikely that they will actually round up dissenters and so on into camps, I fail to see why it's wild paranoia to think that they intended to do so. Remember the supposed "permanent Republican majority" ? The goal was a Republican Presidency with extralegal powers, and a rubber stamp Congress and Supreme court; exactly the sort of government that could and would round up people it didn't like into camps.

Now if that's not a poorly veiled attempt at suggesting that the Republicans would do anything, including torture and imprisoning political opponents to remain in power, I don't know what it is. This is not a thread on torture and imprisonment of foreign soldiers or "fighters;" it's about concentration camps set up to imprison Americans. Either you're too stupid to notice that or too dishonest to admit what you said.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Strawman again - show me where I've claimed the US doesn't torture people.

Show me where I said that you claimed that.

How about some proof, rather than wild-eyed conspiracy theories? Flagg pointed out Jose Padilla, who I'd forgotten about, but in case you forgot, you do need to prove your bullshit point, and a single example does not prove.

Hello ? Are you denying that we've tortured people ? Held them without evidence ?

Again, proof that I ever suggested otherwise

That is not the POINT, as I'm sure you are well aware. One more time. This Administration is composed of people who have shown zero ethics, have tortured and lied and killed to get their way. When people like you babble about how it's completely ridiculous to consider that they might even have intended to round up enemies into camps, you ignore their previous behavior.

There is a huge difference incarcerating "terrorists" picked up in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, and imprisoning political opponents to remain in power in perpetuity. So prove your larger point, dumbass. Where are the concentration camps filled with political prisoners?

I never said there were any; again, you are lying about what I said. And the "huge difference" is only in your mind.

No wonder you have a VI title... you said:

I have a title because I called our wonderful troops bad names. I accused them of being monsters for what they have done, and they are; and the military types on this board voted as a bloc against me, or so at least one claimed. I will always have the title because getting it removed would require me to "admit" being wrong, and I'm not going to lie to get a title on a message board removed.

Now if that's not a poorly veiled attempt at suggesting that the Republicans would do anything, including torture and imprisoning political opponents to remain in power, I don't know what it is.

Of course they would do anything; they have proved their utter amorality. The question is not whether or not they would do anything, but what they can get away with.

This is not a thread on torture and imprisonment of foreign soldiers or "fighters;" it's about concentration camps set up to imprison Americans. Either you're too stupid to notice that or too dishonest to admit what you said.

Garbage. This isn't about me being stupid or dishonest; it's about you playing apologist for this Administration. The fact that they HAVE tortured and killed people - many, probably most of whom were perfectly innocent - shows just how ruthless they are. Pretending that they will suddenly grow a conscience when it comes to Americans within our borders is ridiculous.

[Big Phil]

Strawman again - show me where I've claimed the US doesn't torture people.

Show me where I said that you claimed that.

You're a liar and an idiot - read your own fucking post; just because you're insinuating rather than flatly stating it doesn't mean you're not accusing me of supporting and denying torture

Hello ? Are you denying that we've tortured people ? Held them without evidence ?

Again, proof that I ever suggested otherwise

That is not the POINT, as I'm sure you are well aware. One more time. This Administration is composed of people who have shown zero ethics, have tortured and lied and killed to get their way. When people like you babble about how it's completely ridiculous to consider that they might even have intended to round up enemies into camps, you ignore their previous behavior.

DR 5 - Proof, douchebag, or stop your whining.

There is a huge difference incarcerating "terrorists" picked up in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, and imprisoning political opponents to remain in power in perpetuity. So prove your larger point, dumbass. Where are the concentration camps filled with political prisoners?

I never said there were any; again, you are lying about what I said. And the "huge difference" is only in your mind.

So you think that the Bush Administration's method of remaining in power in perpetuity is to torture and imprison Al Qaeda fighters? Was that really the point of your original post, cockgoblin? Or are you a terrible liar and a moron?

Feel free to explain how imprisoning foreigners keeps an American government in power forever, especially in light of your original post. It's been reposted here because I know you have a short attention span and are a blithering idiot.

While right NOW, given the disarray of the Right it's unlikely that they will actually round up dissenters and so on into camps, I fail to see why it's wild paranoia to think that they intended to do so. Remember the supposed "permanent Republican majority" ? The goal was a Republican Presidency with extralegal powers, and a rubber stamp Congress and Supreme court; exactly the sort of government that could and would round up people it didn't like into camps.

No wonder you have a VI title... you said:

I have a title because I called our wonderful troops bad names. I accused them of being monsters for what they have done, and they are; and the military types on this board voted as a bloc against me, or so at least one claimed. I will always have the title because getting it removed would require me to "admit" being wrong, and I'm not going to lie to get a title on a message board removed.

If Mike or one of the admin's disagreed with the "military types" you wouldn't have it, or don't you realize that?

Now if that's not a poorly veiled attempt at suggesting that the Republicans would do anything, including torture and imprisoning political opponents to remain in power, I don't know what it is.

Of course they would do anything; they have proved their utter amorality. The question is not whether or not they would do anything, but what they can get away with.

DR 5 - prove it, douchebag

This is not a thread on torture and imprisonment of foreign soldiers or "fighters;" it's about concentration camps set up to imprison Americans. Either you're too stupid to notice that or too dishonest to admit what you said.

Garbage. This isn't about me being stupid or dishonest; it's about you playing apologist for this Administration. The fact that they HAVE tortured and killed people - many, probably most of whom were perfectly innocent - shows just how ruthless they are. Pretending that they will suddenly grow a conscience when it comes to Americans within our borders is ridiculous.

A. You're a douchebag
B. If you bothered to look at my posting history, you'd see that I'm a vocal critic of the Bush administration
C. DR 5 - Prove it, douchebag

[Flagg]

It was public after the fact, IIRC. It was only announced by Ashcroft to score some political points and amp up the fear. I don't necessarily believe that the Bush administration had or has plans for actively engaging in putting American citizens in concentration camps, but I don't dismiss the possibility because that seemed to be the way things were heading.

But in order to make that statement on this board, you need proof, not "I don't dismiss the possibility because that seemed to be the way things were heading."

I don't think anyone actually made the statement that they were actually definitely going to do that. Aside from the batshit article, anyway. I just don't dismiss the possibility, because all of the actions (that we know about at this point) show that they don't consider themselves to be under the rule of law. Everything from blatantly outing a covert CIA agent over an op-ed to violating federal law by listening in to everyone phone conversations points to that.

The only reason they haven't gone to even more extremes of abuse of power seems to be because there are still too many obstacles in the way for them to do it. I have no doubt that if their little "Permanent Republican Majority" had been solidified and built upon that we would have seen, and would still be seeing, more and more blatant abuses against our civil liberties.

Lord of the Abyss just claimed that a government that would do what the Bush Administration has done and sought to do would have no qualms about rounding up dissenters and putting them in camps. Something I find hard to disagree with. The NYPD was rounding up protesters and holding them in mass detention centers during the RNC Convention in 2004. IIRC almost every single person detained was not charged with anything, or had charges dismissed in short order.

Remember the Democratic convention in 1968? Was that an example of the Democrats planning to lock up protesters in concentration camps?

Again, you need some proof, and that's not a good example.

You mean the riot in Chicago? Were there riots at the 2004 GOP convention in New York?

But you want more examples? OK. There's the "free speech zones" enforced by the secret service. There's the infiltration of peaceful anti-war groups by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. There's thelocking out of people who aren't already supporters at campaign rallies. There's the rendition and black site prisons programs. There's issuing terror alerts and raising the threat levels at politically opportune moments for Republicans. There's removing Habeas Corpus. There's attempting to retroactively legalize waterboarding and other torture. There's having a political litmus test for the hiring and firing of US Attorneys. There's the illegal deletion of White House emails.

Need I go on? There is incident after incident of this administration blatantly violating federal law and the US Constitution as well as the civil rights of it's citizens with seeming impunity. And you think it's really all that much a stretch that they would continue that and not take even more bold and authoritarian steps as their grip on power solidified into a one party state? Because by their own admission, that was the goal. A one party state and a permanent Republican majority.

But you are correct that we have no clear evidence that this would happen or that they were planning on making it happen. That's why I never stated it that way.

And sorry for responding to this so late, I didn't see it until I was reading over the thread this morning.

[Big Phil]

It was public after the fact, IIRC. It was only announced by Ashcroft to score some political points and amp up the fear. I don't necessarily believe that the Bush administration had or has plans for actively engaging in putting American citizens in concentration camps, but I don't dismiss the possibility because that seemed to be the way things were heading.

But in order to make that statement on this board, you need proof, not "I don't dismiss the possibility because that seemed to be the way things were heading."

I don't think anyone actually made the statement that they were actually definitely going to do that. Aside from the batshit article, anyway. I just don't dismiss the possibility, because all of the actions (that we know about at this point) show that they don't consider themselves to be under the rule of law. Everything from blatantly outing a covert CIA agent over an op-ed to violating federal law by listening in to everyone phone conversations points to that.

The only reason they haven't gone to even more extremes of abuse of power seems to be because there are still too many obstacles in the way for them to do it. I have no doubt that if their little "Permanent Republican Majority" had been solidified and built upon that we would have seen, and would still be seeing, more and more blatant abuses against our civil liberties.

Part of the reason I took issue with LOTA's post was that the "Permanent Republican Majority" required a great deal of Democratic collusion. Does anyone really believe that the Democrats were going along with Republican power grabs, or were they just pussies who went where the political winds were blowing?

Moreover, while many Democrats were slandered and slimed, if the Republicans were serious about entrenching their power base, I would have fully expected McCarthy-like hearings accusing Democrats of collusion with Islamic terrorists. Since we never saw anything of that sort, it seems more likely that Republicans weren't willing to completely discard the Constitution and were simply pushing as far as they could reasonably push to maintain their control of the government.

Lord of the Abyss just claimed that a government that would do what the Bush Administration has done and sought to do would have no qualms about rounding up dissenters and putting them in camps. Something I find hard to disagree with. The NYPD was rounding up protesters and holding them in mass detention centers during the RNC Convention in 2004. IIRC almost every single person detained was not charged with anything, or had charges dismissed in short order.

Remember the Democratic convention in 1968? Was that an example of the Democrats planning to lock up protesters in concentration camps?

Again, you need some proof, and that's not a good example.

You mean the riot in Chicago? Were there riots at the 2004 GOP convention in New York?

But you want more examples? OK. There's the "free speech zones" enforced by the secret service. There's the infiltration of peaceful anti-war groups by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. There's thelocking out of people who aren't already supporters at campaign rallies. There's the rendition and black site prisons programs. There's issuing terror alerts and raising the threat levels at politically opportune moments for Republicans. There's removing Habeas Corpus. There's attempting to retroactively legalize waterboarding and other torture. There's having a political litmus test for the hiring and firing of US Attorneys. There's the illegal deletion of White House emails.

Need I go on? There is incident after incident of this administration blatantly violating federal law and the US Constitution as well as the civil rights of it's citizens with seeming impunity. And you think it's really all that much a stretch that they would continue that and not take even more bold and authoritarian steps as their grip on power solidified into a one party state? Because by their own admission, that was the goal. A one party state and a permanent Republican majority.

But you are correct that we have no clear evidence that this would happen or that they were planning on making it happen. That's why I never stated it that way.

And sorry for responding to this so late, I didn't see it until I was reading over the thread this morning.[/quote]

The Chicago riots started after the police were ordered by Mayor Richard Daley (a Democrat) to disperse the protesters.

Also, the the examples you cite are egregious examples of abuse of power and disregard for the Constitution, but remember that many of these laws and bills were passed with Democratic support. If the Democrats believed they were in danger of extinction (being arrested, for example), I doubt they'd have voted in favor of the bills.

In any case, while suggestive and (to quote John Stewart) "bad for America," you're right that none of these actions prove concentration camps were in the works.

[Big Phil]

Wow - I fucked up those quote tags. Here's the properly formatted response:

Lord of the Abyss just claimed that a government that would do what the Bush Administration has done and sought to do would have no qualms about rounding up dissenters and putting them in camps. Something I find hard to disagree with. The NYPD was rounding up protesters and holding them in mass detention centers during the RNC Convention in 2004. IIRC almost every single person detained was not charged with anything, or had charges dismissed in short order.

