KalNet Message Board

Today I read something in the paper that disturbed me. It was an article that was discussing Photo Radar/Red Light Cams. It was not the prospect of a return to Photo Radar that concerned me, it was the way the politician was talking about the opposition to it.

She said that she does not seriously listen to people who are against the plan, because anyone who is against it is a speeder.

... This bothers me, thus i would say to her. Give me all of your banking records, I want to be sure that you are not funding a criminal organization. By her logic, if she resists she indeed must be funding said organizations.

So, what do you all think? Do you see my point, or am I just more nuts then normal?

I see your point completely. And in fact I have often thought the same thing. It's like you were saying, by denying you the request to see her bank records her reasoning would follow your path of logic. Going one step farther, if somebody is arrested on a charge, guilty or not, if they ask for an attourney they are guilty because they are trying to cover up their guilt with legal tactics. It's not far off your scenario.

It's just like Bush and his war, saying, "if you're not with us, you're against us," when that is not necessarily the case. Countries like Canada have good reason not to go to war, because that jumps us up from secondary, or tertiary target, to primary target, and is just asking for trouble. Other countries lack the resources to commit to such an action, and others still, have no reason, other than Bush says so. The reasoning doesn't matter to people like Bush, and the person mentioned above, all that matters is that because somebody does not whole-heartedly agree with them, they are the enemy. (And going by Bush's comment, we, and many other countries, should now be targeted by the Americans).

So I'm definately with you on this one.

Guilt by disassociation.

good point bob, and i love it