Have you seen what they said on the news today?

Have you heard what they said about us all?

Airports are less safe because a guy exposed how unsafe they are?

Wait, I can't be sure that's what you meant because your English is so faulty.

World dominance? Neither the EU nor USA is stable. And China is falling apart economically and socially. Their actions are out of desperation, not power.

Don't any of you read about the world at all before posting to an international politics forum!?

Yeah, more complete authoritarian control of the globe would be better for the tyrants in charge. Very insightful information!

The Yell,

You're just whining vaguely, responding to things I never said. It's just spam. Facts against me? None of you spineless wimps has the nerve to actually respond to anything I've said. This has been going on for weeks and various threads.

You aren't making any arguments against anything I've said. You're not even responding to what I said. You don't even have the spine to state what it is I said you disagree with. You're just vaguely whining. You're just spamming.

Einstein similarly just rants about things I never said, because he has to make up radical views for me because what I actually said is clearly beyond his capacity to respond to.

And the ridiculously embarrassing childishness of your conduct is lost on you. So keep crying. At least it's hilarious.

"Outrageous HSBC Settlement Proves the Drug War is a Joke"
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/bl … e-20121213

Oh look, I actually responded to what you said and gave you something to learn about if you care to.

There're plenty of accounts of soldiers in Afghanistan guarding opium fields. If you feel more comfortable living in a box constructed by authoritarians who comfort you with the fact that others willfully live in the same box of ignorance as you, that's your choice. But it's hardly an argument for your head-in-the-sand positions.

You're just as much a pawn of authoritarians seeking to abolish the Bill of Rights as socialists demanding welfare as a right for generations, refusing to examine its (or, perhaps, the way it is given out) horrible effects on the American family.

The poor of that camp are kept in line by being kept dependent on government. Those not dependent on government financially of that camp are dependent on government morally, seeking to elevate government to the position of God making everything right on Earth, willing to give up all of their rights in order to feel morally righteous by doing no more than paying their taxes.

You are similarly kept in line by being told that you have to vote Republican or you're gay. You're kept in line by being told that, if you actually think about any of the admitted lies you believe, you won't be a part of the big Republican group. God forbid your admittedly false beliefs aren't shared by the biggest group possible! You wouldn't have as many cheerleaders! Forget being right, you need cheerleaders to make you feel better about yourself!

Thinking is hard. It's easier to deny everything your authoritarian leaders haven't told you to believe. Nevermind that you probably voted for Romney, whose party wrote as much of the Affordable Care Act as Democrats did--you can't give up your cheerleaders for the sake of being educated and being right! Cheerleaders are more valuable than liberty!

Both groups are like children who want nothing more than to be on the winning team. You just want your guy to win, regardless that government grows and liberty dies under both parties. Obama fans don't care that employment is down and wages are down, their team won! And you don't care that Republicans always expand government and attack the Bill of Rights (with different focuses), as long as your team wins!

You claim to be a "Conservative," a group supposedly valuing small government and individual liberty. Yet the Republican party you support values neither of these things, and hasn't for a century. They throw you a few bones, and there are a few exceptions allowed to run on the party ticket to keep you hopeful for change, but the party has never actually voted for nor passed legislation consistent with these values.

You're obsessed with homosexuals and drug laws (which it's a historical fact were enacted for reasons of cronyism [hemp is an awesome plant for all kinds of reasons], not health) because that's what your authoritarian shepherds tell you to worry about. They want you worried about this stuff (which is cultural: government laws have never had any significant impact on either) so that you'll keep voting Republican. Despite the fact that Republicans consistently acted against every "Conservative" principle you claim to have.

They want America divided, and you take the bait. You vote for a corrupt big-government, authoritarian party because they have you paranoid over issues which government has no control over. Good sheep.

You aren't proving anything by refusing to talk about topics you bring up, except perhaps that you are not a man of conviction nor education.

You're incoherent. You're not talking about anything going on here.

Denying me? I don't care if you want to rant like a psychopath and embarrass yourself, whining off-topic with absolutely nothing to say about the topic of the thread.

Squirm? Again, it doesn't make me squirm for you to ramble incoherently and embarrass yourself.

I was right, you're just void of common sense and American tradition.

Eric Holder is a lawyer. He claimed not to be concerned with the specific language used, despite the fact that his language on the topic has always been very carefully chosen.

Very carefully chosen to not rule out exactly what I said he literally wasn't ruling out.

He doesn't have to say "We reserve the right to bomb you" to literally admit that he reserves the right to bomb us. "Well there are some circumstances in which we might bomb you (implying possession of the right, obviously)" is factually the same information. It's literally the same information. He doesn't have to literally say the exact words to literally convey the same meaning.

You misunderstand the word and you're trying to accuse me of ignorance of language because you disagree on content. So you disagree over whether or not he expressed certain meaning. That's a legitimate dispute you're not making because it'd get silly for your position very quickly--you're quoting a lawyer saying he didn't really evaluate the specific language, which is riduclous, and you're claiming to believe him.

So instead of you squabble over my use of the word "literally." Which is irrelevant. So you disagree with my point, resulting in your position that my use of the word is not appropriate. Shouldn't we be talking about my point, not my use a word which you only dispute the appropriateness of because you disagree with that point?