Remember the Democratic convention in 1968? Was that an example of the Democrats planning to lock up protesters in concentration camps?

Again, you need some proof, and that's not a good example.

You mean the riot in Chicago? Were there riots at the 2004 GOP convention in New York?

But you want more examples? OK. There's the "free speech zones" enforced by the secret service. There's the infiltration of peaceful anti-war groups by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. There's thelocking out of people who aren't already supporters at campaign rallies. There's the rendition and black site prisons programs. There's issuing terror alerts and raising the threat levels at politically opportune moments for Republicans. There's removing Habeas Corpus. There's attempting to retroactively legalize waterboarding and other torture. There's having a political litmus test for the hiring and firing of US Attorneys. There's the illegal deletion of White House emails.

Need I go on? There is incident after incident of this administration blatantly violating federal law and the US Constitution as well as the civil rights of it's citizens with seeming impunity. And you think it's really all that much a stretch that they would continue that and not take even more bold and authoritarian steps as their grip on power solidified into a one party state? Because by their own admission, that was the goal. A one party state and a permanent Republican majority.

But you are correct that we have no clear evidence that this would happen or that they were planning on making it happen. That's why I never stated it that way.

And sorry for responding to this so late, I didn't see it until I was reading over the thread this morning.

The Chicago riots started after the police were ordered by Mayor Richard Daley (a Democrat) to disperse the protesters.

Also, the the examples you cite are egregious examples of abuse of power and disregard for the Constitution, but remember that many of these laws and bills were passed with Democratic support. If the Democrats believed they were in danger of extinction (being arrested, for example), I doubt they'd have voted in favor of the bills.

In any case, while suggestive and (to quote John Stewart) "bad for America," you're right that none of these actions prove concentration camps were in the works.

[Phantasee]

Can I please see a source for the claim that the Republicans want a one-party state? I have to read this.

[Elfdart]

I read the article and the posts in this thread and I don't see anyone refuting a single assertion made in the article. Does this mean you all concede that the piece is accurate?

[NeoGoomba]

"Speak for yourself, the US government is just responding to a threat."

- Walton Simons

He may have been corrupt in the extreme, but at least he was an intelligent, capable leader of FEMA

[Big Phil]

I read the article and the posts in this thread and I don't see anyone refuting a single assertion made in the article. Does this mean you all concede that the piece is accurate?

Refute what? A whole shitload of assertions unsupported by facts, or by tying together unrelated bills, laws and orders?

The article makes this statement:

Executive Order 11921 provides that, once a state of emergency has been declared by the president, the action cannot be reviewed by Congress for six months.

The problem is, I've read Executive Order 11921 (passed by Gerry Ford in 1976), and it says nothing whatsoever about states of emergency not being reviewed. In other words, this assertion is a flat out lie. And you really want someone to waste their time refuting the rest of this pack of lies and conspiracy theories? Seems like you're placing the burden of proof on the rest of us to disprove these crackpot theories, and it's not our responsibility to do so.

Full text of EO 11921 found here:
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-11921.htm

[Lord of the Abyss]

DR 5 - Proof, douchebag, or stop your whining.

Prove WHAT ? You are the one making absolutist statements, about how it's simply unthinkable that the government would do such things ( an especially silly claim given that it has in the past ). I'm simply saying that there's no reason that claims or speculations that they may have intended to do such things as wild eyed conspiracy theories.

[Big Phil]

DR 5 - Proof, douchebag, or stop your whining.

Prove WHAT ? You are the one making absolutist statements, about how it's simply unthinkable that the government would do such things ( an especially silly claim given that it has in the past ). I'm simply saying that there's no reason that claims or speculations that they may have intended to do such things as wild eyed conspiracy theories.

When has the US government imprisoned and tortured political opponents to ensure a single party rule (like you're suggesting)?

[Big Phil]

DR 5 - Proof, douchebag, or stop your whining.

Prove WHAT ? You are the one making absolutist statements, about how it's simply unthinkable that the government would do such things ( an especially silly claim given that it has in the past ). I'm simply saying that there's no reason that claims or speculations that they may have intended to do such things as wild eyed conspiracy theories.

