My thoughts on CISA and our broken legislative process.

[IkeTheGeneric]

No, she's telling me that I am wrong. If I am wrong and she knows what is correct, she can tell me what would be correct.

Because if somebody tried to correct you on something, you would drag it out for ten pages before dismissing it as a personal insult

you were wrong, leave it at that

[Ad Bot]

[Bear_Tracks]

Because if somebody tried to correct you on something, you would drag it out for ten pages before dismissing it as a personal insult

you were wrong, leave it at that

Ike, I never said anything bad. If I am wrong as she is stating, then the least she can do would be to tell me what would be correct. I have no problem learning, and if I was wrong - I was wrong, plain and simple.

[Jairo]

I have no problem learning, and if I was wrong - I was wrong, plain and simple.

that's a far cry from the attitude you had when I first corrected you

[Bear_Tracks]

that's a far cry from the attitude you had when I first corrected you

What attitude? I think you have an attitude here. In this time, you could of already told me what would be correct by now. So tell me, what would be correct?

[Jairo]

What attitude? I think you have an attitude here.

this is what I'm talking about

you try to deflect the conversation instead of addressing it head-on

In this time, you could of already told me what would be correct by now. So tell me, what would be correct?

if you read the thread, you'd known that I'd already said what was correct

[Bear_Tracks]

this is what I'm talking about

you try to deflect the conversation instead of addressing it head-on
if you read the thread, you'd known that I'd already said what was correct

Again you're not answering the question. I said this: "Obama vetoed the SOPA bill (basically the same as CISA), I have no doubts that he won't veto this". You said that was false, if it's false -- then tell me what would be correct, once again you're more concerned about semantics. You'll have to repeat yourself because I cant find anything in this topic which answers my question of what would be correct (in respect to how Obama actually handled the SOPA bill or SOPA-like bills in the past).

[Jairo]

I said this: "Obama vetoed the SOPA bill (basically the same as CISA), I have no doubts that he won't veto this". You said that was false, if it's false -- then tell me what would be correct

it's false because

cisa is in effect

he literally cannot veto it because he already signed it into law

[Maxwell.]

what else did you think he meant by telling you you're wrong
honestly, you are ridiculous

[Bear_Tracks]

I think you are misinterpreting everything. I was talking about Obama's past move with the bill, and how he vetoed it before. You went on to say that what I said was false. I was implying that based on his previous move, I'd think he'd veto it again. Correct me, since you allege that you know what Obama really did.

what else did you think he meant by telling you you're wrong
honestly, you are ridiculous

?? I'd suggest looking back at the previous posts. I said that he should tell me what would be correct, if I were to be wrong.

[Jairo]

I was implying that based on his previous move, I'd think he'd veto it again. Correct me, since you allege that you know what Obama really did.

nice strawman, bruh

I was calling falsity on your assertion that he would veto this bill, not that he's vetoed bills similar to it before

please stop trying to argue this

EDIT: also I literally quoted why you were wrong (check my previous post) because you apparently missed it before

[The Resonte!]

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?

[Bear_Tracks]

nice strawman, bruh

I was calling falsity on your assertion that he would veto this bill, not that he's vetoed bills similar to it before

please stop trying to argue this

EDIT: also I literally quoted why you were wrong (check my previous post) because you apparently missed it before

Strawmanning? Holy crap. Is this what you say when you have nothing else to say? You told me that I was wrong, I asked you to tell me what would be right. You're the one arguing with me. It's 6:38 PM, you could of told me what would be correct fifteen minutes ago.

Also falsity on your assertion? What the hell does that even mean? I think you should use little words only.

[Jairo]

It's 6:38 PM, you could of told me what would be correct fifteen minutes ago.

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

or, you know, read the news sometime.

[Maxwell.]

?? I'd suggest looking back at the previous posts. I said that he should tell me what would be correct, if I were to be wrong.

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

[Swat 3]

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?

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.