Holder never said that "that attacks beyond an imminent threat scenario would be unconstitutional." He redefines the words like "threat" and "imminent," and he went to great pains to NOT rule out the legal authority to bomb anyone, anywhere, ever. He only committed to a very few vague words which he obviously has loose definitions of and can stretch to mean pretty much anything. Went to great pains not to use meaningful language to define any limitations on the administration's power.

Given that you have so much trouble with Holder's language, it's even more humorous that you're ranting about my use of a word. Your disagreement is with content. Your opinion that I misuse the word is a result of your position on content. If you want to grow up and talk about content, I'll be here. Maybe if you win that debate I'll admit that my use of the word "literally" in this case wasn't accurate.

But of course, you're arguing that Holder wasn't lying when he said he didn't concern himself with the specific language. Which is ridiculous on its face. You're arguing that he ruled anything in particular as under the authority of the administration to do. Which is, again, ridiculous on its face. You could make the argument that you've listened to all the testimony and have concluded, with your educated legal mind, that he specifically ruled out X, Y, and Z, with real meaningful language, but you're not going to attempt to do that here because he didn't do it.

He literally ruled out nothing. By redefining words like "threat," "combatant," "imminent," "security," etc, he painstaking chose his language specifically to not claim any limits on the president's legal authority (and he went further, to claim that any high ranking administration official has this power) to bomb anyone has any limitations. His reference to anything being beyond the president's power was extremely vague and couldn't rule anything out, given his new definitions of the words he used.

But rather than make any argument that I'm wrong--that he didn't literally leave open the door to anything--you're just crying about my use of the word "literally." So tell us, what did he rule out? Because he can call all kinds of things a threat:

They've already bombed an American citizen driving home from lunch at a cafe. He wasn't a combatant--he wasn't armed. He wasn't a threat--he was involved in no known plans to harm America. Nothing was "imminent"--He was in another country driving a civilian automobile.

And Holder didn't rule out bombing someone in precisely the same scenario here. I count that as "literally" not restraining administration power. How exactly am I wrong? What limitations did he put on administration power? That it can only bomb combatants in war, while we're at endless war and unarmed people driving home from lunch are combatants? By those definitions, which mean literally nothing (ie, the words can mean literally anything), Holder literally limited Administration power in no way whatsoever.

That's my position. I've explained it, while others have spammed void of any content and harassed me. If you want to disagree with position, that'd be swell. Because obsessing with a subsequent disagreement with language based upon disagreement with my position is silly and entirely unproductive. No, you didn't just have a "gotcha" moment, you just revealed a lack of understanding of the bigger picture in which your disagreement is situated and dependent upon.

I'm not interested in an apology. I am enjoying our discourse!

In this thread I simply stated that stupid comments are posted on "literally" every type of blog/article. Given this, I asked why Einstein thought it was relevant that a particular article had stupid comments posted to it. Simple question. Simple context. No answer, just harassment and spam.

The Great Eye,

You've never disputed my use of it before. Neither has The Yell, he just vaguely claims that I've misused it after a few uses without committing to any particular statement. As you do here.

Because I've literally never misused it before.

I don't know where you all get off making vague claims when you lack the courage or the conviction to actually state disagreement in any particular instance, but you've got it all wrong. You have cockiness but not experience or confidence. You have the order wrong. You're supposed to get a clue and the confidence to talk about it before you become vaguely arrogant about it later. It's awkward.

Einstein,

I challenge you to inform us of how it's insightful. Nobody is surprised that idiots leave comments on anything. The fact that you remarked about a particular website suggests that you don't have a point, because all websites with any traffic get stupid comments. It's completely unremarkable that infowars.com gets the same comments as everywhere else.

Your point is? I dare you to tell us.

People who don't demand rights enshrined in highest law hardly have room to complain or make changes.

A vision of Amerika's future!

It's funny that you're so amused by ignorant comments, considering how many ignorant and even outright embarrassing and bizarre comments you make yourself.

You can't cite conclusive studies because there are none. You're linking us to government propaganda sites designed for children and adults with the intellect and education levels of children.

The earth is complex and global temperatures are a result of a looooot of things, most of which aren't even factored into the pseudo-scientific studies of "climate change." And the data available is extremely fragmented and minuscule compared to what would be desirable for real science.

But hey, you're convinced. You're an avenger for a righteous cause.

So stop buying products other than what's grown directly from the ground.

Stop buying products processed and produced with coal power.

Stop riding in automobiles which burn petroleum products and emit CO2.

Stop eating meat because animals breathe and fart.

And then, to be thorough and prove that you're sincere in your embrace of pseudo-science, alarmism, and authoritarianism, kill yourself to reduce emissions as much as you can. It's to save the planet.

You're not going to do any of those things because you're both a hypocrite and not a believer in the self-righteous garbage you're preaching here. You like being a member of the self-righteous chorus of people repeating the false claim that any science is in, everything is certain, and we're all destroying the planet by breathing; we need to be slaves to the state and live in poverty in order to save the planet.

You choose not to do your part and practice what you preach. But that won't stop you from trying to push it on everybody else.