Ron Paul thinks journalists are next on the government kill list

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]Nothing they come up with becomes law without passing the house and senate, and being signed into law by the president. Do explain what these special powers are.AnnoyedDragon

Decisions by the super congress do not have to pass through the house and senate, because members of the house and senate already sit on the super congress. This is a group that can fast track legislation, the idea is to avoid the usual channels and give the authority to vote on certain issues to a small handful of people.

They have to follow the proper procedure for passing laws. And it's made up of elected officials.LJS9502_basic

If by proper procedure, you mean 13 people giving consent.

12 super congress members, plus the president.

The whole idea of the super congress is to bypass the channels that can lead to the deadlock we saw with the debt ceiling vote.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]Nothing they come up with becomes law without passing the house and senate, and being signed into law by the president. Do explain what these special powers are.AnnoyedDragon

Decisions by the super congress do not have to pass through the house and senate, because members of the house and senate already sit on the super congress. This is a group that can fast track legislation, the idea is to avoid the usual channels and give the authority to vote on certain issues to a small handful of people.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]They have to follow the proper procedure for passing laws. And it's made up of elected officials.AnnoyedDragon

If by proper procedure, you mean 13 people giving consent.

12 super congress members, plus the president.

The whole idea of the super congress is to bypass the channels that can lead to the deadlock we saw with the debt ceiling vote.

that's simply untrue, although they can put pressure on their respective caucuses, that's all. Hence, it is a jumped-up advisory committee. I don't know what you've been reading, but it sure as hell hasn't been a lesson on American civics. Bypassing the house and senate... do you have any idea how even the PROPOSAL of such a move would hit the congress? "supercongress' is purely verbosity on the part of those involved; ALL laws must pass the full house and senate... again, this is an advisory committee. Frame_Dragger

If you are insistent that it is just an advisory committee, then there is nothing more to say is there?

Here's a quote for you.... The committee's recommendations would then be put to a simple up or down vote by Congress by December 23, 2011LJS9502_basic

Condensing debate on important issues into a up or down vote, with the real debate and decisions on the legislation being limited to a small number of individuals. If that's good enough for you, that's your business. There are people who think there is a lot more going on.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]that's simply untrue, although they can put pressure on their respective caucuses, that's all. Hence, it is a jumped-up advisory committee. I don't know what you've been reading, but it sure as hell hasn't been a lesson on American civics. Bypassing the house and senate... do you have any idea how even the PROPOSAL of such a move would hit the congress? "supercongress' is purely verbosity on the part of those involved; ALL laws must pass the full house and senate... again, this is an advisory committee. AnnoyedDragon

If you are insistent that it is just an advisory committee, then there is nothing more to say is there?

Here's a quote for you.... The committee's recommendations would then be put to a simple up or down vote by Congress by December 23, 2011LJS9502_basic

Condensing debate on important issues into a up or down vote, with the real debate and decisions on the legislation being limited to a small number of individuals. If that's good enough for you, that's your business. There are people who think there is a lot more going on.

Ahhhh.... so it's not actually the reality of what's there, you believe this is part of (another) conspiracy theory. Does this one involve Sharia, or have we moved on to a new topic?Frame_Dragger

It's a conspiracy theory that powers has been consolidated into 12 individuals, bypassing congress in deciding legislation; and turning it into nothing more than a yes or no vote for your elected officials?

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] Ahhhh.... so it's not actually the reality of what's there, you believe this is part of (another) conspiracy theory. Does this one involve Sharia, or have we moved on to a new topic?AnnoyedDragon

It's a conspiracy theory that powers has been consolidated into 12 individuals, bypassing congress in deciding legislation; and turning it into nothing more than a yes or no vote for your elected officials?

...And why do you think that wouldn't just result in "no" votes, leading to later consideration of the proposed legislation? If the house and senate pass something, and the president signs it into law it doesn't matter if 12 people drafted the bill. Again, I'd consider that maybe you have a lot to learn about USA civics.Frame_Dragger

I don't really think it's a problem with me having to learn something, more you not caring about attempts to consolidate powers in your own government.

Maybe if you call everyone who has a problem with it a conspiracy theorist, they will all go away.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Here's a quote for you.... The committee's recommendations would then be put to a simple up or down vote by Congress by December 23, 2011AnnoyedDragon

Condensing debate on important issues into a up or down vote, with the real debate and decisions on the legislation being limited to a small number of individuals. If that's good enough for you, that's your business. There are people who think there is a lot more going on.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] ...And why do you think that wouldn't just result in "no" votes, leading to later consideration of the proposed legislation? If the house and senate pass something, and the president signs it into law it doesn't matter if 12 people drafted the bill. Again, I'd consider that maybe you have a lot to learn about USA civics.AnnoyedDragon

I don't really think it's a problem with me having to learn something, more you not caring about attempts to consolidate powers in your own government.

Maybe if you call everyone who has a problem with it a conspiracy theorist, they will all go away.

Then they vote no.:|

LJS9502_basic

That your elected officials only get to vote it up or down, and don't have a say in its actual contents, doesn't bother you?

Ummm... if this, "There are people who think there is a lot more going on." isn't a claim of a conspiracy... what is?Frame_Dragger

Because the government has always been 100% honest and nothing needs to be looked at beyond its face value? Just because people have concerns, doesn't automatically makes them a conspiracy theorist. You use that way too broadly.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Then they vote no.:|

AnnoyedDragon

That your elected officials only get to vote it up or down, and don't have a say in its actual contents, doesn't bother you?

Why should it? If they don't agree with it...it shouldn't pass.LJS9502_basic

Let me emphasise.

This is a small group of individuals, which the US voter has no say on who makes up this group, that gets to design legislation without any input from congress. Who are then only given a yes or no vote.

You should have a problem with that, even if congress can just say no. You don't know where it could lead, and it is isn't a conspiracy theory to say that. The EU started out as just a trade union, now look at what it has turned into. People can call that a slippery slope argument, but they didn't get a say on the establishment of the super congress; and they are unlikely to get a say on future changes to it. Did the public even know the super congress was hidden inside the debt ceiling bill? They just heard about it after it was established.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Why should it? If they don't agree with it...it shouldn't pass.AnnoyedDragon

Let me emphasise.

This is a small group of individuals, which the US voter has no say on who makes up this group, that gets to design legislation without any input from congress. Who are then only given a yes or no vote.

You should have a problem with that, even if congress can just say no. You don't know where it could lead, and it is isn't a conspiracy theory to say that. The EU started out as just a trade union, now look at what it has turned into. People can call that a slippery slope argument, but they didn't get a say on the establishment of the super congress; and they are unlikely to get a say on future changes to it. Did the public even know the super congress was hidden inside the debt ceiling bill? They just heard about it after it was established.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Why should it? If they don't agree with it...it shouldn't pass.AnnoyedDragon

Let me emphasise.

This is a small group of individuals, which the US voter has no say on who makes up this group, that gets to design legislation without any input from congress. Who are then only given a yes or no vote.

You should have a problem with that, even if congress can just say no. You don't know where it could lead, and it is isn't a conspiracy theory to say that. The EU started out as just a trade union, now look at what it has turned into. People can call that a slippery slope argument, but they didn't get a say on the establishment of the super congress; and they are unlikely to get a say on future changes to it. Did the public even know the super congress was hidden inside the debt ceiling bill? They just heard about it after it was established.

You know, sometimes I like Ron Paul. But then he goes and says crazy stuff like this :|

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Why should it? If they don't agree with it...it shouldn't pass.AnnoyedDragon

Let me emphasise.

This is a small group of individuals, which the US voter has no say on who makes up this group, that gets to design legislation without any input from congress. Who are then only given a yes or no vote.

