• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is this funny to you?

We have a "rogue" government who are the REAL terrorists

  • Total voters
    42
Obama has blatant disregard for the Constitution. The media talks about it a lot but I see no action being taken by Congress.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm not asleep. I'm just not prone to exaggeration and misinformation.
Click to expand...
No, you aren't asleep... well, not completely, I tried shaking you to wake you up a bit, but apparently that is for naught, worthless. And you may not be an exxagerator, would say you are really more of a sandbagger, all that meaningless fecal matter about the surgeon general and calling doctors and what not... like that is any part of the executive order... sandbagging for the bama-man. Now not very well, mind you, but all that really counts is that you tried, eh? Good intentions. Pitiful.

Did technical problems keep you from reading the executive order, perhaps... ? Whatever it is, you most certainly did not address... in any shape, matter or form ...anything that I said and what I quoted directly out of the EO from the White House website. Not one... just complete avoidance.

What, exactly, were the exaggerations? Never mind, I don't have time to waste on somebody that pretends to be, or maybe really is, that obtuse.

So yeah, you can go back to sleep now.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
No, you aren't asleep... well, not completely, I tried shaking you to wake you up a bit, but apparently that is for naught, worthless. And you may not be an exxagerator, would say you are really more of a sandbagger, all that meaningless fecal matter about the surgeon general and calling doctors and what not... like that is any part of the executive order... sandbagging for the bama-man. Now not very well, mind you, but all that really counts is that you tried, eh? Good intentions. Pitiful.

Did technical problems keep you from reading the executive order, perhaps... ? Whatever it is, you most certainly did not address... in any shape, matter or form ...anything that I said and what I quoted directly out of the EO from the White House website. Not one... just complete avoidance.

What, exactly, were the exaggerations? Never mind, I don't have time to waste on somebody that pretends to be, or maybe really is, that obtuse.

So yeah, you can go back to sleep now.
Click to expand...

I second that motion - another shill with no skill....
 
sKiTzo said:
...and on that link, AS I SAID, are links to the executive orders. Here's an excerpt from one of them:

Sec. 502. Consultants. The head of each agency otherwise delegated functions under this order is delegated the authority of the President under sections 710(b) and (c) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(b), (c), to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation and to employ experts, consultants, or organizations. The authority delegated by this section may not be redelegated.

Without compensation? Ohhh, slavery! I'm sure that won't get your attention either. This is all a big joke to you.
Click to expand...

Um, no. Slavery would be forcing persons to work for free. That is not in this legislation.

So what's left? Volunteering to work for the gov't.

There is a joke here but its not what you wrote, more along the lines of who wrote it.
 
ChrisL said:
OMG! It's the end of the world . .. . :scared: We must get Obama out NOW!
Click to expand...

And replace him with someone who would get rid of the Patriot Act, and the NSA.....which would mean the Republicans are out.

Anybody have Jesse Ventura's phone number?
 
rocket88 said:
And replace him with someone who would get rid of the Patriot Act, and the NSA.....which would mean the Republicans are out.

Anybody have Jesse Ventura's phone number?
Click to expand...

If memory serves me - I believe the main flame and panty-creamer for skitzo was Ron Paul.

She posted a few threads on the idea that the republican party illegally manipulated multitudes of primary votes to steal the nomination from RP and give it to Romney.
 
Dragonfly said:
If memory serves me - I believe the main flame and panty-creamer for skitzo was Ron Paul.

She posted a few threads on the idea that the republican party illegally manipulated multitudes of primary votes to steal the nomination from RP and give it to Romney.
Click to expand...

How regulated by law is the primary system anyway? I don't care how a party gets its candidate, and they should be able to nominate whoever they want, I would think.
 
rocket88 said:
And replace him with someone who would get rid of the Patriot Act, and the NSA.....which would mean the Republicans are out.

Anybody have Jesse Ventura's phone number?
Click to expand...

He's even more frightening if you ask me!
 
rocket88 said:
How regulated by law is the primary system anyway? I don't care how a party gets its candidate, and they should be able to nominate whoever they want, I would think.
Click to expand...

