NationStates Jolt Archive

The Pentagon admitted that they had added peaceful protestors to a list of possible domestic terrorists eligible to be wiretapped and more. The Department of Defense admitted in a letter obtained by NBC News on Thursday that it had wrongly added peaceful demonstrators to a database of possible domestic terrorist threats. The letter followed an NBC report focusing on the Defense Department’s Threat and Local Observation Notice, or TALON, report.
...
The database includes nearly four dozen antiwar meetings or protests, including some that have taken place far from any military installation, post or recruitment center, according to NBC News’ Lisa Myers, who first wrote about the story in December.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11751418/

Our bad...

I bet 5 bucks that Cindy's on the list.

I bet 5 bucks that Cindy's on the list.

I bet 20 that the whole of NationStates General is on it.

I bet 20 that the whole of NationStates General is on it.
Booyah!

If they discover other, totally unrelated, illegal activities as a result of these wire taps, can they act upon them?

If they discover other, totally unrelated, illegal activities as a result of these wire taps, can they act upon them?
There's some question as to whether or not they can do something if they actually find what they where looking for. Part of the problem when you 'just decide' that you don't have to get warrants...

There's some question as to whether or not they can do something if they actually find what they where looking for. Part of the problem when you 'just decide' that you don't have to get warrants...

You mean that even if they find "terrorist activities", it's questionable as to whether they can arrest/charge/convict them?

You mean that even if they find "terrorist activities", it's questionable as to whether they can arrest/charge/convict them?
Pretty much. Ain't that a bitch?

You mean that even if they find "terrorist activities", it's questionable as to whether they can arrest/charge/convict them?

Yes, because if the judge throws it out for illegally obtained evidence, all that work for nothing.

Yes, because if the judge throws it out for illegally obtained evidence, all that work for nothing.

But it would be the Judge's patriotic duty to convict them regardless, of course.

But it would be the Judge's patriotic duty to convict them regardless, of course.

No, that's the Jury's job.

No, that's the Jury's job.
Oh, right. Do they use a jury for all trials in the States? I'm not positive, but over here, I think there's certain exceptions.

Oh, right. Do they use a jury for all trials in the States? I'm not positive, but over here, I think there's certain exceptions.

There might be. And you can waive your right to a jury trial. If you want.

I'm going to go out on a limb here...and call this psudo-totalitarian.

Oh, right. Do they use a jury for all trials in the States? I'm not positive, but over here, I think there's certain exceptions.

yeah, Kangaroo courts... :D :D

I'm going to go out on a limb here...and call this psudo-totalitarian.

Only pseudo?

If they discover other, totally unrelated, illegal activities as a result of these wire taps, can they act upon them?

Since the wiretap was done illegally, technically no. However, the powers that be would probably find a way to make them go away anyhow. Hell, under the Patriot Act, a person can be held indefinitely based merely on suspicion with no evidence and no trial.

Since the wiretap was done illegally, technically no. However, the powers that be would probably find a way to make them go away anyhow. Hell, under the Patriot Act, a person can be held indefinitely based merely on suspicion with no evidence and no trial.

So...

How's that fight for freedom and democracy going?

So...

How's that fight for freedom and democracy going?
You mean the War on Freedom?

You mean the War on Freedom?

No, no... the other one... going on at the same time... the one they're losing... War on Terrorism... ;)

The irony and hypocrisy every day makes me want to laugh, or weep, depending on my mindset at the time I hear it. :p

No, no... the other one... going on at the same time... the one they're losing... War on Terrorism... ;)

Actually, it's sort of a catch-22. If they win the War on Terror, then they will have no more supplies for the War on Freedom and they will inevitably lose that. If they win the War on Freedom, then there will be a lot more terrorism.

Actually, it's sort of a catch-22. If they win the War on Terror, then they will have no more supplies for the War on Freedom and they will inevitably lose that. If they win the War on Freedom, then there will be a lot more terrorism.

Yep, because of US policy, they've put themselves in a lose-lose situation.

"Peaceful protestors" is an oxymoron.

"Peaceful protestors" is an oxymoron.

Yeah, just like "non-torturer soldier".

Whoops, not so funny anymore now that I was the one who played the blanket statement card, eh?

"Peaceful protestors" is an oxymoron.
How so? (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.crmvet.org/crmpics/justice1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.crmvet.org/about.htm&h=972&w=706&sz=240&tbnid=C2CaI-ZLqBzcFM:&tbnh=148&tbnw=107&hl=en&start=1&prev=/images%3Fq%3DCivil%2BRights%2Bmovement%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26rls%3DGGLD,GGLD:2004-07,GGLD:en)That's peaceful protesting. So's this (http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/02/01/svKING_wideweb__470x317,0.jpg) Need I find more? Just because a select group of retarded radicals spat on returning Vietnam soldiers does not discredit every following protest, you should know that.

"Peaceful protestors" is an oxymoron.

?

No, it isn't. I realize your need to take a shit on the whole concept of protesting but there is no need to be ignorant about it.

How so? (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.crmvet.org/crmpics/justice1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.crmvet.org/about.htm&h=972&w=706&sz=240&tbnid=C2CaI-ZLqBzcFM:&tbnh=148&tbnw=107&hl=en&start=1&prev=/images%3Fq%3DCivil%2BRights%2Bmovement%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26rls%3DGGLD,GGLD:2004-07,GGLD:en)That's peaceful protesting. So's this (http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/02/01/svKING_wideweb__470x317,0.jpg) Need I find more? Just because a select group of retarded radicals spat on returning Vietnam soldiers does not discredit every following protest, you should know that.

Yet he doesn't. Maybe it would help if we rubbed My Lai in his face and blamed him for it?

