My thoughts on CISA and our broken legislative process.

[Bear_Tracks]

try reading the thread. twice now I've said why you were wrong.

or, you know, read the news sometime.

If you read the thread again, you'd see that I already looked back. Also are you kidding me? You're telling me what I said was incorrect, and I was asking you what would be correct then. If you are having a discussion with another individual about politics and say what they're saying is "false", you cant just tell them that. You have to explain why it's false.

you're just arguing at this point because he said you can't have any political debates because you're wrong all the time.

maybe if you:
a) accepted that you're wrong or
b) didn't get involved in these threads without prior knowledge on politics, no one would "beat you up" over it, and by the way quit pulling the "you didn't read" crap it's getting out of hand with you

I have a lot of knowledge in politics, please Maxwell. If Jairo thinks what someone else is saying is incorrect, he has to explain how it's incorrect. By simply saying what another person is saying is "false" proves nothing.

Direct democracy requires:
1) an educated electorate who knows what the bill is about
2) an electorate that knows the language in bills
3) a small population

There is a reason why we don't have direct democracy in America. A lot of people are dumb stuffs and we can't vote on every single bill, because it'll take too long and be inefficient.


could we get back on topic? bear is wrong. if you stop giving him a reason to respond, he'll stop due to attrition, because there would be nothing to respond to. just ignore him.

Again, I've been asking for a very long time if Jairo could show me something which proved otherwise.

_____________________________ _____________________________

It's unfortunate that Jairo still cant tell me what would be correct. I like politics just as much as he does. What a shame.

[Ad Bot]

[Jairo]

actually i have an idea


what if bills, like politicians, could be voted in? a bill is made in the government, it goes through proceedings and whatever, then a vote is held to the public, and only after that is it signed by the leader of the country to be law

would that sort of thing work?

less than half the population votes as-is, so national referenda don't really seem like the answer, especially for politicians themselves

corruption and lobbying are disgusting byproducts of democracy that an expansion of the enterprise would only serve to further contaminate

[plad101]

Bear_Tracks please stop

[Lockebox]

We need to put in effect something that prevents piggyback laws being put into vital bills

[Georges]

I agree entirely. It seems that our government doesn't actually represent the people, unfortunately.

[Red Spy]

Bear, face the music. You're wrong. Pack up and go home. Jairo already stated why you're wrong. Now stop.

[Bear_Tracks]

Bear, face the music. You're wrong. Pack up and go home. Jairo already stated why you're wrong. Now stop.

Excuse me, but how exactly are you contributing to this thread? I never said that there was anything wrong with being wrong. ALL I said was that if he believes what I'm saying is incorrect, then he should explain to me what IS correct (i.e. providing a source proving me wrong). He's failed to do that, and he keeps saying that he already explained to me why I am wrong (he really hasn't). 

Instead of just jumping in, I think it would be intelligent to read the entire topic first.

[IkeTheGeneric]

ALL I said was that if he believes what I'm saying is incorrect, then he should explain to me what IS correct (i.e. providing a source proving me wrong).

what the forget you were literally told that CISA was already signed like five times now

it was even in the OP

[plad101]

Bear you're wrong because the bill has already been passed

[IkeTheGeneric]

it's false because
he literally cannot veto it because he already signed it into law

here you go again since you were apparently too stupid to see it the first time

also in the OP

It got a free ride through our legislative process, as the budget bill was guaranteed to pass and be signed by President Obama

[Bear_Tracks]

what the forget you were literally told that CISA was already signed like five times now

it was even in the OP

Obama vetoed the SOPA bill (basically the same as CISA), I have no doubts that he won't veto this.

I was talking about what Obama did in the PAST, and made the assumption that because of this - he'd veto the bill again.

Jairo said this:

uh you might want to brush up on your political knowledge

again

he didn't just say it, he already put his signature on it

cisa is in effect

To dissect what Jairo said in response to my comment, he was explaining that Obama signed the bill and that the bill is now in effect.  

That had nothing to do with what I said. I just said that as a result of Obama vetoing the SOPA bill, you'd think he'd veto CISA as well. Which ultimately is not the case, as someone in this topic already clarified for us.  

[IkeTheGeneric]

That had nothing to do with what I said

You have a habit of saying stuff like this. It had everything to do with what you said, you're just too arrogant to own up to a SLIGHT MISTAKE

it would have been acceptable to say "oh I didn't know" but nooooo you had to take personal offense to it

[Bear_Tracks]

You have a habit of saying stuff like this. It had everything to do with what you said, you're just too arrogant to own up to a SLIGHT MISTAKE

it would have been acceptable to say "oh I didn't know" but nooooo you had to take personal offense to it

I never took anything personally, I just want to learn more just like you and other politically-inclined folks on this forum.

[IkeTheGeneric]

I just want to learn more just like you and other politically-inclined folks on this forum.

Right up until you get upset because somebody makes a harmless quip and you Self Delete spam again

All it took last time was you falling for another one of Zedrow's cheap sob stories

[Red Spy]

I just want to learn more just like you and other politically-inclined folks on this forum.

And you do that by arguing about a simple mistake for 3 pages?