Saffire

That faint sound you heard is the clenching of teeth. Glenn Greenwald debunks the myths spread by supporters of the 2011 NDAA: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/ So now even the New York Times is interpreting the bill the way I am. Huh.

Well I guess I just ignored you because I don't care what you think! :cool:

Also, I frankly don't care if you hate me or not. It pains Parrotdies to admit that someone else might be right. That's a horribly immature quality to have.

He's not disagreeing with me, he's OBVIOUSLY ignoring what I'm arguing. If you read my posts, you'd see that. I told him pages ago that he's entitled to his opinion, but that it's in the minority. And he wouldn't let up. So I layed down the olive branch first, and he just kept hacking away at me without ever admitting that my position *might be valid*. I don't have a problem with disagreement, I have a problem with intentionally misleading readers and willful ignorance. My God. :blank:

"It's a totally different bill! See! They changed a few lines that are entirely irrelevant to the topic Saffire started!" Not gonna work, kid. Go read National Review and hang out with Rush Limbaugh, mmkay? Nobody's interested in what your authoritarian friends have to say on these subjects. Also: stop trying to change the subject. If you want to start your own thread about the other features in the NDAA, you're welcome to do that. Nice job dodging my point about "requirement"/"possibility" distinction. And all my other points. Nobody's falling for your crap anymore.

It's irrelevant to the subject of this thread. And you keep referencing a *requirement* of military detention as though it invalidates the *possibility* of military detention. Nice try misleading people, Parrotdies. This is a violation of due process and you know it. PS: Your prediction was wrong. No, I haven't forgotten. ;)

Uh huh. In ways that are completely irrelevant to this thread. Have you had a chance to read the Q4 report for Proctor and Gamble? :P Anyway, it doesn't matter. Your prediction was plain wrong, and you refuse to admit this bill is even a concern for Americans' civil liberties - a position that runs counter to a huge number of qualified legal scholars and reputable journalists. Hell, it even runs counter to the authors of the bill! So again: you go read National Review and vote for Lindsey Graham or whatever. I'm sticking with the ACLU on this one.

lol, you can't make this stuff up. And Parrotdies just laps it up, with the faith of an altar boy. When he's not busy reading National Review, of course. Your reputation for being accurate has already been shot, Parrotdies. You might not want do dig a deeper hole for yourself here.

Ohh I guess that means when Parrotdies said, ...he was totally wrong, as usual.

But see, leftists never ask a simple question: why is the productive capacity sitting idle? Why aren't workers employed? Government spending puts people to work, sure. But doing what? Running around in a costume in the Middle East? Filling out papers? It's not productive work, and so it doesn't increase the quality of life of people. Labor and production must be directed by prices, not politicians. Prices must be allowed to fall/rise to where they naturally go, not interfered with by laws, taxes, and regulations. When the prices are right, people will work again.

It's so funny to me how Parrotdies and his friends can't even bring themselves to admit that this might be a valid concern. Pitiful.

You sound a bit like you're overstating the facts here. ;) You seem to be ignoring everything else Glenn Greenwald is saying (about the dangers of clarification of a law, and the dangers of not defining terms within the law), and using an out-of-context quote to make it look like Glenn Greenwald isn't concerned about Americans losing their right to a fair trial. That's misleading. And I know you don't want to mislead us, do you Parrotdies? :)

Actually it is honest. And many legal experts agree with me. Speak for yourself. And you're okay with giving them more power? Strange. I guess you're right. We should just have a king. Anybody who disagrees that a king might abuse his power is using the "slippery slope fallacy". Actually, they've got FEMA camps for that. Also the US currently has the higest per-capita prison population of any country in the world. What incentive does the government have to restrict its own power? Let me tell you a little tale. Once there was a president named Obama. He and his military made an unsubstantiated, baseless claim without physical evidence. They claimed they killed a bad guy named Osama. No pictures were released, no body was produced, and the details of how they pulled off this feat changed at least 3 times. Only a few insiders were involved in the operation, or so they said. Everybody was overjoyed. They believed everything they were told. Everything. Moral of the story: If I'm president, I'll lie. And the people will believe me over you, any day of the week. Oh you're right. That poor, abused government. Always on the receiving end of "shitstorms". No offense, but your language resembles that of a fat, balding man in his late 50's, not a woman. Why don't you spare us the profanity. I believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Your point? Not random people. People who disagree with what the government is doing. I'm sure you'll be the last person they'll send to prison, since you seem like quite a good little toady. Then you and I have agreed this whole time. Keep an eye on them? Sorry, but I'm just not that scared of Al Qaeda. I'm more afraid of bears or drowning. I think the hundreds of thousands of innocent people can defend themselves with handguns if they need to. Look, people die. It's just a fact of life. There are evil people out there who want to kill innocent people. But that doesn't entitle you or anyone else to go around like Rambo King of the World and spend a trillion dollars (of stolen money) per year on idiotic Middle East adventures. If you can't even clearly restate my thesis, and you claim to agree with me that everyone (whether accused of terrorism or not) deserves a fair trial, then I'm not sure why you're even posting in this thread.

Awesome, I'm glad to see you're on my side with this. It's about time you got concerned about our civil rights! :)

1. I (or anyone else you don't like) gain power. 2. I suspect you of "terrorism". 3. You don't get a trial.

I just pointed out that you're not giving my position due respect. Why do you and Kiame have to make this personal? Can we please stick to the facts here? I linked to a ton of videos and quotes, and I explained why your references to the bill are erroneous. I explained that the sources who support your interpretation of the bill have been supporters of gun-running, torture, and starting unnecessary wars. That's not very honest activity, imo.

Proof Obama requested this section be in the bill: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLiKvSz_wX8]Proof Obama will sign NDAA 1031 Citizen Imprisonment Law in a few days - YouTube[/ame]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8949060/Police-to-test-laser-that-blinds-rioters.html Police in the UK test out a new device that blinds rioters with laser light. Get ready, it's going to get very hairy soon.

(From ZeroHedge blog)

Well economically there's no way out of this. The euro is destined to collapse. They're just buying time with more talk of treaties and bailouts.

Barack Obama started an unconstitutional and unpopular war with a sovereign nation called Libya. You can dress this up all you want, but it doesn't change this simple fact. Yes, I do. What you're telling me is that Obama's sympathies lie with the Judges, Police, Prison guards, Lawyers, etc. rather than the American people. If that's the case, he is a despicable, cruel person. Well then I guess you won't be talking to me anymore. Yes, Obama can say that. He can issue an executive order and promise to veto all government spending on it. He can order his attorney general, Eric Holder, to cease prosecution of drug "crimes". He can rally the American public around this incredibly popular position, and explain to them that it would save taxpayers billions of dollars every year. Stop making excuses for Obama. Let's try to refrain from name-calling here. I see most law enforcement activities as LESS than "nothing". I see them as counterproductive, a net-drag on the economy and the quality of life for the average American. And there is a LOT of evidence to back my position. Yeah, I'm sure voters will really feel the burn when gay marriage is legalized. Gosh, she could raise taxes on CARBON of all things, but if she legalizes gay marriage... her descendants will be spat upon for generations. Right. Party over principle, every time. Yes I can. They're using "wedge issues" to get elected, and then acting like typical statists once they've got power. That sounds scary, but I don't see any evidence for it. In fact, I think the country would be much better off economically without the War on Drugs. Many presidents in the past have done things that are strikingly out-of-line with popular opinion. One president even started a war which resulted in the deaths of nearly 700,000 Americans! Just to hold the "union" together. Another president slaughtered thousands of cattle and burned fields of wheat, just to hold up the price of farm goods (Roosevelt). He also issued an executive order to confiscate all Americans' gold. So no, presidents have A LOT more power than you give them credit for. Heh. Right. Those damn corporations. If only they didn't have so much power! If only the government were STRONGER. Maybe then we'd be more free, happier, etc. Nevermind the fact that governments have the power to tax, print money, imprison anyone they want, and even CREATE the legal structures corporations exist through. Nevermind the fact that CCA and Blackwater couldn't even exist without government funneling taxpayer money to them. In summary: I think you've fallen for the myth of "political capital".

http://www.thedailybell.com/3334/Financial-Times-Changes-Article-Headline-on-EU-Three-Times Apparently the Financial Times changed their headline about this 3 times, lol. I guess they were trying to turn the public's first impression against it.

It's so funny how it's considered "isolationism" when you don't want your nation's sovereignty completely snatched out from under it by a bunch of bankers and globalists. This shouldn't be a difficult decision for Mr Cameron.

I encourage you to research alternative views on Israel. Israel and the US can continue to be friends, but the US doesn't have to feed Israel billions of dollars a year. The US doesn't need 900 overseas military bases. Obama doesn't need to expand the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Uganda, Pakistan, Yemen, yadda yadda yadda. There is no physical force that's keeping him from ending the disastrous and unpopular "War on Drugs". There's nothing keeping him from pardoning hundreds of thousands of fathers who were convicted of non-violent drug-related offenses, so they can be home for Christmas with their families. There's nothing keeping him from cutting spending, which would be a supremely popular move for any president to do right now. There was nothing keeping him from NOT bailing out the corporations and banks. Nothing at all. It's funny how your "reality vs popular opinion" theory only works when it exonerates your favorite politicians, and not when it indicts them. You're basically admitting that Ms Gillard thinks her re-election is more important than the right of millions of gay Aussie couples to be married.