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.

Failure to provide a point and more vague ranting, as expected.

Don't take your frustration at your inability to have a simple conversation out on me. The failure is all yours. It's not my fault for pointing it out. I'm doing you a favor. I can't force you to benefit from it. If you choose not to, that failure is yours too.

Your diatribes are all vague because you're unable or unwilling to discuss simple topics and simple points I make regarding them. You never actually disagree with anything I say in the threads which obviously enrage you, you completely ignore the topic and literally everything I've actually said about it. You just get mad and vaguely rant later, as you do here.

Everything you've stated here is false and hypocritical. Maybe you should work on you more and speak in public less in the mean time.

My remarks to you in this thread were 100% on topic. As usual. Your response was 100% rant about me, COMPLETELY ignoring the topic. As usual.

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.

7 paragraphs on Ric Holder, 5 attacking Zarf, and 2 miscellaneous paragraphs which could be condenced to 2.5 paragrapsh (and smaller ones than Kemp usually uses).

Reminds me of Obama

Ahh, but it is fun denying you until I decide time is up.

I like watching you squirm, false rationalize, and pontificate.

Thank Jesus that you can never stop your method, you turn everyone fro  Libertarianism! Sadly some go liberal, but some will become Conservatives and never fall into the false religion of Libertarianism, all thanks to how Kemp is!

CIA.... nice tinfoil hat

Sex? Naw, just dont steal our title for unions of the heart.

Peddle your LIES elsewhere.

The majority of legal opium is provided from Afghanistan last I looked

Opium is the base for a number of painkillers including Morphine (my grandpa used this as he was dying of cancer to manage pain), coedine (been on that when I was shot), and in diluted form for a wide variety of other brand names.

Poppy seeds are also a popular food product and is used especially on bread products.

Really you should stop wearing that silly tinfoil hat so much.

And I am a valued member of a Tea Party Leadership group, where we strategize on taking over States from the Establishment. And guess what... were winning in our efforts. I am happy who I am associated with and with my coming paper for our efforts. My whitepaper will be a leading guideline for our efforts.

Being recruiter by some of the biggest and best Tea Party activists for a background coordination and leadership position in our effort is something I value. Though I failed to recruit Chris into it twice my coming contribution will change our efforts for the better.

You claim you're right, you've always been right, everybody admits you're right in the privacy of their homes, their public arguments against you are weak, lacking confidence; you are surrounded by shameful and weak people who fail in their duty to sit back and let you drive, instead succumbing to sinful pride and arrogant bluster.

Then, having been as insulting as possible, when you're hit with the hard facts against you, you complain we're wasting time ignoring the real issue, which is, how to admit you're right.

I only take the time to point out, this is how Ron Paul and his crew operate nationally, which is why they can't get 10% of Republicans, who are 28% of the 50% who bother to vote.

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.