Oh, right. Do they use a jury for all trials in the States? I'm not positive, but over here, I think there's certain exceptions.

All civil and criminal trials in the US are heard by juries, unless the defendant waves their right to a jury. They are also held publicly so that the people know that there's no wrong-doing on the part of the government.

A special system has been set up for trying cases of suspected terrorists in which juries are left out, specious, third-party, or just plain made-up evidence can be included, politicaly appointed officials decide guilt or innocense, and the hearings are kept secret. Such an event isn't called a trial however. I believe it's called a farce.

"Peaceful protestors" is an oxymoron.

No, you're thinking of military intelligence.

Yet he doesn't. Maybe it would help if we rubbed My Lai in his face and blamed him for it?
Wouldn't help. He'd just rant about how we're immature unamerican "demented twits" that should be shot for treason.

?

No, it isn't. I realize your need to take a shit on the whole concept of protesting but there is no need to be ignorant about it.
LOL!

No, you're thinking of military intelligence.
Or perhaps it was "Forum honesty." :p

Wouldn't help. He'd just rant about how we're immature unamerican "demented twits" that should be shot for treason.
Best idea you've had ... ever! :D

Best idea you've had ... ever! :D
Why, thank you! Look a compliment! :D

LOL!

Came from those protestors who spat on soldiers...

Now sometimes you take a dump on protestors...

There's just a lot of body fluid exchange going on and it's getting messy. :p

No, you're thinking of military intelligence.

Or compassionate conservative.

Or compassionate conservative.

Or free-range egg.

Wait...what were we playing?

Best idea you've had ... ever! :D

I see. So you're ok with calling people that make blanket statements about people "demented twits", yet you make blanket statements about people, too...

*Strikes "the Thinker" pose* MMMMMmmmm...

I tend to ignore Eutrusca when he makes comments like that. Kind of like how I ignored my grandmother when she used to make homphobic and racist statements.

I see. So you're ok with calling people that make blanket statements about people "demented twits", yet you make blanket statements about people, too...

*Strikes "the Thinker" pose* MMMMMmmmm...
Looks painful on you. Definitely not a good fit for ya. :p

I tend to ignore Eutrusca when he makes comments like that. Kind of like how I ignored my grandmother when she used to make homphobic and racist statements.
Nice attempt at guilt by association.

Looks painful on you. Definitely not a good fit for ya. :p

I find your attempts to mock me for pointing out your magnificent skill at double-thinking (That was not a compliment, and, yes, I felt a need to inform you) amusing. You'd leave this discussion with more dignity if you simply admitted to being incoherent.

Nice attempt at guilt by association.

It's not guilt by association when it reflects an actual fact, Eutrusca. Must I teach you everything about arguing?

I find your attempts to mock me for pointing out your magnificent skill at double-thinking (That was not a compliment, and, yes, I felt a need to inform you) amusing. You'd leave this discussion with more dignity if you simply admitted to being incoherent.
ROFL! Tsk! You of all people should realize that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. :)

It's not guilt by association when it reflects an actual fact, Eutrusca. Must I teach you everything about arguing?
LMAO! Son, I seriously doubt you could teach me anything whatsoever.

ROFL! Tsk! You of all people should realize that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. :)
That's why we think all protests are bad, all wars are good, and all liberals are bad?

LMAO! Son, I seriously doubt you could teach me anything whatsoever.
Eutrusca, I seriously think you're correct on that score. :rolleyes:

ROFL! Tsk! You of all people should realize that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. :)

Yet ANOTHER unproven comment? Very well, then, point, and link to, my incoherencies. It's been pretty easy so far to point yours, so, by your own reasoning, pointing mine should be a piece of cake for someone as intelligent as yourself...

LMAO! Son, I seriously doubt you could teach me anything whatsoever.
That's because you're unwilling to soak up anything new. Don't worry, it's common.

LMAO! Son, I seriously doubt you could teach me anything whatsoever.

Let's list.

1- Coherence.
2- Logical thought.
3- Civil Rights.
4- Dissent doesn't equal hatred.
5- Inductive thought is wrong and leads to prejudice.

And that was in the last 20 minutes.

Eutrusca, I seriously think you're correct on that score. :rolleyes:

In that it'd be like teaching a stone?

Let's list.

1- Coherence.
2- Logical thought.
3- Civil Rights.
4- Dissent doesn't equal hatred.
5- Inductive thought is wrong and leads to prejudice.

And that was in the last 20 minutes.


No, I think he meant that he doesnt have the capacity to learn. Then his entire post history on NSGeneral starts to make perfect sense. :eek: :D :p

No, I think he meant that he doesnt have the capacity to learn. Then his entire post history on NSGeneral starts to make perfect sense. :eek: :D :p
That's what I got out of it.

That's why we think all protests are bad, all wars are good, and all liberals are bad?
Never said any of those things.

That's what I got out of it.

Ahhh, sorry, my mistake. Anyways, moving on. :)

Never said any of those things.
You've most certainly implied them.

Never said any of those things.

"Peaceful protestors is an oxymoron."

Yeah, you never said anything about protests being bad.

Unless you like violence, which, being a former soldier, you surely do, right? I mean, I forgot what your stance on blanket statements was...

Never said any of those things.

But we can read your mind and prove that you think so. Apparently.

Let's list.

1- Coherence.
2- Logical thought.
3- Civil Rights.
4- Dissent doesn't equal hatred.
5- Inductive thought is wrong and leads to prejudice.

And that was in the last 20 minutes.
You are sadly mistaken, since you have taken inadequate information, applied disjointed reasoning to it, and reached erroneous conclusions.

You are sadly mistaken, since you have taken inadequate information, applied disjointed reasoning to it, and reached erroneous conclusions.
That requires skill!

"Peaceful protestors is an oxymoron."

Yeah, you never said anything about protests being bad.
"Peaceful protestors is an oxymoron." =/= protests being bad

"I'm going to go out on a limb here...and call this pseudo-totalitarian."

I'm just going to call it G-H-E-Y.

:upyours: :sniper: :headbang:

You are sadly mistaken, since you have taken inadequate information, applied disjointed reasoning to it, and reached erroneous conclusions.
No, I believe it's just your mind refusing to change. It happens at your age, don't worry. :D

Nice attempt at guilt by association.

You associated with my grandmother? And you feel guilty about it? What were you up to, you bad boy?:eek:

"Peaceful protestors is an oxymoron." =/= protests being bad
:rolleyes: What does that imply? Think about it.

No, I believe it's just your mind refusing to change. It happens at your age, don't worry. :D
Ah! And there we have it, boys and girls. The final resort of a weak argument: refer to your opponent's race, sex, age, disability or other percieved weakness/shortcoming. Surely there's a corollary to Godwin's Law at work here somewhere. :)

You are sadly mistaken, since you have taken inadequate information, applied disjointed reasoning to it, and reached erroneous conclusions.

Yeeeeeah, only, I didn't. I DID point out that you applied the wrong reasoning to your premise, and that I can prove by pointing out the blanket statement you made when you dislike them being made about YOUR group. Unless you accept that all soldiers behave like they did in Abu Ghraib and My Lai, you can't accept that "all protestors are violent". I can find, analyse, name and explain each and every logical flaw you made. You can only say "no, you're wrong". Please, give me something to work here, you're getting tiresome.

What's the inadequate information? What are the flaws in my reasoning? What are the erroneous conclusions, and why and in what are they erroneous? Come on, boy, I spelled it out for you...

"I'm going to go out on a limb here...and call this pseudo-totalitarian."

I'm just going to call it G-H-E-Y.

:upyours: :sniper: :headbang:

I'm going to call it Bob.

Damn Bob...

:rolleyes: What does that imply? Think about it.

That, rather than being an idiot, Eutrusca is a sadist?

Ah! And there we have it, boys and girls. The final resort of a weak argument: refer to your opponent's race, sex, age, disability or other percieved weakness/shortcoming. Surely there's a corollary to Godwin's Law at work here somewhere. :)
Wow. Sorry for pointing out scientifically proven observations. I won't do it again, I swear.

That, rather than being an idiot, Eutrusca is a sadist?
Who said it needs to be one or the other? Perhaps it's both? :eek:

Wow. Sorry for pointing out scientifically proven observations. I won't do it again, I swear.

No, no, no, no, let's roll on with it! Let me at it, please do!

So, Eut, you're saying that making blanket statements is WRONG?

You guys shoudl leave Eut alone. It's really a worthless endeavor to argue with a flamebaiter because their objective isn't to converse intelligently about anything. You should spend your time debating against people that pose an actual challenge.

Ah! And there we have it, boys and girls. The final resort of a weak argument: refer to your opponent's race, sex, age, disability or other percieved weakness/shortcoming. Surely there's a corollary to Godwin's Law at work here somewhere. :)
And where was my reference to your race, sex, disability, or other percieved weakness/shortcoming? Perhaps you didn't know this, but it's quite well known that the older one gets, the harder it is for them to learn something new or change, so that's quite a vaild statement.

You guys shoudl leave Eut alone. It's really a worthless endeavor to argue with a flamebaiter because their objective isn't to converse intelligently about anything. You should spend your time debating against people that pose an actual challenge.

*Voice of a boy that was found by his mother poking a dead dog*

But it's FUN! :(

btw I thought this was old news (like from several years ago)... just like how they were adding anti-war activists to the no-fly list.

You guys shoudl leave Eut alone. It's really a worthless endeavor to argue with a flamebaiter because their objective isn't to converse intelligently about anything. You should spend your time debating against people that pose an actual challenge.
I personally haven't gotten into a good "argument" with him for quite a while, so I've been craving it for a bit, but once I get tired of it, I will.

*Voice of a boy that was found by his mother poking a dead dog*

But it's FUN! :(

Ok, as long as you don't actually expect that the time youa re wasting will give you back anything of substance. Although I guess entertainment is a legitimate excuse.

btw I thought this was old news (like from several years ago)... just like how they were adding anti-war activists to the no-fly list.
I had that impression too, especially when the article stated like "...in December when she originally covered the story," but the article is brand new. Perhaps it's just more evidence coming to light in the cesspool of this administration's activities.

Ok, as long as you don't actually expect that the time youa re wasting will give you back anything of substance. Although I guess entertainment is a legitimate excuse.

*Voice of boy whose mom let him poke the dead dog for fun, as long as he uses a stick* YAAAAAAAAAAY! :D

Yeeeeeah, only, I didn't. I DID point out that you applied the wrong reasoning to your premise, and that I can prove by pointing out the blanket statement you made when you dislike them being made about YOUR group. Unless you accept that all soldiers behave like they did in Abu Ghraib and My Lai, you can't accept that "all protestors are violent". I can find, analyse, name and explain each and every logical flaw you made. You can only say "no, you're wrong". Please, give me something to work here, you're getting tiresome.

What's the inadequate information? What are the flaws in my reasoning? What are the erroneous conclusions, and why and in what are they erroneous? Come on, boy, I spelled it out for you...
You have missed the point entirely. This is the statement to which I was referring:
Let's list.
1- Coherence.
2- Logical thought.
3- Civil Rights.
4- Dissent doesn't equal hatred.
5- Inductive thought is wrong and leads to prejudice.
And that was in the last 20 minutes.
Your inadequate information consists in not knowing me well enough to presume to teach me any of the things listed. Your reasoning is flawed because you conclude without supporting evidence that your intellect is somehow superior to mine. Your conclusion that you have anything to teach me that I don't already know is thus erroneous.

