• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Pentagon Admits Spying on Peace Activists on American Soil

aps said:
Does it really matter, Stinger? First, not every circumstance has one conclusion. What you perceive to be the case may not be someone else's perception. Personally, I agree with danarhea's perception. Second, you want to argue with danarhea about whether he perceives that he was attacked? Geez Louise. :roll:
Click to expand...

OK quote the line that attacked him. If he is going to use that as a defense it will be called. He did it was and now so do you, so where was he attacked? Claiming someone attacked you in order to avoid the debate is just as bad as attacking someone to avoid the debate.
 
cnredd said:
I find this two-part discussion amusing...

Notice how aps questions MY intent(which means she's attacking the messenger instead of the message), and gets a reply that "I" am the one attacking the messenger and not the message...

Very nice aps...Instead of reading my rebuttal and analyzing the message itself, you decide to go after me and my motivation for doing so...

Which is the very same thing I get accused of...hypocracy runs wild....

But...I will explain...I'm just that kinda guy...:cool:

When a Nazi comes to this website and starts a thread saying the Holocaust never happened...

What do you say to yourself?...

A) "I will look over the information provided and draw my own conclusions.

B) "Agenda-driven crap"

I hope you understand my assumption when I'd say that you went for "B"...

Congratulations...You've just "considered the source"...

Same thing here(No...I not saying anyone is a Nazi)....

Just like someone who continually starts threads and writes posts saying 911 was an inside job, or someone who starts threads and write posts saying that the world is controlled by Zionism and the world banks, you start to realize that the original poster isn't concerned about putting a square peg into a square hole...They're concerned about putting a square peg into a round hole, even if the force of a hammer is necessary...

There is one difference indeed...The 911/World Bank stuff is obvious...I could read over the articles and sources and dissect them intimately to show the inadequacies and outright lies to the forum...

But why?...

Almost everyone here knows that stuff is crap...It would be unnecessay to show the forum why...they already know...

But when it comes to partisan hackery and partybashing, the agenda is NOT so obvious all of the time...

That's the reason and motivation...Sometimes you have to peel back the layers to see the agenda clearly...That's what I've done...

Let me throw a question back atchya....

If YOU aren't concerned about articles and threads that are misleading, agenda-driven, and outright lies....

Why are you HERE?...:confused:

Did you show up NOT to question things?...NOT to debate issues?...NOT to analize what people post?

The reason for this forum is discussion...But that discussion should be HONEST discussion...don't you agree?...

Why should I be given such a hard time for pointing out dishonesty when pointing it out gives the forum members a clearer prspective of the threads and posts?

I'll repost one such point of dishonesty from this thread...

From the original poster's own words...Read the whole paragraph first, then notice the bolded words...



Now look at what the actual article says...



So the Pentagon has NOT given a public determination, but the original poster says they did...AND the reason was because they were giving out peanut butter and jelly sandwiches...

Do you not find this dumb?...Do you not find this dishonest?...Do you believe the original poster wants honest debate when throwing stuff like this out for public consumption?

And this is just ONE point...I have shown many...

So aps...To answer your question as to WHY I give so much attention to it when it's so NOT credible(paraphrasing your original question), the answer is simple...

To show the forum the dishonesty so they can draw their own conclusions and have honest debate once the true facts are presented...

Thank you for your concern...:2wave:
Click to expand...

:surrender

Okay, you raise valid points, Mr. cnredd. For me, if I personally perceived something as not remotely credible, I would most likely not respond because, for me, it is a waste of time and energy on my part. But I see what you're saying. I didn't mean to sound like I was attacking you. I was surprised at how much length you went to discredit the initial post. But you're you, and I'm me and neither of us can be as great as the other person. Peace, my friend.
 
Stinger said:
OK quote the line that attacked him. If he is going to use that as a defense it will be called. He did it was and now so do you, so where was he attacked? Claiming someone attacked you in order to avoid the debate is just as bad as attacking someone to avoid the debate.
Click to expand...

I did not accuse the original poster of being dishonest and then walked away...That's attacking the messenger instead of the message...

But look at my posts...They attack the message VERY CLEARLY...

I accused the original poster of being dishonest and THEN showed the forum how by dissecting the points in the article and how they conflicted with what the original poster presented in the beginning of the thread...