More to the point - you said you agreed with the article and found its claims believable. I've already shown how one of the claims is demonstrably false; you have yet to provide anything (other than the opinion of an idiot) supporting the veracity of any of the claims in the article.

[Elfdart]

The parts about Oliver North and Lewis Giuffrida came out during testimony in the Iran-Contra hearings, when Rep. Jack Brooks questioned North about them. So I doubt those are in dispute.

By the way, I took the liberty of asking Cox about EO 11921 and why the text of the order doesn't include what he describes. It's in the comments section. Let's see if he responds:

Link

You claimed that:
Executive Order 11921 provides that, once a state of emergency has been declared by the president, the action cannot be reviewed by Congress for six months.

Yet the full text of Executive Order 11921 can be found here:
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-11921.htm

And there's no such thing in the order. Can you explain this?

by Elfie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 comments) on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at 12:29:50 AM

Should be fun.

[Lord of the Abyss]

DR 5 - Proof, douchebag, or stop your whining.

Prove WHAT ? You are the one making absolutist statements, about how it's simply unthinkable that the government would do such things ( an especially silly claim given that it has in the past ). I'm simply saying that there's no reason that claims or speculations that they may have intended to do such things as wild eyed conspiracy theories.

When has the US government imprisoned and tortured political opponents to ensure a single party rule (like you're suggesting)?

It's imprisoned people in concentration camps, you do remember WW II ? That's to what I'm referring.

DR 5 - Proof, douchebag, or stop your whining.

Prove WHAT ? You are the one making absolutist statements, about how it's simply unthinkable that the government would do such things ( an especially silly claim given that it has in the past ). I'm simply saying that there's no reason that claims or speculations that they may have intended to do such things as wild eyed conspiracy theories.

More to the point - you said you agreed with the article and found its claims believable. I've already shown how one of the claims is demonstrably false; you have yet to provide anything (other than the opinion of an idiot) supporting the veracity of any of the claims in the article.

I said no such thing, and you know it. I said that I thought it was ridiculous to claim that such behavior on the part of the government was unthinkable. Then you showed up frothing at the mouth and acted like I'd claimed that the government was in league with aliens to steal our internal organs.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Sanchez challenged Lord with:


"When has the US government imprisoned and tortured political opponents to ensure a single party rule (like you're suggesting)?"

Lord of the Abyss wrote in responce:

"It's imprisoned people in concentration camps, you do remember WW II ? That's to what I'm referring. "



Funny, I though the Japanese being put in camps in WW2 was wartime parnoid thinking, a very small amount of a real threat, and a good dose of racism thrown in. Just how does this promote a one party rule anyway? Use small words so I can keep up.


Yes, I know, I messed up the quote pyramid! after fighting with the board for 55 minutes and not getting it right I don't care.This is as good as I can get it for now.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Funny, I though the Japanese being put in camps in WW2 was wartime parnoid thinking, a very small amount of a real threat, and a good dose of racism thrown in. Just how does this promote a one party rule anyway? Use small words so I can keep up.

"It does not. That was not the point." Those words small enough ?

The government of WWII wasn't trying to impose one party rule, so they didn't put the sort of people in camps that a government seeking one party rule would. That doesn't change the fact that they DID round up people into camps, so the assertion that such an act is wildly implausible is nonsense.

[Big Phil]

Funny, I though the Japanese being put in camps in WW2 was wartime parnoid thinking, a very small amount of a real threat, and a good dose of racism thrown in. Just how does this promote a one party rule anyway? Use small words so I can keep up.

"It does not. That was not the point." Those words small enough ?

The government of WWII wasn't trying to impose one party rule, so they didn't put the sort of people in camps that a government seeking one party rule would. That doesn't change the fact that they DID round up people into camps, so the assertion that such an act is wildly implausible is nonsense.

How many times are you going to change your position? You went from "Republicans want one party rule and will use concentration camps to get it" to "the government does bad things like imprisoning Japanese people when we're at war with Japan!"

