Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980
(Post 2111586)
I will have to do some research on Reagan's planned indefinite detention, I know one thing, no evidence he ever did nor did he sign any law like the NDAA permitting him too, I will discuss this further once have had a chance to look into it.
|
No, he didn't sign anything, because it wasn't passed. I'm not sure that it was even proposed, but the evidence is there that it was discussed and that he agreed with it.
Quote:
The PATRIOT Act is an awful thing and I have railed against this many times
|
Where? On these boards? The only time I can remember you addressing it is when somebody else shoved it in your face.
Quote:
Bush was more an unwitting accomplice in this than anything and not intelligent enough to see his neocon advisers pushing him in the wrong direction.Bush, like many, overreacted and now we have to live in a police state for it.
|
That I will agree with.
Quote:
apparently before you see the danger he has to start killing more people or get us in a war we can't really win when the signs are already there.
|
The problem isn't seeing the danger, it's what you can actually do about it. You accuse him of violating the Constitution, yet you don't say what can be done without violating the Constitution. Exactly what do you think should be done at this point?
Quote:
Steve, you and I just have different styles.
|
It's not about style, it's about presenting an actual argument rather than shout to everybody that you're right and they're wrong.
Quote:
I am confrontational and yes I have no problem telling someone they lack a certain amount of intellect
|
I guess you don't actually read anything on this forum except as it relates to what you post. If you had would would have noticed long ago that I can be extremely confrontational. That said, I do try to stay within the bounds of actual discussion and debate. That is what a "certain amount of intellect" entails. It's funny that you should say that, because when others say you lack the same you accuse them of personal attacks. Is it okay for you to point that out and others not? I'm sorry, but your "style" lacks just about everything required for any kind of reasonable discussion, and shows no real reason at all, just vitriol against someone you don't like.
Quote:
if they honestly follow and believe a religion or a set political/economic beliefs that have never, ever worked.
|
No. You can argue against said beliefs, but simply calling them stupid is the lazy man's way out. It could be argued that the economic beliefs have never worked because the opposition to them prevented that from happening. As for religion, you don't know that any particular belief is wrong, and just saying it's so doesn't make it so.
Quote:
Someone believes in a political figure that is such an overt threat to the liberties of the people, then yes they are an idiot, esp when they ignore the proof.
|
You've read his books. You've formed conclusions. That's okay as far as it goes, but it does not constitute proof. You're just like the Truthers in that. You insist that there is evidence, but it's only evidence to you because you already believe it.
Quote:
Seems you are very old school and that is fine, it's a natural clash.
|
If "old school" means believing in reason and logic, then it's a major clash, because those are two things all your "arguments" are sorely lacking.
No, you don't. You believe it with all your heart and soul, and never question your own rightness. This makes you exactly like a religious fanatic preaching your version of the absolute truth. But you don't know for certain, and claiming you do only exposes the same lack of intellect you accuse others of showing.
Quote:
this is not a religious argument
|
Sure it is. You just can't see it, because you're a believer.
Quote:
the evidence of the clear and present danger that obama poses is there and has been for a long time
|
Assume that's true. What do you think we should do about it?
Quote:
many are waking up or already have but some like you are still stuck on being "fair" and "tolerant" while disguising it in alleged "logic"
|
Better than being a fanatic and disguising it as "intellect". If that sounds like an insult, remember that you started it.
Quote:
it's nothing more than refusing to admit we have someone who is an actual threat to this country holding power.Obama is more of threat than any terrorist or other nation right now.
|
And that has been said by the opposition to just about every president we've had. Of course this time it's different. This time it's true. That's what they said as well.
Again, assuming for the moment it is true, what do you think should be done?
Quote:
I honestly do hope I am wrong
|
You keep saying that, but of course you're right so you don't really hope you're wrong. You enjoy being right, and wouldn't change that for the world.
Quote:
I have no problem letting someone know when I am right and they were wrong.
|
As I've said before, if you know everything then you have no room to learn anything. And you haven't yet.
Quote:
There is nothing more satisfying than trying to tell someone about things, but they are too ignorant to listen then only to be proven correct but in this case I would love to be wrong.
|
So did you ever admit you were wrong about your copypasta 'Lay Off Obama' thread? Pretty much everything you claimed there was wrong. Of course it wasn't your fault since you were just quoting someone else. Did you ever admit you were wrong about the whole FEMA thing?
I don't hold out much hope for this one either. Or that you'll ever figure out that you are your own worst enemy.