You should have a problem with that, even if congress can just say no. You don't know where it could lead, and it is isn't a conspiracy theory to say that. The EU started out as just a trade union, now look at what it has turned into. People can call that a slippery slope argument, but they didn't get a say on the establishment of the super congress; and they are unlikely to get a say on future changes to it. Did the public even know the super congress was hidden inside the debt ceiling bill? They just heard about it after it was established.

But the US voter does have a say. The US voter's say comes on election day. And you really don't understand the legislative process in the US do you? Bills are drafted by one, sometimes a few, politicians and then voted on by the Congress in a simple "yes" or "no" (or, if you want to be specific, "yea" or "nay") vote. Please learn something about our process before presuming to lecture us on it.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]Ummm... if this, "There are people who think there is a lot more going on." isn't a claim of a conspiracy... what is?AnnoyedDragon

Because the government has always been 100% honest and nothing needs to be looked at beyond its face value? Just because people have concerns, doesn't automatically makes them a conspiracy theorist. You use that way too broadly.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Then they vote no.:|

That your elected officials only get to vote it up or down, and don't have a say in its actual contents, doesn't bother you?

You seem to be missing my point. If congress doesn't agree....it doesn't pass. LJS9502_basic

When the patriot act was established 10 years ago, I doubt people thought its powers would be expanded to the point that it is now. It's 2011, and it is still being used to take away constitutional rights.

For your sake and everyone else's in America, you better hope that remains the case. When the European trade union was established, I doubt people thought it would be taking countries sovereignty away in 2011. All your judgements on the super congress are based on its current form, but it has only just been established; and there is plenty of fear out there to justify expansions in its power.

One, "people have concersn"... OK.. beyond you , what people? You also didn't say that, you said, "a lot more going on...." OK... what? That is the kind of statement that is generally reserved for those who either have some impressive evidence (which you are either witholding or lack), or are conspiratorial/paranoid. Beyond that, lacking in honesty does not support your position in the slightest, try again. Frame_Dragger

The sort of people you would probably call conspiracy theorists Frame, which are just a quick Google away. That's your reaction every time I have ever been in a discussion with you, if they don't think like you; it's a conspiracy.

This is really something that only time will really tell. I say they are going to expand and consolidate power, you say that's a conspiracy. Fine, let's wait and see then.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]You seem to be missing my point. If congress doesn't agree....it doesn't pass. AnnoyedDragon

When the patriot act was established 10 years ago, I doubt people thought its powers would be expanded to the point that it is now. It's 2011, and it is still being used to take away constitutional rights.

For your sake and everyone else's in America, you better hope that remains the case. When the European trade union was established, I doubt people thought it would be taking countries sovereignty away in 2011. All your judgements on the super congress are based on its current form, but it has only just been established; and there is plenty of fear out there to justify expansions in its power.

One, "people have concersn"... OK.. beyond you , what people? You also didn't say that, you said, "a lot more going on...." OK... what? That is the kind of statement that is generally reserved for those who either have some impressive evidence (which you are either witholding or lack), or are conspiratorial/paranoid. Beyond that, lacking in honesty does not support your position in the slightest, try again. Frame_Dragger

The sort of people you would probably call conspiracy theorists Frame, which are just a quick Google away. That's your reaction every time I have ever been in a discussion with you, if they don't think like you; it's a conspiracy.

This is really something that only time will really tell. I say they are going to expand and consolidate power, you say that's a conspiracy. Fine, let's wait and see then.

