There is going to be a revolution if things keep going the way they are

[dagnabit]

Obama doesn't want to expand GITMO, he wants to close it.

how can you tell?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

i made that argument?
quite the opposite.

Nah, you're arguments just meander. Sooner or later you give up.

 

[dagnabit]

Take another look, honey. There's no promise in the post. It's a tip. You know, pay attention to the issues and know who you're voting for?

swing and a miss..
the promise was to close gitmo(never intended to keep)not some garbage in your incoherent ramblings...

you probably think the song is about you dont you?

 

[BlackOpsJesus]

Honey?

Why so...

Butthurt?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

how can you tell?

Fine. Don't pay attention until the doors close.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Honey?

Why so...

Comprehension?

Got any, honey?

 

[BlackOpsJesus]

I believe these are what you're looking for...

 

[dagnabit]

Nah, you're arguments just meander. Sooner or later you give up.

the song remains the same..
never wavered. just following your squirm.
your assertion that the 2012 ndaa includes trifold redundant protections and brings about transparency in regards to detentions is unfounded.
you cant site it in the act. you have squirmed and now are trying to divert but it remains the same.

so in what way do you see waver?

i don't need to "give up" you already have.

let us know when you find the protections?
i've posted the entire implementation procedures(from the L.O.C.)it's not there.
i've also posted a small portion of the transparency turned opaque(also directly from thomas loc) and you have replied with yawns,poorly written oped and some nonsense about militias...

seems like you have "given up" whatever that means?

 

[dagnabit]

Fine. Don't pay attention until the doors close.

you can tell by looking at doors?

huh?

 

[VirginHarvester]

I'm interested in hearing anyone's opinion about the idea that we cannot have a revolution because we are too divided- perhaps they have divided us. Look at all that's been done. The best we could get for revolution was Occupy Wallstreet and most Americans looked down on them.

Outsiders looked at and labeled OWSers as the lower end of our society so disregarded the message- good for the government, huh? But they were still saying something incredibly valuable. It's a very simple revelation- That the very people who are supposed to protect our wealth literally fooled most people into believing somehow this was the people's financial responsibility and that not to go along will hurt you badly... that's more or less it, right? Yet, even though the collective conscience is that something's wrong; that we're being robbed; that our government's corrupt; that we bailed out the financial professionals that are supposed to be trusted with our money to the tune of $760 billion(or whatever TARP actually was); and that Government actually sponsored TARP, brokered it from Wallstreet to the American people. Heck, Obama urged it.

So it seems that we really aren't together enough for a "revolution", especially one that includes those of us who rely on the government for something. If you attack your government, who is going to print your check, or food stamps, or medicare/medicaid benefits?

Now, if it just goes on until the whole thing unravels and our currency collapses(or some other due calamity), all bets are off. But in that case would we be fighting among each other, civilians against police/military, or what?

We're just not organized and I'm starting to see why they divide us. So if the government finally runs this country into the ground, what would we do... yeah, they have the military on their side. We certainly would not be able to put them on trial, what would we do?

 

[dagnabit]

VH:
those who call for "revolution" mostly have no clue what they are calling for.
it involves blood and hate and decades of strife and quite possibly something worse for all the effort.
the people who are supposed to be in charge(us)are asleep at the wheel.
our "representatives" on both sides pride themselves on "not swaying to polls or public opinion" we have been trained to laud those who "stick to their guns" even against public outcry.
i actually applaud romney's responses concerning his states healthcare legislation.
to paraphrase he said *the people of mass elected me to represent them. the overwhelming majority supported the legislation. i was doing what they elected me to do.. represent them.*
i can dig it.
we have abdicated our control. we swapped it for shiny things that beep.

we sold our island for beads.

fortunately it won't take blood. it will however take sacrifice and compromise two things we have given up with our island....
when the people remember we are in control maybe it won't be to late.
i fear for the younger kids..
what they inherit and the idiocy they are taught... it will be bad

 

[Bullfrog44]

VH:
those who call for "revolution" mostly have no clue what they are calling for.
it involves blood and hate and decades of strife and quite possibly something worse for all the effort.