I surely hope that helps, because your ego seems to be precluding most forms of rational discourse.

You have missed the point entirely. This is the statement to which I was referring:
<snip>
And you, my friend, have missed my point entirely, as well.

Your inadequate information consists in not knowing me well enough to presume to teach me any of the things listed. Your reasoning is flawed because you conclude without supporting evidence that your intellect is somehow superior to mine. Your conclusion that you have anything to teach me that I don't already know is thus erroneous.

I surely hope that helps, because your ego seems to be precluding most forms of rational discourse.

Oh, so you're claiming you KNOW the rules of logical reasoning, and just chose to IGNORE THEM? Wow, that's MUCH BETTER! *Sarcasm*

Of course, how could I think that you don't have any skill at logical reasoning, thought processing, civil rights, right to dissent, and not making blanket statements? After all, all you did was not show any such skill. You DID show skill at double-thinking, though, and you DO still seem to think that, while it's not ok to make blanket statements about soldiers, it is ok to make them about protestors.

Again, then, just for clarification: You're saying you KNOW logical reasoning, just chose not to apply any?

You guys shoudl leave Eut alone. It's really a worthless endeavor to argue with a flamebaiter because their objective isn't to converse intelligently about anything. You should spend your time debating against people that pose an actual challenge.
Man! That takes a highly distorted self-image to call someone else a "flamebaiter" when 99% of all the posts you make are, in fact, flame bait. It's only possible to have a battle of wits with someone appropriately armed, something you assiduously avoid.

Man! That takes a highly distorted self-image to call someone else a "flamebaiter" when 99% of all the posts you make are, in fact, flame bait. It's only possible to have a battle of wits with someone appropriately armed, something you assiduously avoid.
Perhaps some of us are just fed up that you push constantly push flaming and flamebaiting to the limit of the threshold that that's all we see you as. What with your constant insults to our intelligences. As evident in this very post I'm quoting, bolded for your convenience.

Perhaps some of us are just fed up that you push constantly push flaming and flamebaiting to the limit of the threshold that that's all we see you as. What with your constant insults to our intelligences. As evident in this very post I'm quoting, bolded for your convenience.

If you ignore his insults while pointing out the holes in his argument, it makes it more fun. Trust me, I'm having a blast.

Oh, so you're claiming you KNOW the rules of logical reasoning, and just chose to IGNORE THEM? Wow, that's MUCH BETTER! *Sarcasm*

Of course, how could I think that you don't have any skill at logical reasoning, thought processing, civil rights, right to dissent, and not making blanket statements? After all, all you did was not show any such skill. You DID show skill at double-thinking, though, and you DO still seem to think that, while it's not ok to make blanket statements about soldiers, it is ok to make them about protestors.

Again, then, just for clarification: You're saying you KNOW logical reasoning, just chose not to apply any?
File it under "Refusal to cast pearls before swine." All it does is waste perfectly good pearls and piss off the swine.

When there is any hope of comprehension on the part of those making wildly inaccurate statements, I will exert myself to introduce facts, logic, reasoning, anything which will help the unenlightened see the error of their ways ( which you would know had you bothered to read more than one of my posts ). It's pointless to knock at the door of a closed mind when it's obvious everyone inside is asleep.

If you ignore his insults while pointing out the holes in his argument, it makes it more fun. Trust me, I'm having a blast.
lol, I usually try to, but sometimes, I just can't help but notice them. That's why I need to "debate" more with him so I can build up a better tolerance to Eutrusian insults. However, many times, that's all his posts are.

It's pointless to knock at the door of a closed mind when it's obvious everyone inside is asleep.
You're talking about yourself now, right?:p

You're talking about yourself now, right?:p
He still fails to acknowledge the point I made on my page two, thus giving further validity to it.

File it under "Refusal to cast pearls before swine." All it does is waste perfectly good pearls and piss off the swine.

When there is any hope of comprehension on the part of those making wildly inaccurate statements, I will exert myself to introduce facts, logic, reasoning, anything which will help the unenlightened see the error of their ways ( which you would know had you bothered to read more than one of my posts ). It's pointless to knock at the door of a closed mind when it's obvious everyone inside is asleep.

Wow! Preconceived dismissal and ad hominem! How cute, what are you gonna be when you grow up?

You see, my boy, I'm reading all of your posts. Unless you consider yourself VERY intelligent (because, so far, none of us was "worthy" of you acting as if you were a coherent person), you're REALLY unskilled at logic. And it's not about me, because you've used that precise kind of non-reasoning in EVERY thread in which protesters were mentioned. You are ACTIVELY incoherent. A rock makes no effort in correct reasoning because it's not sentient, but you seem to be making an active effort in WRONG reasoning. Unless you ACT like a moron whenever you're posting responses to ANYONE, you really ARE a moron. So far, quoth the poet, you're looking like a duck and quacking like a duck.

lol, I usually try to, but sometimes, I just can't help but notice them. That's why I need to "debate" more with him so I can build up a better tolerance to Eutrusian insults. However, many times, that's all his posts are.
Perhaps there's a message there for you? Perhaps you need to stop and consider why there are many on here with whom I debate quite regularly without even a hint of what you refer to as "insults?" Perhaps you should consider what in your own behavior leads me to bypass logic and reason and go directly for the jugular?

Perhaps there's a message there for you? Perhaps you need to stop and consider why there are many on here with whom I debate quite regularly without even a hint of what you refer to as "insults?" Perhaps you should consider what in your own behavior leads me to bypass logic and reason and go directly for the jugular?
Thanks for proving my point again.

Perhaps there's a message there for you? Perhaps you need to stop and consider why there are many on here with whom I debate quite regularly without even a hint of what you refer to as "insults?" Perhaps you should consider what in your own behavior leads me to bypass logic and reason and go directly for the jugular?

Yeeeeeah, considering you've BEGAN THREADS with incoherent thoughts, I'll file that claim under "bull".

Wow! Preconceived dismissal and ad hominem! How cute, what are you gonna be when you grow up?

You see, my boy, I'm reading all of your posts. Unless you consider yourself VERY intelligent (because, so far, none of us was "worthy" of you acting as if you were a coherent person), you're REALLY unskilled at logic. And it's not about me, because you've used that precise kind of non-reasoning in EVERY thread in which protesters were mentioned. You are ACTIVELY incoherent. A rock makes no effort in correct reasoning because it's not sentient, but you seem to be making an active effort in WRONG reasoning. Unless you ACT like a moron whenever you're posting responses to ANYONE, you really ARE a moron. So far, quoth the poet, you're looking like a duck and quacking like a duck.
So tell me, oh Great One, what other of my posts/threads have you read? I've been on here quite awhile, as you would be able to discern had you bothered to check my postcount, so there are quite a number from which to choose.

Let me spell it out for you in baby steps:

1. I do not like protestors.

2. Everyone in America has the right to peacefully petition the government for "redress of grievances."

3. Just because I don't like protestors does not mean that I will in any way, manner, shape or form attempt to deny them their rights under the Constitution.

Now, what part of the above do you fail to comprehend?

Thanks for proving my point again.
And thank you for making mine again. Swish! Right over your head. Sigh.

Yeeeeeah, considering you've BEGAN THREADS with incoherent thoughts, I'll file that claim under "bull".
Point one out.

And thank you for making mine again. Swish! Right over your head. Sigh.
Perhaps it's because you've been at my throat ever since I first started posting here. Remember when you got yourself forumbanned for three days back in June just because I started a thread about something you disagreed with? And thanks for proving my point, again.

So tell me, oh Great One, what other of my posts/threads have you read? I've been on here quite awhile, as you would be able to discern had you bothered to check my postcount, so there are quite a number from which to choose.

Let me spell it out for you in baby steps:

1. I do not like protestors.

2. Everyone in America has the right to peacefully petition the government for "redress of grievances."

3. Just because I don't like protestors does not mean that I will in any way, manner, shape or form attempt to deny them their rights under the Constitution.

Now, what part of the above do you fail to comprehend?

I fail to comprehend none of it (though your "protest as hate crime" post just might fail to comprehend SOME of it). And you didn't address any of what I actually SAID.

Let me spell your logical mistake out for you so that there's a possibility of you being able to grasp the simple concept of what I was ACTUALLY SAYING.

1- You said that non-violent protestors are an oxymoron (this is a blanket statement).

2- You hate them for once having made blanket statements about the military.

3- You faulted Acthung for making a supposed blanket statement about old people.

4- Unless it's logical to make blanket statements about old people and the military, it's not logical to make them about protestors.

Now, what part of the above do you fail to comprehend?

Point one out.

Yours, right? Or calling bullshit on something became "ad hominem" now, when calling me "swine" isn't?

Man! That takes a highly distorted self-image to call someone else a "flamebaiter" when 99% of all the posts you make are, in fact, flame bait. It's only possible to have a battle of wits with someone appropriately armed, something you assiduously avoid.

No I am going off of the takes one to know one clause. Take your time...

Since yer askign people to point things out about yoru posts, I will ask you to do the same. Point to 100 of my lasts posts and prove that 99% of them are flamebait.

You can't do it right? Why? Well that would be because of this "fact" you are proposing is errornous to the extreeme, though that is what we have come to expect from you here on NSGeneral. That's why you have entire threads devoted to your assholery, while there is not a single one dedicated to me.

To speak of your highly misguided threads (in most of which you promptly get your ass handed to you) I just need to point out the one where you claimed that NS leftists were tryign to hack you because of your political bent.

To speak of your highly misguided threads (in most of which you promptly get your ass handed to you) I just need to point out the one where you claimed that NS leftists were tryign to hack you because of your political bent.

You're kidding me, right?

To speak of your highly misguided threads (in most of which you promptly get your ass handed to you) I just need to point out the one where you claimed that NS leftists were tryign to hack you because of your political bent.
LOL, talk about being paranoid.:p

You're kidding me, right?


Nope... you want a link to it? It's quite a hilarious read.

LOL, talk about being paranoid.:p

Which makes it all the more hilarious when soemone says something about how his beloved Bush administration is threatening civil rights and he immediately starts talking about how your tin foil hat is on too tight or some shit like that.

Nope... you want a link to it? It's quite a hilarious read.

Okay, I'm done questioning his intelligence.
I'll now proceed to question his sanity.

I fail to comprehend none of it (though your "protest as hate crime" post just might fail to comprehend SOME of it). And you didn't address any of what I actually SAID.

Let me spell your logical mistake out for you so that there's a possibility of you being able to grasp the simple concept of what I was ACTUALLY SAYING.

1- You said that non-violent protestors are an oxymoron (this is a blanket statement).

2- You hate them for once having made blanket statements about the military.

3- You faulted Acthung for making a supposed blanket statement about old people.

4- Unless it's logical to make blanket statements about old people and the military, it's not logical to make them about protestors.

Now, what part of the above do you fail to comprehend?
1. Yes, which is obviously hyperbole.

2. No, I don't hate them; I intensely dislike them for mistreating my brothers and sisters including: calling the parents of deceased servicemen to say they were glad their son got killed in Vietnam; spitting on my brothers and sisters; calling them every unkind and obscene name in the book; desecrating their graves; and other offenses too numerous to list here.