[Big Phil]

Um, this IS the same Administration that has no problem with kidnapping people, sending them to secret prisons, torturing them, and so on. While right NOW, given the disarray of the Right it's unlikely that they will actually round up dissenters and so on into camps, I fail to see why it's wild paranoia to think that they intended to do so. Remember the supposed "permanent Republican majority" ? The goal was a Republican Presidency with extralegal powers, and a rubber stamp Congress and Supreme court; exactly the sort of government that could and would round up people it didn't like into camps.

LOTA, since you've changed your position from the above (i.e., the Republicans wanted to put people it didn't like into camps (to retain their "permanent Republican majority")) to, the "government" has put people in concentration camps (which is absolutely true), I'm going to have to assume that you can't back up your initial post and are conceding. Please let me know if I should continue kicking your ass up and down the block; otherwise, I'm going to move on to something more interesting.

[Elfdart]

LOTA, since you've changed your position from the above (i.e., the Republicans wanted to put people it didn't like into camps (to retain their "permanent Republican majority")) to, the "government" has put people in concentration camps (which is absolutely true), I'm going to have to assume that you can't back up your initial post and are conceding. Please let me know if I should continue kicking your ass up and down the block; otherwise, I'm going to move on to something more interesting.

Strawmanning the shit out of someone else's position, then declaring victory? Nice try, numbnuts. Fleeing the scene before the other side gets a response means you have conceded, not him.

As it turns out, the Junta did in fact seek a "permanent majority" and were willing to rig elections and lock up American citizens to reach that goal. Harper's has run a series of articles by Scott Horton about the fact that Dubya's U.S. Attorneys went on a great lark, trumping up charges against innocent people in order to (a) intimidate voters and (b) ruin the careers of politicians who might give them trouble. The bogus charges against ACORN and former Alabama governor Don Siegelman (who is still behind bars on bullshit charges) are just the most blatant examples. When other US Attorneys refused to take part in this, they were fired.

The fact that the plan fell apart when the Republitards (in spite of trying to rig the elections) lost Congress does not mean it didn't exist. The fact that Siegelman is in a regular prison doesn't change the fact that for many years, government officials have drawn up plans to put those they dislike into concentration camps if the right conditions should occur. It's no leap in logic to think that the Junta isn't above doing such things when they've already done everything else one would expect from the typical Generalissimo.

Not that any of it matters, since you deliberately argued points Lord of the Abyss never made. So why don't you take your many straw men, dip them in kerosene, light them with a match and stick them WAY up your ass, you lying, straw manning douchecock.

[Big Phil]

LOTA, since you've changed your position from the above (i.e., the Republicans wanted to put people it didn't like into camps (to retain their "permanent Republican majority")) to, the "government" has put people in concentration camps (which is absolutely true), I'm going to have to assume that you can't back up your initial post and are conceding. Please let me know if I should continue kicking your ass up and down the block; otherwise, I'm going to move on to something more interesting.

Strawmanning the shit out of someone else's position, then declaring victory? Nice try, numbnuts. Fleeing the scene before the other side gets a response means you have conceded, not him.

As it turns out, the Junta did in fact seek a "permanent majority" and were willing to rig elections and lock up American citizens to reach that goal. Harper's has run a series of articles by Scott Horton about the fact that Dubya's U.S. Attorneys went on a great lark, trumping up charges against innocent people in order to (a) intimidate voters and (b) ruin the careers of politicians who might give them trouble. The bogus charges against ACORN and former Alabama governor Don Siegel man (who is still behind bars on bullshit charges) are just the most blatant examples. When other US Attorneys refused to take part in this, they were fired.

The fact that the plan fell apart when the Republitards (in spite of trying to rig the elections) lost Congress does not mean it didn't exist. The fact that Siegelman is in a regular prison doesn't change the fact that for many years, government officials have drawn up plans to put those they dislike into concentration camps if the right conditions should occur. It's no leap in logic to think that the Junta isn't above doing such things when they've already done everything else one would expect from the typical Generalissimo.

Not that any of it matters, since you deliberately argued points Lord of the Abyss never made. So why don't you take your many straw men, dip them in kerosene, light them with a match and stick them WAY up your ass, you lying, straw manning douchecock.

I guess I'm just a big meany

I don't suppose you have any way of explaining how the claims about EO 11921 are complete bullshit, do you? Since you seem to take the claims in the article at face value, it would be nice to see your explanation for this.