Don't You Fkn Hate Conspiracy Theorists...Or Are YOU One Of Them?

[NEETzsche]

conspiracy theorists are out to get me.

[arraamis]

Your changing topics from the topic you yourself changed it to originally. RT is not a credible news source according to you so I showed politico. Violating our rights is an alarming situation. These rights were enacted to protect the individual from a tyrranical government and now in the name of security the president is stripping away our constitutional rights. NDAA bill gives the president the ability to label protesters as enemy combatants. Judge Forrest herself said the language in section 1021 of NDAA was to vague and could be used to violate constitutional rights. Obama admin acted fast to overturn this judicial ruling which it was granted a stay by 3 state judges appointed by Obama. The fast pace in which they sought a stay of this ruling has led to speculation of american citizens already being detained for exercising their right to protest.

That is Squeal's M.O., first he changes the subject matter to some unrelated topic and starts slinging his opinions as though its fact. Then he starts rambling non-stop hoping you will accept his ******ed biased views.

That is why its rarely, beneficial to even attempt to dialog with him, he is of the system and views every theory as a conspiracy. And to deflect from his own ******ation, he tries to make others seem as warped as his is. What a tool

[squealpiggy]

Your changing topics from the topic you yourself changed it to originally. RT is not a credible news source according to you so I showed politico.

I admit I may have you wrong. I just couldn't find your threads expressing concern with abuses of human rights in Putin's Russia. As a result I assumed you were picking on Obama because you're a rebellious adolescent and you know that criticising the government is constitutionally protected and will get you in no trouble at all. I apologise wholeheartedly, pending the link to the thread in which you highlight the far worse abuses of human rights and freedoms that take place in Russia.

Violating our rights is an alarming situation. These rights were enacted to protect the individual from a tyrranical government and now in the name of security the president is stripping away our constitutional rights.

Are you suggesting that Obama's presidency is "tyrranical (sic)"?

NDAA bill gives the president the ability to label protesters as enemy combatants.

The courts must be full of protesters labelled "enemy combatants" by the president! What? Not even a single one? But but...

Judge Forrest herself said the language in section 1021 of NDAA was to vague and could be used to violate constitutional rights.

Next you'll be telling me that statutes like the 2012 NDAA are only as good as the decisions on them that occur in court. But that would be ridiculous. What sort of "tyrrant" would allow his dictats to be overruled just because of separation of powers?

Obama admin acted fast to overturn this judicial ruling which it was granted a stay by 3 state judges appointed by Obama. The fast pace in which they sought a stay of this ruling has led to speculation of american citizens already being detained for exercising their right to protest.

Do these speculative citizens have names? I would assume their names would be very well publicised by other protesters. Remember that your claim here is that the US military would have custody of them. And they would be held without charge. So... anyone? Can you name one?

This is the difference between reality and conspiracy theory. The reality is that a vaguely worded act could lead to constitutional rights being eroded. This has been challenged in the courts and the government is counter-challenging, again in the courts.

The conspiracy theory is that there are protesters that are in secret custody under the auspices of this new legislation, protesters who apparently don't have families or friends.

You take a hypothetical consequence of some legislation and then insist, without evidence, that it already happened.

It's fantasy.

[squealpiggy]

That is Squeal's M.O., first he changes the subject matter to some unrelated topic and starts slinging his opinions as though its fact. Then he starts rambling non-stop hoping you will accept his ******ed biased views.

That's just what the Lizard People want you to think.

That is why its rarely, beneficial to even attempt to dialog with him, he is of the system and views every theory as a conspiracy. And to deflect from his own ******ation, he tries to make others seem as warped as his is. What a tool

Do you have anything to add that it not demonstrably idiotic?

[Canelo Phresh]

That is Squeal's M.O., first he changes the subject matter to some unrelated topic and starts slinging his opinions as though its fact. Then he starts rambling non-stop hoping you will accept his ******ed biased views.

That is why its rarely, beneficial to even attempt to dialog with him, he is of the system and views every theory as a conspiracy. And to deflect from his own ******ation, he tries to make others seem as warped as his is. What a tool

I know. He keeps bringing up how RT isnt credible but completely ignores when I site other sites such as politico giving the exact same information. Then he changes topics again. Since he cant discredit my sources then he trys to say that NDAA isnt doing anything wrong. Ive showed several times that Judge Katherine Forrest ruled against NDAA's indefinite detention of people labeled enemy combatants as the language is so vague that it can used against everybody for simply disagreeing with the government.

[squealpiggy]

I know. He keeps bringing up how RT isnt credible but completely ignores when I site other sites such as politico giving the exact same information.

I was expecting you to post the thread where you were alarmed at the assassination of journalists in Russia. You did make that post didn't you? or are you only concerned with the "tyrrany (sic)" of Obama and his death camps?

Then he changes topics again. Since he cant discredit my sources then he trys to say that NDAA isnt doing anything wrong.

I did not say it wasn't wrong. I was saying that immediately leaping to a worst case scenario is typical of anti-establishment types, and that any such cases would be vigourously challenged in court. Because of separation of powers.

Ive showed several times that Judge Katherine Forrest ruled against NDAA's indefinite detention of people labeled enemy combatants as the language is so vague that it can used against everybody for simply disagreeing with the government.

Then you claimed, without evidence, that people are already being detained under that legislation for "exercising their right to protest".

So you made the leap from concern about legislation to "and this is actually happening RIGHT NOW" faster than you can say "Alex Jones FEMA camp".

[squealpiggy]

Let me restate my case in relation to the NDAA:

Reality: Vaguely worded legislation could be read to be unconstitutional

Fantasy: People are being secretly detained for protesting

[The Noose]

Its good to question

But making up dumb crap based on absolutely nothing is different

You're right. But i realised reading this thread that there is a major difference between asking questions and looking for answers ; see below.

All I want is a straight answer on why building 7 came down

A 1 minute google search would provide answers. But he isnt looking for answers. Just content to ask questions in the guise of a thinking person. He prefers to hold onto the conspiracy.

Its a conspiracy when the government says this schmuck lit off 3 bullets in 6 seconds from half a mile away and hit the guy twice, and nobody else was involved even though eye witnesses who were there heard gun shots behind them and jfks head went back when it was hit... Then Oswald just happened to be killed.

Its not JUST a crime when all the truths arent told.

Same here.
If these conspiracies are built on 'facts not making sense', then why arent they looking for answers or explanations that can easily be found?
Because a conspiracy theory has an exciting mystique?
Or are they simply content with their ignorance.

[Canelo Phresh]

I admit I may have you wrong. I just couldn't find your threads expressing concern with abuses of human rights in Putin's Russia. As a result I assumed you were picking on Obama because you're a rebellious adolescent and you know that criticising the government is constitutionally protected and will get you in no trouble at all. I apologise wholeheartedly, pending the link to the thread in which you highlight the far worse abuses of human rights and freedoms that take place in Russia.



Are you suggesting that Obama's presidency is "tyrranical (sic)"?



The courts must be full of protesters labelled "enemy combatants" by the president! What? Not even a single one? But but...



Next you'll be telling me that statutes like the 2012 NDAA are only as good as the decisions on them that occur in court. But that would be ridiculous. What sort of "tyrrant" would allow his dictats to be overruled just because of separation of powers?



Do these speculative citizens have names? I would assume their names would be very well publicised by other protesters. Remember that your claim here is that the US military would have custody of them. And they would be held without charge. So... anyone? Can you name one?

This is the difference between reality and conspiracy theory. The reality is that a vaguely worded act could lead to constitutional rights being eroded. This has been challenged in the courts and the government is counter-challenging, again in the courts.

The conspiracy theory is that there are protesters that are in secret custody under the auspices of this new legislation, protesters who apparently don't have families or friends.

You take a hypothetical consequence of some legislation and then insist, without evidence, that it already happened.

It's fantasy.

Im giving the facts and possibilities therein. You want to get down to it, state your position clearly. Are you saying that their is absolutely no possibilty the government is using the vague wording of section 1021 of the NDAA bill to violate rights of detention without charge and trial by a jury of our peers? If thats your case then why is the government fighting so hard to secure that vague definition of enemy combatants as opposed to just rewording that section to clearly define their intentions and practices? Instead of changing topics stick to the subject. Are you confident enough in your opinion to say that the government wouldnt abuse this power the way Judge Katherine Forrest said it could be used. If you change topics or avoid answering these questions then you have definitively lost this debate.

[squealpiggy]

You're right. But i realised reading this thread that there is a major difference between asking questions and looking for answers

This is very well put. Another forum uses the term "JAQing off". JAQ stands for "Just Asking Questions". It's an attempt to do two things:

1. Add an illusion of healthy skepticism to woowoo
2. Argue for woowoo without being put in the embarrassing situation of actually stating what woowoo is

Here's a typical conversation:

Woo: Why did WT7 collapse?
Me: A combination of structural damage and uncontrolled fires as stated by everyone involved.
Woo: Yeah but how come there was no plane found at the Pentagon?
Me: There was a large amount of debris and remains located at, around and inside the Pentagon that was positively identified as coming from Flight 77
Woo: Yeah but how come there was molten steel for months under the towers?
Me: There wasn't any molten steel and there was no molten metal for "months"
Woo: Yeah but how did WT7 collapse?

Thus the merry-go-round continues to turn.