WASHINGTON - Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is warning that the United States could kill journalists in the same manner it targets terrorists. The Texas congressman said Wednesday that it's not a far leap from the United States killing suspected terrorists in Yemen to targeting reporters at home. Paul says President Barack Obama was wrong to approve the killing of two American citizens who had become central figures in al-Qaida. He warns that the United States could go further as it ignores civil rights and due process. Story here. Ron Paul is nuts - he just went off the deep end with this statement. Whatever chances he might have had of securing a nomination just flew out the window.:lol:topsemag55

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]WASHINGTON - Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is warning that the United States could kill journalists in the same manner it targets terrorists. The Texas congressman said Wednesday that it's not a far leap from the United States killing suspected terrorists in Yemen to targeting reporters at home. Paul says President Barack Obama was wrong to approve the killing of two American citizens who had become central figures in al-Qaida. He warns that the United States could go further as it ignores civil rights and due process. Story here. Ron Paul is nuts - he just went off the deep end with this statement. Whatever chances he might have had of securing a nomination just flew out the window.:lol:OmenUK

There are chat rooms and website literally PACKED with people who believe that the world is being run by 8th dimensional lizards. I'm not kidding... check out David Icke (not the GS guy). There arre plenty who believe that the government is using "chemtrails" (they think contrails from planes are actually chemical weapons) to alter their mood, that cellphone towers are used to interfere with, 'The Orgone', and they wrap wires around crystal to counteract the effect. Again, check it out, it's basically a club for schizophrenic and bipolar folks, but it's an interesting read.

That some people think governments based in this dimension are kidnapping and killing people, is not surprising, but neither is it evidence in any way.

It isn't my normal reaction... check out my posts... maybe I react this way because you tend toward paranoia regarding matters you're largely ignorant of, and conspiracy theores. For the rest, you can ignore that everyone who DOES know about the legislative process in the USA knows yo don't get it, but it's still there. I've decided to help you though; start here buddy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQFrame_Dragger

Earlier in this thread you referenced sharia, I ignored it; because I thought it was petty to bring up a months old unrelated topic and put on an air as if you won that debate. Now your're talking as if everything I've said is always paranoia and conspiracy. Again, you are being condescending.

Let's look at what you called conspiracy back then, shall we?

That sharia law was being sneaked into the UK. Despite there being '85 sharia courts' in the UK.

That Halal food was being fed to people without their knowledge. Despite supermarkets admitting to stocking it, but refusing to label it'.

Conspiracies, according to you. Now I argue that this super congress is likely going to consolidate powers away from the people, giving examples of established authorities that expanded and abused their positions in ways that would be argued as "slippery slope fallacy" years ago. You're response? Label it a conspiracy, and referring to "current" rules as a counter argument to possible "future" changes.

I'm standing behind my ending position, we will wait and see. You stick to your crystal ball and declare it wrong before even waiting to see if it is.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] It isn't my normal reaction... check out my posts... maybe I react this way because you tend toward paranoia regarding matters you're largely ignorant of, and conspiracy theores. For the rest, you can ignore that everyone who DOES know about the legislative process in the USA knows yo don't get it, but it's still there. I've decided to help you though; start here buddy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQAnnoyedDragon

Earlier in this thread you referenced sharia, I ignored it; because I thought it was petty to bring up a months old unrelated topic and put on an air as if you won that debate. Now your're talking as if everything I've said is always paranoia and conspiracy. Again, you are being condescending.

Let's look at what you called conspiracy back then, shall we?

That sharia law was being sneaked into the UK. Despite there being '85 sharia courts' in the UK.

That Halal food was being fed to people without their knowledge. Despite supermarkets admitting to stocking it, but refusing to label it'.

Conspiracies, according to you. Now I argue that this super congress is likely going to consolidate powers away from the people, giving examples of established authorities that expanded and abused their positions in ways that would be argued as "slippery slope fallacy" years ago. You're response? Label it a conspiracy, and referring to "current" rules as a counter argument to possible "future" changes.

I'm standing behind my original position, we will wait and see. You stick to your crystal ball and declare it wrong before even waiting to see if it is.

Now I argue that this super congress is likely going to consolidate powers away from the people, giving examples of established authorities that expanded and abused their positions in ways that would be argued as "slippery slope fallacy" years ago. You're response? Label it a conspiracy, and referring to "current" rules as a counter argument to possible "future" changes.