Attacking the messenger?...Only if you consider "dishonest" and "liar" attacking...I don't...

Especially when I've shown proof by...yup...attacking the message...:2wave:
 
Stinger said:
OK quote the line that attacked him. If he is going to use that as a defense it will be called. He did it was and now so do you, so where was he attacked? Claiming someone attacked you in order to avoid the debate is just as bad as attacking someone to avoid the debate.
Click to expand...
Me too. I'd like to know how redd attacked dana personally, rather than the his dicrediting the information contained withn the post. dana is often accusing others of attacking him. I would like to know what it is, in this instance.
 
Vandeervecken said:
The Pentagon is the military. The military is prevented legally from a law enforcement use in the US (Out side of military reserves.)

This clearly is in violation of that.
Click to expand...

The Defense Dept is allowed to track terroristic threats against military installations.
 
VoiceOfReason said:
The Defense Dept is allowed to track terroristic threats against military installations.
Click to expand...

Show me where Haliburton HQ in Houston is a military installation.
 
Fire depts routinely videotape the gawkers at fires in an effort to identify arsonists.

Here is a link to the 'secret' DoD "AntiWarProtestDatabaseTracker" (thats the name given by to it by the crack 'MSNBC Investigative Unit'. Take a look and form your own opinions as to the threat or invasion of privacy or whatever that it holds.
 
danarhea said:
Show me where Haliburton HQ in Houston is a military installation.
Click to expand...

they are military contractors and ,a s such, are entitled to CIFA protection.
 
danarhea said:
Show me where Haliburton HQ in Houston is a military installation.
Click to expand...
On paper it's probably not, but, according to your own article...if/when you ever decide to read it...clearly states that it falls under the same protection....

A Pentagon spokesman declined to say why a private company like Halliburton would be deserving of CIFA's protection. But in the past, Defense Department officials have said that the "force protection" mission includes military contractors since soldiers and Defense employees work closely with them and therefore could be in danger.

You're not very good at this....
 
cnredd said:
Attacking the messenger?...Only if you consider "dishonest" and "liar" attacking...I don't...
Click to expand...

From my perspective

You are dishonest. or What you posted is dishonest.
You are just stupid. or That comment in your post is just stupid.

The former is an attack on the person the latter on thier position. OK to attack a persons opinion or view, but attacking the person is usually a sign of an arguement without merit.

Liar is a strong word to use and should be reserved for the most blantant instances, someone could believe what they are posting and at the same time be very very wrong.
 
KidRocks said:
Anyone else notice mthe striking similarities between the Bush administration and the old style USSR Communist Party?
Click to expand...

No and no one with even the slightest knowledge of the former Soviet Union would either. I will say this if these people come to my city announcing a planned protest I will demand that the local law enforcement be out in full to protect the property of our citizens and the peace and order in our city. I've seen what these groups bring to their "protest", just look at the WTO demonstrations. If they in anyway threaten anyone working at a military base or office or contractors office they should be immediately arrested and charged to the full extent of the law.

If they are peaceful and do not interfer with other peoples private lawful business then they can have at it, but when they violate the law, when they threaten people, when they obstruct others freedoms then they should pay the price.
 
Stinger said:
From my perspective

You are dishonest. or What you posted is dishonest.
You are just stupid. or That comment in your post is just stupid.

The former is an attack on the person the latter on thier position. OK to attack a persons opinion or view, but attacking the person is usually a sign of an arguement without merit.

Liar is a strong word to use and should be reserved for the most blantant instances, someone could believe what they are posting and at the same time be very very wrong.
Click to expand...

Well, sometimes they can mean one in the same. I post a thread where I conclude that Bush violated the Constitution. That is MY conclusion. If you say, "What you posted is dishonest," that is clearly directed at the conclusion I have drawn, and, to me, that is the same thing as your saying I am dishonest. You see?

But I do see your point, Mr. Stinger. :cool:
 
aps said:
Well, sometimes they can mean one in the same. I post a thread where I conclude that Bush violated the Constitution. That is MY conclusion. If you say, "What you posted is dishonest," that is clearly directed at the conclusion I have drawn, and, to me, that is the same thing as your saying I am dishonest. You see?

But I do see your point, Mr. Stinger. :cool:
Click to expand...
You are absolutely correct...

But their are instances where opinion becomes irrelevant and the lie is plain to see...

If you start a thread that says "This article says Mr. Smith is Irish", and you open up the article and it says "Mr. Smith is German", there is no opinion necessary to draw your conclusion...
 
cnredd said:
I was thinking the very same thing when I read that...

I also find it asinine that people have a problem with the Government using surveillance on Americans when there is plenty of software out there that does the very same thing without restrictions...
Click to expand...

non-government Users of the software have the authority to throw people in jail without due process?
 
oldreliable67 said:
Fire depts routinely videotape the gawkers at fires in an effort to identify arsonists.

Here is a link to the 'secret' DoD "AntiWarProtestDatabaseTracker" (thats the name given by to it by the crack 'MSNBC Investigative Unit'. Take a look and form your own opinions as to the threat or invasion of privacy or whatever that it holds.
Click to expand...


All those "non-credible" threats...

Merriem Webster's said:
paranoia
One entry found for paranoia.


Main Entry: para·noia
Pronunciation: "par-&-'noi-&
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Greek, madness, from paranous demented, from para- + nous mind
1 : a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations
2 : a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others
Click to expand...
 
KCConservative said:
Taken straight from the Michael Moore webpage. Sounds like KidRocks has something to hide.
Click to expand...

Pray tell and show us where this was taken straight from the Michael Moore webpage.

Show us, else you sir are a blatent LIAR and an apology is due almost immediately.

I'll await your proof sir if not then you have been exposed as the liar that you are. Thank you.
 
KidRocks said:
Pray tell and show us where this was taken straight from the Michael Moore webpage.

Show us, else you sir are a blatent LIAR and an apology is due almost immediately.

I'll await your proof sir if not then you have been exposed as the liar that you are. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Did I say Michael Moore? Wait, I meant MoveOn.Org. My bad. :2funny:
 
danarhea said:
Because his aim is to personally attack the messenger instead of the message. He must not know what TALON is. Here is something in TALON. In short, our government is now using the military, in addition to the NSA, to spy on those who disagree with administration policy.
Click to expand...

I thought Talon was the news service white house correspondent/male prostitue Jeff Gannon worked for. :lol:
 
KidRocks said:
Pray tell and show us where this was taken straight from the Michael Moore webpage.

Show us, else you sir are a blatent LIAR and an apology is due almost immediately.

I'll await your proof sir if not then you have been exposed as the liar that you are. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Don't waste your time. Move on. Facts and proof are inconsequential, it's all about the smear.
 
Did I say Michael Moore? Wait, I meant MoveOn.Org. My bad. :2funny:
Click to expand...


KCConservative, caught in a lie, trys to laugh it off, typical liars do that you know. Nice try

Meanwhile, I'll await your apology for lying your fool head off.
 
KidRocks said:
KCConservative, caught in a lie, trys to laugh it off, typical liars do that you know. Nice try

Meanwhile, I'll await your apology for lying your fool head off.
Click to expand...
Well, it was either Michael Moore, MoveOn or Air America...not sure which.

KidRocks, seriously, when I said is was straight from his website, I meant that it was typical rhetoric like one would find at his website. There will be no apology. Now, breathe deep. Relax.
 
KidRocks: Tell us more about how Bush and Hitler are the same guy. :roll:
 
hipsterdufus said:
Don't waste your time. Move on. Facts and proof are inconsequential, it's all about the smear.
Click to expand...

Just having a little fun with the liar.

KCConservative, show us your proof that I pilfered from MoveOn.Org. Now mister.
 
KidRocks said:
Just having a little fun with the liar.

KCConservative, show us your proof that I pilfered from MoveOn.Org. Now mister.
Click to expand...

Mister? I like it. It's got a nice ring to it. Oh, Good luck with getting that apology and the impeachment, KR.
 
KCConservative said:
Well, it was either Michael Moore, MoveOn or Air America...not sure which.

KidRocks, seriously, when I said is was straight from his website, I meant that it was typical rhetoric like one would find at his website. There will be no apology. Now, breathe deep. Relax.
Click to expand...



That sir, is not what you said originally nor was it what you meant.

What I need is a retraction and an apology!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom