Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
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.
Legally. And if not, they failed to hold up in court, meaning...none of it has succeeded, if it wasn't done well. Also, considering this is about whether or not Obama is evil for signing a renewal, I fail to see how another administration using it in a way you disapprove of means he necessarily will.
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.
The lone wolf provision which is the only thing that is truly a problem within the Patriot Act HASN'T been used. And that's the end of that argument.
And if anything unconstitutional has ever been done with it, it wasn't Obama. Meaning, you can't get mad at Obama, if he didn't DO anything.
And that's the end of THAT argument. Moving on.
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 of provisions to protect the civil liberties of American citizens. That is a clear strike against him.
Bullshit. The fact that the Patriot Act still exists and Obama has restricted its usage to purely legal and constitutional use shows that he's making active attempts to stifle the unconstitutional stomping of civil liberties you keep bitching about.
Done and done.
By all means, use your education since arguing on the internet is really it's only use.
Seriously, how old are you? You're either immaturely young or astonishingly close mindedly old. OR a mix between the two. Which is it?
My comment was a suggestion you pick a major that is actually useful in finding employment out here in the real world.
Right, philosophers don't get employed. *rolleyes*
Unless, you want to spend the rest of your life in the congratulatory circle jerk that is academia.
Ah, so you're against educated people now? Congratulatory circle jerk my ass. The amount of war between people who are all trying to make a name for themselves by being strict on peer review boards as well as actively writing rebuttals to just about every paper and book ever released that disagree with their very specific position on a subject is HARDLY a circle jerk.
Please don't comment on shit you obviously know nothing about.
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.
...There's an equal chance...but one is more probable than the other. Think about that for a second and feel ashamed of your double think.
Something being more probable than its alternative makes it rational to believe instead of disbelieve. QE-fucking-D. You're done.
High probability doesn't necessarily make something true.
Yet again, your absolutist mindset doesn't serve you well. It just shows that you don't know what you're talking about. High probability makes something rational to accept, and irrational to not accept. High probability is indicative of a lack of reason to doubt, which diminishes a need for skepticism.
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.
Yet we can also say that, systemically, it's more than likely that they don't. And that's fully justified. And adopting the founding father's understanding of justice, that IS what we are to presume. Innocence until guilt is proven.
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.
You drew an analogy about Obama not having any experience and Ron Paul having experience to someone with less than a significant amount of years of credit history to someone who does.
I then pointed out that Obama has had well over a decade of political experience, and provided references of his policies and strategies remaining consistent over said decade. This renders your analogy moot.
Please tell me how I 'twisted your words'.
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.
Watched it, found it to be nothing but quote mining and projected equivocation.
You resorted to "blame congress" arguement 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? There is nothing to concede there.
And Obama gave a State of the Union address informing Congress, as a democratic majority, was severely disappointing him in how easily they cow-towed to the republican minority. So you're attempting to say that even though Obama tried to pass these executive orders, they got rejected by(not a 90%, you made that number up) a democratic congress, he told them to stop being pussies, and you blame him anyway.
There is plenty to concede here. IT's clear he's not to blame, yet you do so anyway. Why? Because you're an irrational conspiracy theorist that wants to blame all problems on Obama wanting the problems to continue, even when he tries to fix them.
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.
No...the evidence is what matters. From how I viewed the trial and the evidence, he was guilty. The fact that a jury let him off on the technicality that a detective said "nigger" during investigation doesn't at all render him actually innocent. Legal decisions do not dictate truth. This is a fact.
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.
Really? Unless I admit I'm wrong, you're right?
Quite a win win you set up for yourself. Though it's wrong. See, my inductive reasoning is based off of the history of religious zealotry. Yours is based on a personal bias against politicians. The vast majority of which have done nothing to earn such scorn. Your inductive reasoning is based on personal bias, mine is based on historical facts. Yours is flawed, mine is not.
End of.
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.
Clearly it is, as that was purely speculative.
Say the Orca Whales become extinct, and Sea Lions expand their population. It's not unlikely that they'll enter a new territory/part of the ecosystem where they might find...say...new predators, who then serve to curve their population. OR, say that sharks become(instead of overpopulated due to food) they simply become larger in mass, and are able to eat more sea lions at a time, or travel in larger groups, or move their population closer to sea lion areas.
We can speculate all we want. But the fact is, all you're saying, "Save the whales! Or something's gonna happen! I don't know what but something bad! I think!"
The only insane thing here is your adherence to some universal truth like some religious zealot.
Bullshit! The only one who's declaring universals in an absolutist mindset is you! As soon as you see me draw a fuzzy line between someone being allowed to be put under surveillance for suspicion you then declare that I'm saying we must then put EVERYONE under constant surveillance. You do this consistently for the entire back and forth, and it's just being obtuse.
There is nothing wrong with demanding that a trial take place for people accused of committing a crime.
And there's nothing wrong with saying that when enough evidence is collected to determine someone plans a massive murder event of some sort, an immediate trial is not necessarily required "Just because it's the right thing to do" like some sort of naive universal liberty all people must have no matter what.
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?
Because I'm in favor of both a trial to convict someone(for most crimes, a trial is preferred to detainment and interrogation) AND indefinite detainment of someone who the court determines has enough evidence to say they're more than likely planning something catastrophic, without a trial.
True but, guilt and innocence are.
No, the court's subjective opinion of guilt and innocence are.
What is wrong with expecting that people receive a fair trial when they are accused of a crime?
What's wrong with using a more speedy method of imprisonment and detaining of someone who its been rationally decided is dangerous to a massive amount of people?
Also, to declare just about any trial nowadays concerning dangerous individuals are 'fair' is ridiculous. These days a defending lawyer just has to declare racism and that's enough for 'reasonable doubt'. And for white people they just need to say it's 'reverse racism' or even 'classism' depending on the economic position of the person in question.
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.
And your understanding is a strange belief that I believe they have these privileges for all crimes. As if it would be sufficient for a cop to pick someone up and say, "I think you're about to steal bread." and throw them in bread.
That's not at all what I'm saying, and I've explained this so many times that either A. I am incapable of explaining coherently, B. You are incapable of understanding, or C. You understand, but choose not to acknowledge it.
As far as the law enforcement being judge, jury, and executioner, you have it a bit skewed. I just feel they have the ability, given extreme circumstances, to decide to detain someone without immediate, or necessary trial.
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.
Dude? I understand him. That passage was specifically concerning his moral relativism in the face of other libertarians that were against his moral relativism in favor of collectivism. We're arguing about the moral permissability of a certain set of actions in a legal system, and I'm arguing that every time I explain that at times, INDIVIDUALS do things that allow for a difference in how justice is administered, your response is that I must then conclude that ALL people must submit to this, despite any levels of innocence or evidence.
Next time you tell me that I don't get to quote someone because I 'don't understand him' you need to provide an explanation as to WHY. You don't just get the final say as to who understands him and who doesn't Mr. Arrogance.
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.
I didn't say you did. I said you characterized it as if I did.
For someone who likes to criticize other people's reading comprehension, yours blows.
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.
Every piece of information matters. Obama failing to do something consistent with his economic policy is something to be criticized and for him to be not liked for. so they are good reasons to not like him. You throw them out because, "Meh, he can fuck up the taxes all he wants because I'm just waiting for someone to overhaul the whole system anyhow." Well tough, this 'newest edition' hasn't been printed yet. So you have to deal with this one. Now.
Violations to civil liberties are not "conspiracies".
They are when the maximum you can give for these 'violations to civil liberties' are speculation and "Well it MIGHT happen at some point! And that's bad enough!" With no evidence to show any sort of probability outside of your own personal bias against the position of power these people hold. That's the definition of a conspiracy theory.
The HR 347 bill that was signed by Obama is an example of such violations.
Violations he hasn't actually employed and has promised won't be employed by his administration. To which you declare, "Yeah, but I don't believe him."
And this isn't conspiratorial?
It further restricts our ability to protest under threat of incarceration.
No...we can still protest. En masse if you want. The act doesn't say, "No more protest." and as soon as it's attempted to be used in that sort of manner, it will immediately be found to be an unconstitutional act due to the first amendment. So in essence, you're pissed off about something that's a non issue.
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.
Yet again, you only call this a violation of civil liberties because you declare that, no matter what, a fair trial is to be given to everyone, at all times. This isn't a violation of civil liberties, because putting yourself in that position is an implicit giving up of your own liberties. Especially since this applies to TERRORISTS, not protesters.
Government tracking of cell phones is not a conspiracy when they have
repeatedly tried to do so.
Only after courts provide them with permission(and if not given this permission, they've never done so, so far as YOU know) and if you're literally telling me that warrants to gather evidence are a trampling of civil liberties, I'm guessing you're just an out right anarchist.