I'm standing behind my ending position, we will wait and see. You stick to your crystal ball and declare it wrong before even waiting to see if it is.

AnnoyedDragon

Sorry, but you haven't even demonstrated that you have an understand of how our system works now. Your idea of this "super congress" somehow consolidating power when it's no different from any other committee that exists in Congress and still has to play by the same rules is, frankly, ridiculous. Like I said: you should have an understand of how our legislative system works before presuming to lecture us on it.

Sorry, but you haven't even demonstrated that you have an understand of how our system works now. Your idea of this "super congress" somehow consolidating power when it's no different from any other committee that exists in Congress and still has to play by the same rules is, frankly, ridiculous. Like I said: you should have an understand of how our legislative system works before presuming to lecture us on it.

worlock77

How it works now is irrelevant when talking about the context of the future. It's like talking about the rules in the Constitution, as a counter argument to what the Patriot act can and cannot do. Or referring to the limited controls of the European trade union, as a counter argument for them influencing sovereign control.

Things change.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Sorry, but you haven't even demonstrated that you have an understand of how our system works now. Your idea of this "super congress" somehow consolidating power when it's no different from any other committee that exists in Congress and still has to play by the same rules is, frankly, ridiculous. Like I said: you should have an understand of how our legislative system works before presuming to lecture us on it.

AnnoyedDragon

How it works now is irrelevant when talking about the context of the future. It's like talking about the rules in the Constitution, as a counter argument to what the Patriot act can and cannot do. Or referring to the limited controls of the European trade union, as a counter argument for them influencing sovereign control.

Things change.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Sorry, but you haven't even demonstrated that you have an understand of how our system works now. Your idea of this "super congress" somehow consolidating power when it's no different from any other committee that exists in Congress and still has to play by the same rules is, frankly, ridiculous. Like I said: you should have an understand of how our legislative system works before presuming to lecture us on it.

How it works now is irrelevant when talking about the context of the future. It's like talking about the rules in the Constitution, as a counter argument to what the Patriot act can and cannot do. Or referring to the limited controls of the European trade union, as a counter argument for them influencing sovereign control.

Things change.

Heh. So you don't know how it works, don't care about even pretending to know, and will continue to act when pressed upon that question as if it has no relevance on the ridiculous claims you have mentioned. All the supercongress implies is that it is a transparent, formal, subcommittee, which quite frankly is an improvement. majoras_wrath

A quick Google search will show there are Americans who don't like the super congress, and they give their individual reasons. All of which are full of ****, according to certain people in this thread.

Essentially regardless of any position you take, someone is going to think you're an idiot.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Sorry, but you haven't even demonstrated that you have an understand of how our system works now. Your idea of this "super congress" somehow consolidating power when it's no different from any other committee that exists in Congress and still has to play by the same rules is, frankly, ridiculous. Like I said: you should have an understand of how our legislative system works before presuming to lecture us on it.

How it works now is irrelevant when talking about the context of the future. It's like talking about the rules in the Constitution, as a counter argument to what the Patriot act can and cannot do. Or referring to the limited controls of the European trade union, as a counter argument for them influencing sovereign control.

Things change.

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"] Heh. So you don't know how it works, don't care about even pretending to know, and will continue to act when pressed upon that question as if it has no relevance on the ridiculous claims you have mentioned. All the supercongress implies is that it is a transparent, formal, subcommittee, which quite frankly is an improvement. AnnoyedDragon

A quick Google search will show there are Americans who don't like the super congress, and they give their individual reasons. All of which are full of ****, according to certain people in this thread.

Essentially regardless of any position you take, someone is going to think you're an idiot.

