Karl
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2010
- Messages
- 5,561
- Reaction score
- 1,589
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Please, no. You are walking in circles... I'll just stand here and watch as you pass by.... repeatedly :2razz:Your logic is still flawed. Let me walk you through this step-by-step.
All versions of the bill allow anything and everything that they do not specifically prohibit (according to arguments here, including yours). The allow the indefinite confiscation of chocolate ice cream. The also allow humans to marry their domestic pets. They allow cats and dogs to adopt human children. You see, none of these things are specifically prohibited by any version of the bill, including versions that were never written (and that point is very important).As I pointed out in post #29, the early version of the bill allowed the indefinite detention of certain defined persons. (Notice they do not all the indefinite confiscation of chocolate ice cream cone, thus blowing your ridiculous attempt at trivializing this debate out of the water.)
Of course, we are missing one important piece of evidence that would prove my logic beyond any doubt: If, in his signing statement, President Obama had said that his administration would not permit cats and dogs to adopt human children, then that would have been slam-dunk proof that the bill did allow such adoption. However, in his defense, and in defense of my adaptation of your logic, there are a limited number of things that the bill does not specifically prohibit that he could list in his signing statement.
Ergo, a lack of his denial that he will do something is not proof that it isn't allowed in the bill (I think that's a triple negative... can I get a ruling on that please?).
But I do think it's really cute how you cut and pasted from sections 1034 and 1022 of the bill in order to prove something you claim is in section 1021 of the bill. That's almost as good as claiming that an earlier version of the bill is the same as a later version of the bill (or at least justification for a claim about something that didn't previously exist, as far as you know, which is really not far at all).
I leave you with the immortal words of John Kerry: "I was for the bill before I was against it". I suggest the purveyors of your argument adopt that as their motto