3. I always fault Achtung_45. He leads with his chin.

4. This does not compute. Growing old is not optional, unless you choose to self-terminate. Being in the military during Vietnam was not optional. Being a protestor is always optional. The categories are substantively different.

Okay, I'm done questioning his intelligence.
I'll now proceed to question his sanity.
I second the motion for linkage.

Okay, I'm done questioning his intelligence.
I'll now proceed to question his sanity.

I found the link just for you.

Leftist Tactics (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=362859)

1. Yes, which is obviously hyperbole.

2. No, I don't hate them; I intensely dislike them for mistreating my brothers and sisters including: calling the parents of deceased servicemen to say they were glad their son got killed in Vietnam; spitting on my brothers and sisters; calling them every unkind and obscene name in the book; desecrating their graves; and other offenses too numerous to list here.

3. I always fault Achtung_45. He leads with his chin.

4. This does not compute. Growing old is not optional, unless you choose to self-terminate. Being in the military during Vietnam was not optional. Being a protestor is always optional. The categories are substantively different.

1- Doesn't seem like hyperbole when you do it repeatedly in different threads, including the ones you start.

2- ALL of them? Again, that reasoning can easily be disproven by the fact that I can blame you by My Lai.

3- Riiiight.

4- No, they aren't. Being pro-military is optional, and you are. I can make a blanket statement saying all pro-military people are murderous idiots, and it won't be any easier to prove than "all protestors hate the US/the military/me/whatever".

3. I always fault Achtung_45. He leads with his chin.
Perhaps it wouldn't appear that way if you weren't always so arrogantly abrasive in your "debates".

To speak of your highly misguided threads (in most of which you promptly get your ass handed to you) I just need to point out the one where you claimed that NS leftists were tryign to hack you because of your political bent.
LOL! Sigh. You always have to bring that one up because it's the only one you can point to with any degree of validity. If you were being at all fair, you would have pointed out that I later retracted that statment, which was one of my very first posts. When was that, about two years ago? Surely you can do better than that ... something more recent, say?

LOL! Sigh. You always have to bring that one up because it's the only one you can point to with any degree of validity. If you were being at all fair, you would have pointed out that I later retracted that statment, which was one of my very first posts. When was that, about two years ago? Surely you can do better than that ... something more recent, say?

See, people? It's okay! He ISN'T insane, he only WAS certifiable two years ago! :D

I found the link just for you.

Leftist Tactics (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=362859)
04/10/2004! Heh!

See, people? It's okay! He ISN'T insane, he only WAS certifiable two years ago! :D
Very cute. At least I have the courage and honor to admit when I'm wrong. Too bad most of the gang piling on me in this thread can't make the same statement.

Very cute. At least I have the courage and honor to admit when I'm wrong. Too bad most of the gang piling on me in this thread can't make the same statement.

That MIGHT be because you have yet to point out anything incoherent I said.

Very cute. At least I have the courage and honor to admit when I'm wrong. Too bad most of the gang piling on me in this thread can't make the same statement.
I can.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10543229&postcount=148
then
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10552983&postcount=242

Notice it was YESTERDAY, not two years ago.

LOL! Sigh. You always have to bring that one up because it's the only one you can point to with any degree of validity. If you were being at all fair, you would have pointed out that I later retracted that statment, which was one of my very first posts. When was that, about two years ago? Surely you can do better than that ... something more recent, say?

Nope, that's just the most infamous (btw - I never saw a retraction) - so you want a more recent one where you are thoroughly discredited?

'05 - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=398602

'06 - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=468085

Wait, you mean these 'protesters' weren't terrorists? Apparently aiding the enemy doesn't count as terrorism in US.

Let's see...from the numerous protest videos I saw, there was

- Threatening or beating people who disagreed with protesters
- Supporting palestine, which in case you haven't noticed, has the cause of the majority of problems in the middle east for several decades
- Calling on the assassination on George Bush
- Communism and conspiracy 9/11 is a-okay
- KKK members who support the protestors because they hate jews
- Cindy Sheehan saying it's great that our soldiers are dying
- As eut mentioned, calling soldier's families or widows and glad that their son is dead
- Descreating graves
- Supporting the Hamas and Saddam
- Pretending to be pro-environment, while slaughtering hundreds of trees for "I hate bush" signs.

Peaceful indeed.

Canada City']<snip>
:rolleyes: Please don't make the same mistake Eut did by thinking one little anomaly speaks for everthing else they're associated with.

:rolleyes: Please don't make the same mistake Eut did by thinking one little anomaly speaks for everthing else they're associated with.


All conservatives are known for making blanket statements.

It's a joke people!

"Peaceful protestors is an oxymoron." =/= protests being bad
Crimeny, next you'll be asking about the definition of 'is'...

I remember hearing about that Ghandi, how you had to watch out or he'd just take a swing at ya.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s random head butts where the stuff of legend...

Thoreau's gaurds constantly complained that he'd wing his dinner plate at them...

Reminds me of Yussef Islam (formerely Cat Stevens), who has been tagged a terrorist despite the fact that he sings songs about peace.

Nope, that's just the most infamous (btw - I never saw a retraction) - so you want a more recent one where you are thoroughly discredited?

'05 - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=398602

'06 - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=468085
LOL! Your concept of "discredited" and mine are lightyears apart. Sorry, son; no cigar for you. :D

That MIGHT be because you have yet to point out anything incoherent I said.
Could that be because you haven't really said anything, just indulge your illusion of being somehow superior? Ya think??

Crimeny, next you'll be asking about the definition of 'is'...

I remember hearing about that Ghandi, how you had to watch out or he'd just take a swing at ya.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s random head butts where the stuff of legend...