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"] Heh. So you don't know how it works, don't care about even pretending to know, and will continue to act when pressed upon that question as if it has no relevance on the ridiculous claims you have mentioned. All the supercongress implies is that it is a transparent, formal, subcommittee, which quite frankly is an improvement. AnnoyedDragon

A quick Google search will show there are Americans who don't like the super congress, and they give their individual reasons. All of which are full of ****, according to certain people in this thread.

Essentially regardless of any position you take, someone is going to think you're an idiot.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Sorry, but you haven't even demonstrated that you have an understand of how our system works now. Your idea of this "super congress" somehow consolidating power when it's no different from any other committee that exists in Congress and still has to play by the same rules is, frankly, ridiculous. Like I said: you should have an understand of how our legislative system works before presuming to lecture us on it.

AnnoyedDragon

How it works now is irrelevant when talking about the context of the future. It's like talking about the rules in the Constitution, as a counter argument to what the Patriot act can and cannot do. Or referring to the limited controls of the European trade union, as a counter argument for them influencing sovereign control.

Things change.

Indeed, thngs change. There is nothing however, nothing at all, to support your assertion. Might as well assert that Cthulhu will rise from his slumber in the deep ocean and take control of the United Nations. There's just as much to indicate that will happen as what you claim.

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Sorry, but you haven't even demonstrated that you have an understand of how our system works now. Your idea of this "super congress" somehow consolidating power when it's no different from any other committee that exists in Congress and still has to play by the same rules is, frankly, ridiculous. Like I said: you should have an understand of how our legislative system works before presuming to lecture us on it.

How it works now is irrelevant when talking about the context of the future. It's like talking about the rules in the Constitution, as a counter argument to what the Patriot act can and cannot do. Or referring to the limited controls of the European trade union, as a counter argument for them influencing sovereign control.

Things change.

Indeed, thngs change. There is nothing however, nothing at all, to support your assertion. Might as well assert that Cthulhu will rise from his slumber in the deep ocean and take control of the United Nations. There's just as much to indicate that will happen as what you claim.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] Beyond which it's mostly a way to placate some while keeping business as usual. I swear, people will be waiting for the "BIG CHANGE" until they finally shake it off and realize that more control just isn't needed. The US government is ALREADY a sweet deal for those in it, and those lobbying it; changing that into some kind of hellscape just for kicks is the last thing anyone wants. It's only by putting up such a straw man and stuffing it with paranoia that a lunatic like Paul can seem electable or rational. As you say though, he's not even trying to pretend that he understands anymore... maybe... "Argumentum a nescientia." ? lolmajoras_wrath

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]No it's not... it's like talking about some random committee in congress taking control of the entire government. If things are to change, you can at least rest assured that it WON'T be as a result of this. Your notion of this committee as somehow being above or beyond congress, as opposed to a joke created to appease people in the short term shows sucha depth of ingnorance about this system that it is a little astonishing. You would do better to argue that a military coup was in the offing than to believe that a committee in congress could take over anything.

Honestly, it's hard to explain why and how you're so painfully wrong wheen you don't understand the basics at all. What you're doing now is making a pointless stand on the notion that "unexpected things happen", when the areas of our government that COULD enact such change are not the ones you're focused on. No offense dragon, but I swear to you that all you're doing now is emphasizing an ignorance of the US system. I could just as well say to you that your Queen was poised to take over Parliment and the military as what you're saying. Both would have to be a product of ignorance, or mental defect. AnnoyedDragon

You cannot stand it can you? I've provided two opportunities for this subject to just be dropped, for you to think whatever you like about me, and you just keep going. Twice now I have ended with "wait and see", but nope, you keep going.

What gets me is you keep inventing these absurd comparisons. My comparisons have been the Patriot act and the EU, two real world examples of the "slippery slope" fallacies that were a lot more slippery than people imagined. Your comparisons thus far has been 8th dimension lizards and poisoning the Queen... regardless of what you think I am saying, it's not that out there. I'm pretty sure that level of exaggeration and unjustified comparisons is a fallacy of itself.

I'm going to say I am wrong. Not because I've genuinely changed my mind that the form of this super congress can change over time, everything changes over time, but just to shut you up. I'll cease arguing if it means you move on.

By the same token you can't seem to "move on" ether, as you keep responding. It takes two or more to keep a conversation going and you're contributing just as much as anyone.

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]No it's not... it's like talking about some random committee in congress taking control of the entire government. If things are to change, you can at least rest assured that it WON'T be as a result of this. Your notion of this committee as somehow being above or beyond congress, as opposed to a joke created to appease people in the short term shows sucha depth of ingnorance about this system that it is a little astonishing. You would do better to argue that a military coup was in the offing than to believe that a committee in congress could take over anything.

Honestly, it's hard to explain why and how you're so painfully wrong wheen you don't understand the basics at all. What you're doing now is making a pointless stand on the notion that "unexpected things happen", when the areas of our government that COULD enact such change are not the ones you're focused on. No offense dragon, but I swear to you that all you're doing now is emphasizing an ignorance of the US system. I could just as well say to you that your Queen was poised to take over Parliment and the military as what you're saying. Both would have to be a product of ignorance, or mental defect. worlock77

You cannot stand it can you? I've provided two opportunities for this subject to just be dropped, for you to think whatever you like about me, and you just keep going. Twice now I have ended with "wait and see", but nope, you keep going.

What gets me is you keep inventing these absurd comparisons. My comparisons have been the Patriot act and the EU, two real world examples of the "slippery slope" fallacies that were a lot more slippery than people imagined. Your comparisons thus far has been 8th dimension lizards and poisoning the Queen... regardless of what you think I am saying, it's not that out there. I'm pretty sure that level of exaggeration and unjustified comparisons is a fallacy of itself.

I'm going to say I am wrong. Not because I've genuinely changed my mind that the form of this super congress can change over time, everything changes over time, but just to shut you up. I'll cease arguing if it means you move on.

By the same token you can't seem to "move on" ether, as you keep responding. It takes two or more to keep a conversation going and you're contributing just as much as anyone.

edit: I actually think it would be helpful if Ron Paul had to dress as a 'furry fox' at debates... sort of like proper signage on streets warning of upcoming hazards, you know?

By the same token you can't seem to "move on" ether, as you keep responding. It takes two or more to keep a conversation going and you're contributing just as much as anyone.

worlock77

I'm not trying to be insulting here Frame_Dragger

He so is. Bringing up totally unrelated things, as if it has any relevance to the topic. My interest in anthropomorphic animal artwork has about as much to do with the discussion as your reference to 8th dimension lizard conspiracy theorists...

And this is where I get blamed for responding instead of just leaving, even though he's basically begging for me to respond; with off topic personal attacks.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]I'm not trying to be insulting here AnnoyedDragon

He so is. Bringing up totally unrelated things, as if it has any relevance to the topic. My interest in anthropomorphic animal artwork has about as as much to do with the discussion as your reference to 8th dimension lizard conspiracy theorists...

And this is where I get blamed for responding instead of just leaving, even though he's basically begging for me to respond; with off topic personal attacks.

And this is where I get blamed for responding instead of just leaving, even though he's basically begging for me to respond; with off topic personal attacks.

AnnoyedDragon

Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to respond are they? If you wish to be finished with the topic then simply stop looking at the thread. He isn't "begging" you to respond, that's your own ego at work there.

Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to respond are they? If you wish to be finished with the topic then simply stop looking at the thread. He isn't "begging" you to respond, that's your own ego at work there.

worlock77

So given that this was between me and Frame, what made you post just now? Was that ego as well? Whatever the case, you felt the need to respond about something that had nothing to do with you.

Isn't that interesting. I suppose it's one thing when you choose to respond, but when I react to childish personal attacks; it's unjustifiable.

i need to see my friend at the ron paul support group and see what his opinion is.

helllloooooooo mirror!