BigLundi wrote...
That Obama is trying to control the united states and become a socialist dictator among other crackpot theories? No, it hasn't ever been proven. And you didn't prove it with those links, nor below.
The argument was provisions of the Patriot act and other legislation that I mentioned "had never been used". I proved those provisions had been used.
You're either trying to distort the argument to cover up your embarrassment or you're simply seeing what you want to see.
Regardless, Patriot act provisions have been used for unconstitutional acts. That is a fact, there is no further argument here.
Yet again, I'd like to point out that information on and permission to track individuals have never been requested without court approval, according to your own source. So again, "The Patriot Act allows this" isn't an argument against Obama, it's just an argument against the patriot act. And not a very strong one.
Obama renewed the Patriot Act. The fact that the Patriot Act still exists as is despite Obama's campaign promises to
add additional congressional oversight.
additional link.
He's continued to uphold the Patriot Act and has made no positive reforms or revisions to protect the civil liberties of American citizens. That is a clear strike against him.
Ooooh classy. "You and your liberal educational systems." What are you, 60?
Also, I don't have a degree yet, this is basic history of philosophy. Are you saying I shouldn't use my education in arguments? Are you serious with this nonsense?
By all means, use your education since arguing on the internet is really it's only use. My comment was a suggestion you pick a major that is actually useful in finding employment out here in the real world. Unless, you want to spend the rest of your life in the congratulatory circle jerk that is academia.
So you won't believe I have a dog until I show you evidence. That's an unreasonable presumption bordering on logical positivism, that all things, unless they have direct empirical evidence, are to be disbelieved.
The levels of evidence required for something to be sufficient aren't completely arbitrary. There are reasons that the more specific and larger the claim, the more evidence is required for belief to be determined to be reasonable. There are reasons why requiring evidence directly for a claim that can be determined inductively to be more than possible is retarded. Say I say I'm white. over 80% of the US is white...so you can make the determination it's more than likely I'm white. You don't need a picture of me to determine this.
There is an equal chance that you've lied about your ethnicity. Just because the probability of a claim is high doesn't make it true.
Great, so you've adopted the cynical worldview that if I say I don't beat my significant other, you're forced to disbelieve me until you know better.
I'm going to make a claim right now: People don't tend to beat their significant others.
You're now forced to disbelieve this claim, because you don't know everyone. Until I show you statistics, you have to say, "Nope, I can't accept that people don't tend to beat their significant others."
High probability doesn't necessarily make something true. We could pick a random person out of a crowd at an event and say "This person does not abuse their significant other". While the probability is high that the person does not abuse their significant other in some fashion we do not know if our claim is true until we have evidence that the person in fact does not abuse their significant other.
In order for something to be true, you require evidence. That is unless you want to take a religious point of view and use the "because I said so" argument.
Great, so your analogy didn't apply to Obama and Paul, meaning it's useless to prove your point about why you trust Ron Paul but not Obama. Thank you for admitting this. Moving on.
You attempted to twist my words. Since you've resorted to such tactics, I agree that we should move on. I won't waste my time with someone who fails basic reading comprehension.
Not an inconsistency to be found in this one. He said he hadn't heard particular things while sitting in a pieu, but he had heard other things he disagreed with. He also made clear that while he would want to tell the good Reverend when he disagreed, he wouldn't want to
You probably didn't watch the video. The first inconsistency is before 13 seconds into the video. I guess political flipping isn't considered inconsistent to you.
Also, as a side note, I really want to hammer the point home that once I proved Obama had attempted to close down Guantanamo Bay, you shut right the hell up about that argument without ever conceding that you were wrong. I'd like a concession before we let that just 'disappear'.
You resorted to the "blame congress" argument despite not acknowledging that his party had a super-majority in congress. So you're attempting to say that with a 90% control of congress that he somehow couldn't garner enough support to close a detention facility? Especially one that Democrats harped about all throughout the Bush years. There is nothing to concede there. You've only succeeded in pointing out that even with the near full support of congress that Obama is still incompetent. Which is another strike against him.
I'd say you just have to remain consistent with your own rules, and ease up on your irrational level of skepticism about many things. A person can be guilty even if they're pronounced innocent by a set of peers. The truth isn't determined by popular opinion. You know that. I know that. So the fact that he was 'declared' innocent doesn't make him innocent. Only in the legal sense.
Popular opinion is that he is guilty and you've just said that "truth isn't determined by popular opinion". The legal sense is all that matters in this situation.
When I say "will" I am making an inductively reasonable prediction about the future based on fact, allowing me to explain that something not only 'might' happen, but indeed WILL happen. Religious zealotry's track record speaks for itself as to what a zealot will do with power X. Your 'might' claims are nothign of the sort. Speculation on your part based on a personal bias against the government and a belief that people in power 'just will do this stuff'.
We're both using inductive reasoning to make our claims. Now, unless you want to admit that you're wrong, you have to admit that I am right. You need to end this double standard B.S. it's quite tiresome.
Please give me an example of something that ONLY whales eat, that, if overpopulated, would damage things.
Orca whales become extinct. Sea lions lose 1 of their 2 natural predators. Either sharks would either multiply to take up the Orca's share of sea lions or the Sea lions would out pace their predators ability to hunt them. This would lead to a larger sea lion population, which would consume more fish. This puts them in direct conflict with commercial fishing vessels. Already Califonia is seeing a problem with an increasing population of California sea lions which are damaging docks, boating and even attacking swimmers.
That's just off the top of my head.
Considering you consistently just outright ignore when I clarify that when someone could possibly be a terrorist, set of actions to make against them X are justified, but not ALL actions XY are justified. And I then state that after set of actions X occur, reasonable evidence can be obtained to do set of actions XY. You consistently ignore me when I make this clarification, and just argue as if I say suspicion alone is enough to perform action set XY when I've already mocked this position in earlier posts. You dolt.
The fact that you're narrowly asserting that unless someone is taken to court, it cannot be objectively verified whether or not someone is guilty o an act, and have actually argued that if someone is declared innocent in court, it is true that they are innocent, is insane.[/quote]
The only insane thing here is your adherence to some universal truth like some religious zealot. There is nothing wrong with demanding that a trial take place for people accused of committing a crime. Instead you keep arguing that law enforcement can just arrest someone and convict them without a trial. If you are in favor of a trial to actual convict someone, then what the fuck are we arguing about?
Truth is not determined in a courtroom. Point and fact.
True but, guilt and innocence are.
Right, and you're asserting that these prosecutions of traitorous behavior can only be done in a courtroom, that for some magical reason, witnesses don't count unless they're in court. Have you ever heard of witnesses signing an affidavit saying that they swear they saw said events occur and that this is enough to count as a witness' testimony? That they don't need to be in court in order for their testimony to be valid?
What is wrong with expecting that people receive a fair trial when they are accused of a crime?
My understanding of your arguments is that law enforcement should become judge, jury and executioner. That law enforcement can determine innocence or guilt without a trial. This is counter to what I am arguing which is the argument that it is not the job of law enforcement to determine innocence or guilt.
Whenever you say, "Oh, so we should just do X to everyone then right?" you're appealing to the collectivist point of view, and projecting it onto me, as if I believe that something ought be done to everyone, if it is to be done to an individual, assigning the identity of multiple individuals as the collective. And it's bullshit.
What a nice example of your failure at reading comprehension. Do me a favor and don't quite Ludwig von Mises unless you actually understand him.
All I said was that it's justifiable to investigate mosques in the case of trying to find 'radicals' because...it's been shown that they get recruited and mentally trained against the United States within these mosques. Did I say we should just throw all the worshippers in jail? No. Has the government? No. So don't characterize it as if I or they did. Douche.
Didn't say throw'em in jail. For a college educated person, you sure do suck at actually READING what's in front of you.
Yeah, I told you. You don't like real reasons. They're not the conspiratorial shadow government covert "big brother's out to get you!" reasons that you want. Well...tough. A real reason to hate a president or politician rarely has anything to do with them being "evil people" or becoming the next Hitler or fascist dictator of your choosing. It has to do with how effective they are as a leader and if their plans work or not.
The first two don't matter because I want to throw the tax code out and replace it with something else. So the tax breaks and whatnot are irrelevant to me since I want to throw the entire thing out. Doesn't matter what is on page 135 when you're throwing the book out for the newest edition.
Violations to civil liberties are not "conspiracies". The HR 347 bill that was signed by Obama is an example of such violations. It further restricts our ability to protest under threat of incarceration. NDAA's ability to allow the U.S military to act as law enforcement and to indefinitely detain American citizens is not a conspiracy when it's a law. Government tracking of cell phones is not a conspiracy when they have
repeatedly tried to do so.