Thoreau's gaurds constantly complained that he'd wing his dinner plate at them...
That makes no sense whatsoever. :(

Reminds me of Yussef Islam (formerely Cat Stevens), who has been tagged a terrorist despite the fact that he sings songs about peace.
Ooooo! So singing songs about peace makes everything they do just hunky-dory eh? Jeeze. :rolleyes:

I'm going to call it Bob.

Damn Bob...
Bob certainly is a rascal. Gave him my thirty bucks and I've been waiting eight years now for the pleasure saucers to come for me. The bastard.

Could that be because you haven't really said anything, just indulge your illusion of being somehow superior? Ya think??
In your shoes, well... I wouldn't go out of my way to bandy about indulgence, there Eut you old war horse, you.

Could that be because you haven't really said anything, just indulge your illusion of being somehow superior? Ya think??

Actually, I've said MANY things, most of them pointing out YOUR incoherencies, and you decided to ignore them and go for ad hominem when you realized that your points held no water. And I have no illusions about being superior. At least in them not being illusions.

That makes no sense whatsoever. :(
Yes it does. It's called sarcasm, by the way.

Or compassionate conservative.

Or intelligent liberal.

4. This does not compute. Growing old is not optional, unless you choose to self-terminate. Being in the military during Vietnam was not optional. Being a protestor is always optional. The categories are substantively different.
Yes, as is obvious by the number of successful deferrments that Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft and "John Wayne" engaged in, the numbers appear to back you up as far as "optional participation" in CFR bullsh*t.
Tsk.

Or intelligent liberal.

Yeah, except that's not funny because it's not a common phrase like "military intelligence" or "jumbo shrimp" or "compassionate conservative". But your poor attempt to contribute is noted.

Yeah, except that's not funny because it's not a common phrase like "military intelligence" or "jumbo shrimp" or "compassionate conservative". But your poor attempt to contribute is noted.
In their "defense", i'll give a Rumsfeld-esque response that i just used on a different thread ....

"As you know, you go to *post* with the *joke* you have, not the *joke* you might want or wish to have at a later time."
The best they got? Maybe.

Could that be because you haven't really said anything, just indulge your illusion of being somehow superior? Ya think??
Alright, let's try a different angle. You've made a lot of hay about how the people here are beneath your proper debates. To wit-
Perhaps there's a message there for you? Perhaps you need to stop and consider why there are many on here with whom I debate quite regularly without even a hint of what you refer to as "insults?" Perhaps you should consider what in your own behavior leads me to bypass logic and reason and go directly for the jugular?

LMAO! Son, I seriously doubt you could teach me anything whatsoever.
File it under "Refusal to cast pearls before swine." All it does is waste perfectly good pearls and piss off the swine.

When there is any hope of comprehension on the part of those making wildly inaccurate statements, I will exert myself to introduce facts, logic, reasoning, anything which will help the unenlightened see the error of their ways ( which you would know had you bothered to read more than one of my posts ). It's pointless to knock at the door of a closed mind when it's obvious everyone inside is asleep.

But this is your opening volley, your unsolicited entry-no one specific, no one is arguing with you yet-
"Peaceful protesters" is an oxymoron.
You have chosen the tone of the argument. You hide under the notion of hyperbole-
1. Yes, which is obviously hyperbole.

-snip, we'll come back to this one-
as if that's an excuse. Hey, he painted everyone with one figurative brush, so it's all okay.

But hyperbole is used for a reason. It doesn't imply the opposite. Now the subject of this thread is that protesters where monitored and put on watch lists. Your hyperbole statement in this thread, standing by itself, puts into question the peacefulness of the protesters, which then justifies their being spied on. Their being spied on without having committed a crime, in fact for exercising their constitutional rights, violates their constitutional rights. You have endorsed that. You have to understand that these threads are a discussion, and what you say is taken into context of that discussion and what you've said. You aren't yelling down a hallway or wearing a 'clever' t-shirt.

If in fact you just had a t-shirt that said, "Peaceful Protesters is an Oxymoron" you'd simply be guilty of complex irony (since they are peace protesters, for them not to be peaceful would be an oxymoron-which does happen I'll grant, but for it to be inherent...) but it wouldn't be held in the context of this conversation.

So you can say it's hyperbole, but in this context it can only have one meaning. Now, you've claimed several times that no, no-we've got it all wrong.
Never said any of those things.
You are sadly mistaken, since you have taken inadequate information, applied disjointed reasoning to it, and reached erroneous conclusions.
"Peaceful protesters is an oxymoron." =/= protests being bad
But have only made one sincere attempt at explanation-
So tell me, oh Great One, what other of my posts/threads have you read? I've been on here quite awhile, as you would be able to discern had you bothered to check my postcount, so there are quite a number from which to choose.

Let me spell it out for you in baby steps:

1. I do not like protesters.

2. Everyone in America has the right to peacefully petition the government for "redress of grievances."

3. Just because I don't like protesters does not mean that I will in any way, manner, shape or form attempt to deny them their rights under the Constitution.

Now, what part of the above do you fail to comprehend?
The part we don't comprehend is how your hyperbolic opening statement meshes with #2 and #3 considering the topic.

And then there is the issue of who is or is not a flamebater, consider the following-
"Peaceful protestors" is an oxymoron.
Was this supposed to endear you to the protesters you knew where in the thread?
File it under "Refusal to cast pearls before swine." All it does is waste perfectly good pearls and piss off the swine.

When there is any hope of comprehension on the part of those making wildly inaccurate statements, I will exert myself to introduce facts, logic, reasoning, anything which will help the unenlightened see the error of their ways ( which you would know had you bothered to read more than one of my posts ). It's pointless to knock at the door of a closed mind when it's obvious everyone inside is asleep.

I see. So you're ok with calling people that make blanket statements about people "demented twits", yet you make blanket statements about people, too...

*Strikes "the Thinker" pose* MMMMMmmmm...Looks painful on you. Definitely not a good fit for ya. :p
-snip-
I surely hope that helps, because your ego seems to be precluding most forms of rational discourse.
(particularly amusing given your opening)
This one, I have to say, is art-
Man! That takes a highly distorted self-image to call someone else a "flamebaiter" when 99% of all the posts you make are, in fact, flame bait. It's only possible to have a battle of wits with someone appropriately armed, something you assiduously avoid.

3. I always fault Achtung_45. He leads with his chin.


Or the playing to the refs-meh, I actually don't have the patience to find the post in here where you bring up the 'dog pile' chestnut, or point out how ludicrous it is considering your opener.

The point is, you've blamed your argument on everyone here but yourself, insulted everybody from out of the gate and then complained that we're too hostile to your ideas. So here's the question, finally-ON TOPIC, what the fuck is your point? Try and make it without an ad hominem, or a 'woe is me' or any of the other nonsense and perhaps we can have a reasoned debate. But if you're going to set the tone-don't get mad at the fire if you struck the match.

<snip>The point is, you've blamed your argument on everyone here but yourself, insulted everybody from out of the gate and then complained that we're too hostile to your ideas. So here's the question, finally-ON TOPIC, what the fuck is your point? Try and make it without an ad hominem, or a 'woe is me' or any of the other nonsense and perhaps we can have a reasoned debate. But if you're going to set the tone-don't get mad at the fire if you struck the match.
Whoa, someone despises Eut more than me!? Wow, that was some serious ownage, there. I rate that post 9 out of 10. For you to get 10, you'd have to get yourself forumbanned for a minimum of three days :D

*hands CTN a cookie*

I think I just might have to favorite that post.

Whoa, someone despises Eut more than me!? Wow, that was some serious ownage, there. I rate that post 9 out of 10. For you to get 10, you'd have to get yourself forumbanned for a minimum of three days :D

*hands CTN a cookie*

I think I just might have to favorite that post.
I don't despise Eut, though he likes to think I do (I believe he even once accused me of talking to walls about him)-he's just another dude on the end of a keyboard. What I want is honest debate, even if I have to force the issue.

I would consider a forum ban a negative mark.

I don't despise Eut, though he likes to think I do (I believe he even once accused me of talking to walls about him)-he's just another dude on the end of a keyboard. What I want is honest debate, even if I have to force the issue.Point taken.
I would consider a forum ban a negative mark.
I wouldn't :p

LOL! Your concept of "discredited" and mine are lightyears apart. Sorry, son; no cigar for you.
Could that be because you haven't really said anything, just indulge your illusion of being somehow superior? Ya think??
That makes no sense whatsoever.
Ooooo! So singing songs about peace makes everything they do just hunky-dory eh? Jeeze. :rolleyes:

Wow. As soon as you can't defend your statements you just plug your ears and start singing "lalalala I can't hear you." You're a grown man Eut. Have you just gone senile? More and more you remind me of the Grandfather from King of the Hill. Demented in the present, and lost in the past. Like here:

2. No, I don't hate them; I intensely dislike them for mistreating my brothers and sisters including: calling the parents of deceased servicemen to say they were glad their son got killed in Vietnam; spitting on my brothers and sisters; calling them every unkind and obscene name in the book; desecrating their graves; and other offenses too numerous to list here.

I've said it to you before Eut. Get out of the wayback machine. Disco, Lynrd Skynrd, and Barry Goldwater have all gone the way of the dodo. The protest movements here are not anti-military in the slightest. We're calling to "bring them home" not "send them to jail." We don't accuse ROTC classes of murdering us like they did in the 70's, why can't you open your rheumy eyes and see that you're wailing about a situation that doesn't exist anymore.

Okay, so, no posts in over a day. I think we humiliated him out...

Okay, so, no posts in over a day. I think we humiliated him out...
Sure looks like that's the case.

Okay, so, no posts in over a day. I think we humiliated him out...
Dream on, Mo-Fo! :D

Dream on, Mo-Fo! :D
Dream on, dream on
Dream yourself a dream come true
Dream on, dream on
Dream until your dream come true
Dream on, dream on, dream on...

Sing with me, sing for the years
Sing for the laughter and sing for the tears
Sing with me, if it’s just for today
Maybe tomorrow the good lord will take you awayayayayayayayayay

Dream on, Mo-Fo! :D

In that case, kindly answer what everyone here said... Preferably, as one of the posters said, without ad hominem, woe-is-me or such nice tricks. It's getting bothersome.

Okay, so, after about 40 hours, all Eut had to say was "dream on, mo-fo" (elegant!) and, well... nothing else.

Are we done here?

Okay...

Vae victis, Eutrusca.

I win.

Okay, so, after about 40 hours, all Eut had to say was "dream on, mo-fo" (elegant!) and, well... nothing else.

Are we done here?

Okay...

Vae victis, Eutrusca.

I win.
Doesn't he have a trout to tend to? ;)

Doesn't he have a trout to tend to? ;)

You lost me... o_O

You lost me... o_O
As much fun as he is to argue with, there are a few personality traits that he tends to recede (in this thread's nature), one of which is a peculiar affinity for trout and some function they perform. *shrug*
No slant on either of y'all, really. Just the idea that he might have found a different pursuit of interest for the time being ... a trout.

As much fun as he is to argue with, there are a few personality traits that he tends to recede (in this thread's nature), one of which is a peculiar affinity for trout and some function they perform. *shrug*
No slant on either of y'all, really. Just the idea that he might have found a different pursuit of interest for the time being ... a trout.

Uhm... Okay... o_o