Amen brother.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

... your assertion that the 2012 ndaa includes trifold redundant protections and brings about transparency in regards to detentions is unfounded.

You're rewording. I said the military alone will no longer dictate who is detained. The president, the DOS and DOD will together. The president goes beyond this when saying he won't exercise the provision.

Like I said, I don't care what you like. You're argument fails.

you cant site it in the act.

Remember your "quite the opposite" remark? It can't be both.

let us know when you find the protections?

You have a fundamental problem with reasoning. I never qualified anything I posted as protections. You have to narrow or re contextualize everything you absorb into little dag bites. Some you don't chew on and some you make into other things to argue with.

You do this with every manufactured argument. You'll post a citation which has absolutely no correlation to your argument. Then you'll reference your previous post which (three pages later) is even less tangent to any correlation (you never happened to make in the first place.)

I know more about you argument than you do. You didn't like the decision so you don't care about the details. Still not enough to cause an argument with me. For me you have to restate my words into something you don't like and pretend I said it.

Get serious or I'll put yer ass back on ignore.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I believe these are what you're looking for...

make your "promises" and "straw" point

 

[dagnabit]

You're rewording. I said the military alone will no longer dictate who is detained. The president, the DOS and DOD will together.

^^
that reads like "protection" in the form of redundancy no?
i honestly took that as your meaning when you posted this:

NDAA says the president, Pentagon and State Department have to approve indefinite detentions. No longer are American citizens exposed to the whims of a bureaucracy shielded from public scrutiny.

shielded=protected right?

all i have asked is for you to show me where that is in the act?

Like I said, I don't care what you like. You're argument fails.

ok so put the nail in the coffin?

Remember your "quite the opposite" remark? It can't be both.

huh?
wtf does that even mean?

You have a fundamental problem with reasoning. I never qualified anything I posted as protections.

sorry shielded not protected my bad

You have to narrow or re contextualize everything you absorb into little dag bites. Some you don't chew on and some you make into other things to argue with.

should have said shielded?

You do this with every manufactured argument. You'll post a citation which has absolutely no correlation to your argument.

yes the procedures for implementation of authority to indefinitely detain in the NDAA is completely irrelevant to a discussion of how the authority to detain is to be implemented in regards to ndaa...
what was i thinking bringing up a red herring like that?!?!?

Then you'll reference your previous post which (three pages later) is even less tangent to any correlation (you forget to make.)

blibbity?

I know more about you argument than you do.

says the guy who obviously has not read the NDA

You didn't like the decision so you don't care about the details.

nope no care for detail...
thats why i actually read the details instead of the oped pieces.

Still not enough to cause an argument with me. For me you have to restate my words into something you don't like and pretend I said it.

should have said shielded....

Get serious or I'll put yer ass back on ignore.

and then neg rep the shit outa me like a petulant child..
you tend to follow that pattern when you get schooled so....
par for the course.

maybe you can also flood the mods with complaints so the thread gets closed like the OWS thread?!?!?
that way your idiocy gets buried of the front pages like before

BTW:
i realize the shielded is in reference to the agency however, it seems you prefer the word...
regardless to say
"no longer subject to" is equivalent to "shielded" or "protected" or not exposed to or a thousand other synonyms...
semantics

 

[IE2KS_KUSH]

Re: There is going to be a revolution if things keep going the way they are

.....I see dead people ...

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

dag

you can click to my direct quote - why make it up along the way? because you can't admit you took something out of context and made your own argument.

 

[dagnabit]

dag

you can click to my direct quote - why make it up along the way?

i did silly...

get serious or i will continue to laugh at you.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

you laugh and cry at the same time. you have and haven't done everything and nothing, simultaneously.

got all our bases covered there, dag?

 

[dagnabit]

you laugh and cry at the same time

only during coitus