Her point was that the majority of voters wanted and voted for Ron Paul, but the leaders of the party ignored the wishes and desires of the voters and forced Romney in through illegal and nefarious methods.
 
Dragonfly said:
Her point was that the majority of voters wanted and voted for Ron Paul, but the leaders of the party ignored the wishes and desires of the voters and forced Romney in through illegal and nefarious methods.
Click to expand...

True, but unless the parties are required by law to choose the primary winner, it's not illegal. The party can ignore the wishes of whoever they want to - at their own peril sometimes, but they can.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
Just imagine. My local county Republican Party is full of people like this. People like sKITzo are running the Republican Party right now. They say ridiculous nonsense like this and demand to be taken seriously. I suppose they'll learn a little bit about the real world and silently disappear. Once these nut jobs get out of the party we can become strong again. All it takes is a little exposure to reality and these f***ers will shut up.

Obama isn't the anti-Christ. Obama isn't a member of the Taliban. Obama isn't the worst president ever. Obama isn't going to take your guns while you are sleeping. Obama isn't going to force anybody to spell their name backwards. Just because your party loses the presidential election doesn't mean the world will be destroyed. This is completely irrational yet so mainstream. It's very obnoxious.
Click to expand...

Nice critique, but the OP issued a challenge, which, if everything you said in your critique is true, will be no problem for you. In the link are a bunch of statements with links to executive orders that show the statements to be true. The challenge was simple. Pick one statement, any statement, from the link provided - and disprove it. Once you do that, THEN you can talk sht.
 
DaveFagan said:
I observe that there has always been a battle of Corporate vs. Labor and Corporate is about to become management under the New World Order. I see old banking consolidating and controlling Nations with fiscal policies. "Too big to fail" Corporations and not just banks, but the Military/Industrial people. The Terror War looks like a ruse to get laws favorable to this NWO manipulation. I think there are ignorant good intentions involved in a flawed policy for our future. Underneath all this are the Intelligence Agencies consolidating the power of huge, hundreds of thousands employees, agencies, entrenched like an octopus within our "faux democracy." We need not even discuss our failed "Major Media," stenographers for the power structure.
Click to expand...

Congratulations on a very wise outlook. Your eyes and ears do not deceive you.
 
shrubnose said:
I am not going to respond to the: "Is it funny to you?" question, but I am going to say that this thread belongs in the conspiracy theories portion of this website.




The 'real terrorists' in the USA are those on the far right who call the government that was elected by the majority of the voters in the USA a 'Rogue government'.

The only government that they would ever accept would be one full of far right losers who have been rejected by the majority of American voters.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
Click to expand...

Oh, okay. I see. An elected government has never gone rogue, and the only reason I'm complaining about the abuses of power are because I'm a "far right" terrorist. Actually, I'm a hair left of the middle. You, on the other hand, seem extremely off the scale (either left OR right).
 
vasuderatorrent said:
Obama won. It's more effective to work with him to get things accomplished than to cry like a little baby. He won. Just because someone wins an election doesn't mean they are determined to destroy the country. You know deep down that's f***ing retarded.

During an election campaign you should use scare tactics, lies, conspiracy theories, idiotic name calling or even accusing the opponent of being the anti-christ. I'm cool with that but the election ended a long f***ing time ago. Once the election results come in it is more effective to step back into reality.

The stupid moronic language has it's place. It's place is during the campaign. Our country is so full of gullible people that they believe campaign speeches and political commercials to be true. It's just annoying to see a country full of idiots. Our elected leaders have to cater to these idiots. I think it just hampers the potential of the republican party. Whining like a little baby because you lost doesn't accomplish jack s***. It's annoying. Do I have to explain this again?

Quit being a sore loser and let congress utilize the opportunity of having control of the Congress. :beatdeadhorse
Quit being a sore loser and let congress utilize the opportunity of having control of the Congress. :beatdeadhorse
Quit being a sore loser and let congress utilize the opportunity of having control of the Congress. :beatdeadhorse
Click to expand...

Your comment is way out of left field. You think I'm raising this issue because I give a rat's ass about whether a democrat or republican is in office? For the record, republicans are dirt. Much was revealed as to how they operate when they lied, cheated, and stole Romneys nomination. They will never recover from that. You say congress has control of congress. You forget that congress was threatened with martial law if they didn't approve the bailouts. Doesn't sound like they were in control there, does it?
 
vasuderatorrent said:
Yeah. Let's panic to the extreme and encourage more people to panic to the extreme. Let's squander our capacity of having the majority in congress in order to do what is important and that is to prove that Obama sucks.

Number one goal of the Republican Party: Abolish the Affordable Care Act
Number two goal of the Republican Party: Prove that Obama sucks
Number three goal of the Republican Party: There is no other goals. All energy needs to be focused on the first two. In other words, the Republican Party won't do anything until we get a Republican president.

F*** THAT. THAT'S WASTEFUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

What's with the obsession about republicans and democrats? This has nothing to do with the topic.
 
Dragonfly said:
"This government" is very evenly split between D's and R's.

If one is crooked, they're pretty much all crooked.
And it's not a new thing either. It's not confined to D's or R's.

So I'll go back to a question I asked earlier in this hideous thread:

Can you please tell me how far back we need to go to find an honest and trustworthy President and congress?

What year? What decade? What century?
Click to expand...

Honesty isn't the issue. The issue is very specific. What we're talking about here is the bold pen of Obama. Forget about whether he is republican or democrat and forget about his level of honesty. The only thing we are talking about are bills and EO's that have laid the framework for what is basically a dictatorship. It does not matter that he has not used them. What matters is they would not exist if they did not plan to use them. Can I make it any more clear and simple?
 
Jango said:
911 is the emergency call service Americans use when they need help from firemen, police or paramedics.

'Phony crisis actors'? I think you have had too much to drink from the kool-aid.
Click to expand...

You should try the Kool-Aid, then. The fluoridated tap water isn't doing you so well.
 
Dragonfly said:
So here's a couple of things. I've had more than enough experience with Skitzo to know she's a tinfoilhat wearing loon. I've participated in enough of her bizarro-world threads to have a good read on her.

I don't disagree that our government is slowly eroding our freedoms away from us.

But that's where things stop for me.

This erosion of rights has been going on a long time. Not just since Obama took office. It's not a democrat owned thing either. The republicans are doing the same thing too.
The snopes article states exactly that. Obama is doing nothing different than at least the last 5 or 6 of his predecessors have done.

And guess what - the next president will continue with the erosion and policies of Obama and his predecessors. It's like layers of sedimentary rock. Slowly, ever so slowly building up over time.

This is why I have never voted for a D or an R in my life. I fully support third parties and truly believe the "two party" behemoth we've allowed to be created in the USofA now has us in a stranglehold.

All that being said - Skitzo takes things to levels of nuttery that prevent me from being anywhere near committed to responding to every one of her redonculous posts.
I occasionally think it's fun to pop into a few of her threads, but I don't subscribe to them and I refuse to follow with any attempt to care.

It's kinda the "feeding the troll" scenario. I don't desire to starve her to death, but I also won't waste good food on her either. :mrgreen::lol::2razz::lamo:2wave:
Click to expand...

This is amusing. Gaugingcatenate was referring to the way I shot Snopes down in flames, and this is your reply? A 100% personal attack that I'm nuts? You do see the irony here, don't you? If my posts contain any personal attacks, they are always 1% personal attack, and 99% information with source links pertinent to the subject matter that is 100% justification for the personal attack. Not so, with you. At best, from you I'll get 50% personal attack and 50% of your opinion that I'm wrong, with 0% of how and why I'm wrong with source links.

Here was my unreplied-to post for reference.


sKiTzo said:
Sure, I read the above link, and if I was like you, I would be totally fooled and convinced, "LMAO" at the "conspiracy theorists". My IQ, however, doesn't afford me that luxury, and after fact-checking some of the statements made in your link, I immediately found the piece to be a deceptive piece of propaganda. You'd have been correct about snopes being in on it, if you weren't being sarcastic.

Snopes says, for example, that "Obama has added to Section 201(b) the phrase "under both emergency and non-emergency conditions." In 12919, though, the duties of the Cabinet Secretaries were not limited to emergency situations in Section 201(b), either." Snopes has attempted to use word play to deceive us into believing that there's really no difference between the older one and the new one and that "The timing of this release might have looked a little strange, but this is really nothing to worry about at all."

Look at the statement again: "In 12919, though, the duties of the Cabinet Secretaries were not limited to emergency situations in Section 201(b), either." The non-deceptive statement would be "In 12919, though, the duties of the Cabinet Secretaries were not expanded to non-emergency situations in Section 201(b)"

I just found that right away, I'm sure if I went through the whole thing there would be many more.
Click to expand...

Now, I know how easy it is to skim this over and miss the revelation, but this is very important because it proves Snopes was being deliberately deceptive in writing this piece. You may have to read it several times before it clicks. The red snopes statement is deceptive because the green statement is truthful, while the red statement applies but twists the truth just enough to get by everyone but me. Of course they didn't use the green statement because they are trying to convince you that there's no difference.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm not sure why some object to stupid being called what it is, stupid. But when anyone merely makes a claims, which is really what those statements amounted to too, that is not anything worth of a rebuttal. Instead, actual evidence must be presented. Largely, many misread the evidence they think they have and exaggerate the meanings of small bits, often taken out of context. But to merely say x is y is not enough for a rebuttal. You must present actual evidence.
Click to expand...

Okay, so if links to the actual documents that contain the evidence are not evidence, what is? These links are .gov, by the way. What sort of "evidence" are you expecting? Does evidence get any better than .gov?
 
Boo Radley said:
A: This false claim is a badly distorted version of Obama’s call for doubling the Peace Corps, creating volunteer networks and increasing the size of the Foreign Service.

Obama’s ‘National Security Force?’

A: No. Contrary to false Internet rumors, the new Ready Reserve Corps of doctors and other health workers will report to the surgeon general and be like the "ready reserves" in other uniformed services. They will be used during health emergencies.

Obama’s “Private Army”

See, you're facts are wrong. You've bough into nonsense, and somehow expect someone to treat it as if it reasonable. I don't how to do that. Inaccurate facts are simply inaccurate. There is no debate about that.
Click to expand...

Is there a reason why you chose to only answer certain questions from his post? Seems you avoided the more important issue. What am I saying? Why would I expect anything more?
 
sKiTzo said:
Oh, okay. I see. An elected government has never gone rogue, and the only reason I'm complaining about the abuses of power are because I'm a "far right" terrorist. Actually, I'm a hair left of the middle. You, on the other hand, seem extremely off the scale (either left OR right)
Click to expand...
.
Click to expand...




What-ever.

What you have posted is your opinion, which you are entitled to, and I will ignore because I don't agree with it.

If you don't like what the people in Washington, D.C. are doing, try to put some people there whose ideas are more to your liking.

Bitching and complaining about the people who were sent to Washington, D.C. by a majority vote of the American people accomplishes nothing because those people will be there until their term expires.

If you want to change what's going on there you need to change the people there who are making things that you don't like happen/or who are not doing what you would like to see done.




"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen." ~ Tommy Smothers
 
sKiTzo said:
Okay, so if links to the actual documents that contain the evidence are not evidence, what is? These links are .gov, by the way. What sort of "evidence" are you expecting? Does evidence get any better than .gov?
Click to expand...

You miss the point. What you link doesn't mean what you say it means. It's not the link, but the interpretation. Notice where I talk about misreading evidence. That's the issue.
 
sKiTzo said:
Is there a reason why you chose to only answer certain questions from his post? Seems you avoided the more important issue. What am I saying? Why would I expect anything more?
Click to expand...

I choose to use one example to represent a whole. It's a way to show the problem with the whole without having to link dozens of sources. I'm saying this represents what you are doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom