Deranged Rhino Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 How are those two statements in contradiction with one another? Supporting the program is one thing, reforming it is another. You do realize that you can be for a program that could be reformed and improved. Words matter, so does context. This is a RUBIO / NSA thread. Rubio does not support reforming the program. Is he wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 You don't determine who has credibility you dingbat. What a moron you are Do I have credibility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 (edited) Words matter, so does context. This is a RUBIO / NSA thread. Rubio does not support reforming the program. Is he wrong? Stop with the bull ****. People often respond to what was said in the post more so than the topic of the thread. Happens all the time. In regards to Rubio being wrong, I think anyone's closed-mindedness to reforming any program to improve it isn't wise. But I'm not talking about Rubio. You are. You are fixated on wanting me to discuss him. Throughout this entire conversation I have been speaking of the value of the NSA program. Focus man. Focus Edited May 14, 2015 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 You don't determine who has credibility you dingbat. What a moron you are You're right GreggyT does not determine who has credibility - I on the other hand am the supreme judge on who gets to chime in as a rainbow farting unicorn loving progressive and I hereby revoke your liberal in training card and restrict you to the Obamabot section of the Democratic party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 (edited) Stop with the bull ****. People often respond to what was said in the post more so than the topic of the thread. Happens all the time. In regards to Rubio being wrong, I think anyone's closed-mindedness to reforming any program to improve it isn't wise. I'm legitimately not trying to bull **** you or make you look bad. I'm trying to understand your point. I apologize if that's not how it's taken. This thread is about Rubio wanting to permanently extend the most controversial provisions of the Patriot Act, specifically the continuation of the collection and storage of metadata. Rubio, as the OP's article (and the man himself) makes clear does not feel the NSA needs to be reformed. By your own logic above, that makes him unwise -- (amazing you still can't say he's wrong, but I'll let that go). I've never said I'm in favor of dissolving the NSA or removing the country's ability to gather intelligence. All I've said is that the program Rubio is advocating extending permanently, has little to no oversight, transparency, and at best seems to be an egregious violation of every American's right to privacy and due process. The last part is of course opinion, but an informed one. The question is, do you agree with his stance? Edited May 14, 2015 by GreggyT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 I'm legitimately not trying to bull **** you or make you look bad. I'm trying to understand your point. This thread is about Rubio wanting to permanently extend the most controversial provisions of the Patriot Act, specifically the continuation of the collection and storage of metadata. Rubio, as the OP's article (and the man himself) makes clear does not feel the NSA needs to be reformed. By your own logic above, that makes him unwise -- (amazing you still can't say he's wrong, but I'll let that go). I've never said I'm in favor of dissolving the NSA or removing the country's ability to gather intelligence. All I've said is that the program Rubio is advocating extending permanently, has little to no oversight, transparency, and at best seems to be an egregious violation of every American's right to privacy and due process. The last part is of course opinion, but an informed one. The question is, do you agree with his stance? You don't have to worry about me looking bad, focus on yourself. You keep wanting to goad me into giving an opinion on Rubio's stance. To be honest with you, I haven't even cared enough to read what his exact stance is other than what you are stating. The only reason why I posted was in response to Dante's post, in which I voiced my opinion of the overall program, not what Rubio said. You are desperate to get me to state my opinion about his stance, I said that I am against anyone that is closed-minded about reforming any program to improve it. You said that he was against reforming it. If that is indeed the case, then yes, I'm against his position. You happy? Did you just blow a wad in your pants now? I didn't say you were against the NSA, just that you mischaracterized the facts in that you basically said there has never been any results from the NSA that have been beneficial. We have now seen that was wrong, and to be honest I just posted that not so much to make a point of it's efficacy but to point out to you that you again made a false statement. In regards to the program that Rubio is supporting, which you claim that he wants "little to no oversight" and transparency, again, if that is the case, and I'm gonna check, then I'm against that statement. But if he is saying that he supports basically what I had said earlier, which I can defend a program that doesn't have full transparency and only the necessary oversight through congress, then I'm for that. I'm gonna read it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 So I read it, and I guess you came away with a different interpretation than what was said in the article. You said: Rubio, as the OP's article (and the man himself) makes clear does not feel the NSA needs to be reformed. That's not what was said, at all. What was said was he was against that specific legislative reform. There is a difference. Words matter. That's not to say that he wouldn't be against any reform, that may end up being the case, but it isn't clear that he feels that the NSA needs any reforms. That was once again you editorializing your views on what was actually said. You also stated: All I've said is that the program Rubio is advocating extending permanently, has little to no oversight, transparency, That's an overstatement. You could make the argument that there needs to be more oversight, which that would be arguable, but to say there is little to no oversight simply isn't true. Congress does oversee portions of the NSA, again, the argument isn't that there isn't enough oversight but responding to what you said, which basically there is no oversight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 You don't have to worry about me looking bad, focus on yourself. You keep wanting to goad me into giving an opinion on Rubio's stance. To be honest with you, I haven't even cared enough to read what his exact stance is other than what you are stating. The only reason why I posted was in response to Dante's post, in which I voiced my opinion of the overall program, not what Rubio said. You are desperate to get me to state my opinion about his stance, I said that I am against anyone that is closed-minded about reforming any program to improve it. You said that he was against reforming it. If that is indeed the case, then yes, I'm against his position. You happy? Did you just blow a wad in your pants now? I didn't say you were against the NSA, just that you mischaracterized the facts in that you basically said there has never been any results from the NSA that have been beneficial. We have now seen that was wrong, and to be honest I just posted that not so much to make a point of it's efficacy but to point out to you that you again made a false statement. In regards to the program that Rubio is supporting, which you claim that he wants "little to no oversight" and transparency, again, if that is the case, and I'm gonna check, then I'm against that statement. But if he is saying that he supports basically what I had said earlier, which I can defend a program that doesn't have full transparency and only the necessary oversight through congress, then I'm for that. I'm gonna read it now. I keep wanting you to give an opinion on Rubio's stance... because this is a thread about Rubio's stance on the NSA. I know that may seem shocking, but I assure you, that's all there is to it. Considering your affection for the man, and your level of absolute crazy in this thread (which has been amusing to see you so unhinged), I really don't think it's a stretch to say that you're investment in him is steering a lot of your responses in this thread. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But since you still are dodging the issue and seemingly intent on making this something more than it is: "I didn't say you were against the NSA," You say you didn't. But you did exactly that in post 24: "I'll tell you what's a fraud, are the lacking in substance proclamations that the NSA achieves one single purpose, which is the nefarious intent to spy on it's citizens. That's what's fraudulent." Words matter. That's an overstatement. You could make the argument that there needs to be more oversight, which that would be arguable, but to say there is little to no oversight simply isn't true. Congress does oversee portions of the NSA, again, the argument isn't that there isn't enough oversight but responding to what you said, which basically there is no oversight. That is absolutely not an overstatement because it's based on more than just the OP's article. You're demonstrating your ignorance now about what's really going on with 215 and the metadata collection program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 I keep wanting you to give an opinion on Rubio's stance... because this is a thread about Rubio's stance on the NSA. I know that may seem shocking, but I assure you, that's all there is to it. Considering your affection for the man, and your level of absolute crazy in this thread (which has been amusing to see you so unhinged), I really don't think it's a stretch to say that you're investment in him is steering a lot of your responses in this thread. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But since you still are dodging the issue and seemingly intent on making this something more than it is: "I didn't say you were against the NSA," You say you didn't. But you did exactly that in post 24: "I'll tell you what's a fraud, are the lacking in substance proclamations that the NSA achieves one single purpose, which is the nefarious intent to spy on it's citizens. That's what's fraudulent." Words matter. That is absolutely not an overstatement because it's based on more than just the OP's article. You're demonstrating your ignorance now about what's really going on with 215 and the metadata collection program. The only unhinged aspect of this dialogue between you and I are your fallacies and your obsession to have me speak about Rubio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 The only unhinged aspect of this dialogue between you and I are your fallacies and your obsession to have me speak about Rubio. That's one way to read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 That's one way to read it. The logical one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 The logical one. You're right. It's completely crazy to expect someone to have an answer, or an interest, in Rubio's stance on the NSA in a thread about Rubio's stance on the NSA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 (edited) If you would have came out with that simple question on wanting to know my view of his opinion. Then no, that would have been perfectly reasonable. But that's not what happened. I suppose it's unfortunate for you that this thread does record what was typed. And if you look back, I made a simple view of my opinion on the overall program. In which you responded : If you don't think this is a serious encroachment on our fourth amendment rights then I'd suggest your love for Marco Rubio is clouding your view on this issue. Magox, on 14 May 2015 - 11:44 AM, said: Abuse happens, but I'm not paranoid enough to think that they are going to target me. I believe that the program does more good than harm, I also believe that it wasn't created with nefarious intentions and that the intent is to save lives, which I also believe has happened. So, I support it. You support Rubio. Who is wrong on this issue -- and continues to show why he's going to lose. You see? You didn't do that. Your obsession to link me to Rubio is what clouded this entire conversation. I never made mention of Rubio nor his stance, the only one who wanted to lump him into the discussion, was you. And that's a fact. Words matter Edited May 14, 2015 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Get a room you two! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 If you would have came out with that simple question on wanting to know my view of his opinion. Then no, that would have been perfectly reasonable. But that's not what happened. I suppose it's unfortunate for you that this thread does record what was typed. And if you look back, I made a simple view of my opinion on the overall program. In which you responded : You see? You didn't do that. Your obsession to link me to Rubio is what clouded this entire conversation. I never made mention of Rubio nor his stance, the only one who wanted to lump him into the discussion, was you. And that's a fact. Words matter Words matter. What's the title of the thread again? Also, your logical answer as to why you're unconcerned about the NSA collection program is the exact same one Gator gave in the 29 page thread. It's hilarious that you think you're not becoming just a touch unhinged in a thread where the only person who has your side is Gatorman. Unless... he's your alter ego? That would explain a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 (edited) Words matter. What's the title of the thread again? Also, your logical answer as to why you're unconcerned about the NSA collection program is the exact same one Gator gave in the 29 page thread. It's hilarious that you think you're not becoming just a touch unhinged in a thread where the only person who has your side is Gatorman. Unless... he's your alter ego? That would explain a lot. You've lost this argument. And fyi, you are taking the same position as Dante Edited May 14, 2015 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 You've lost this argument. You've just lost it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 So I guess this means, no more private messages of respect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Well this ended with a gay thud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Well this ended with a gay thud. Something else Rubio would be against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts