Quote:

---

Saying a rant *can* be a credible argument doesn't mean yours necessarily was.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Anyway. I have logical objections to the idea that something can be "confidential" if a hamster with brain damage could figure it out based on the public record.

Cites: Wikipedia or something, who cares anymore.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Yep, and that's what treaties are for.

If they are going to be accused of terrorism, if we intend to not hold them indefinitely, don't you think that the place for them to be tried is in the country where they supposedly committed their crimes by the standard of law that they culturally accept and where the evidence and witnesses are?

If some admit they were involved in terrorism, and they probably will because these guys believe being killed for that makes them martyrs, then everyone knows they're guilty. If it turns out some were just fighting because the Taliban or a warlord forced them, or they were falsely implicated by a neighbor with a grudge, they'll probably make that defense and that can be investigated. But one thing is for sure, they're probably not going to say one way or another to us.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

9_9

Quote:

---

U.S. Constitution
Article II
Section 2.
Clause 1

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitu
tion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander_in_Chief

-_-

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
What a surprise, whatever evidence and logical progression I post is summarily dismissed by Nick. Surely I didn't foresee that in any way whatsoever. Which is precisely why I didn't try very hard.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Pretty much what I was saying. What Snowden released was information about programs known as PRISM and MUSCULAR, which the operations, methods, and intentions of which were detailed in various legislation (including the Patriot Act and FISA) that gave the NSA and other intelligence agencies those powers.

He also released information that suggested that the United States, UK, and Germany were collaborating in internet datamining and intelligence gathering efforts. Also he released information that suggested we were spying on public officials and ambassadors of allies, also known as "diplomacy." Both of which can be summarily described as "well duh."

He did mention the existence of the court and the court orders. As far as I can tell there was only one single (very redacted) court order leaked, in regards to the the judge approving screening all the metadata that NSA had gathered. Which is also kinda painfully obvious, 'cause I mean what exactly are they going to do with all that data, sit on it? Print it out, make paper forts, play tabletop football?

It is possible however that he "stole" more orders than that, as he supposedly copied about 1.7 million files.

Hilariously, because of public backlash, the NSA and the FISA court are actually going to start declassifying some of their documents now.

Anyway. I have logical objections to the idea that something can be "confidential" if a hamster with brain damage could figure it out based on the public record.

Cites: Wikipedia or something, who cares anymore.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Quote:

---

However taking such a broad difinition means that anything that comes after "Vote for me because..." is propaganda.

---

Yep.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
The read between the lines thing was for your benefit, because I knew exactly how you were going to dismiss the pakistan thing. It's actually flat out on the lines as opposed to in between them, but I wasn't going to bother getting into another argument about it because it's not even relevant.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Yeah, that's pretty much another example of what I'm saying in action. The more iterations of voting you have, the less chance each candidate has overall. Whether we're talking primaries or the general elections. Apparently we don't disagree there.

It's precisely why the party system is idiotic and mishandled. They band together for support and money making, but then dilute their chances for the actual elections. If there weren't parties and people just voted for individual campaigns, there'd still be corruption, but you wouldn't have this ridiculous dilution of choice. And you wouldn't have a system that could be manipulated by the leaders of the party for whatever they think is their best platform and strategy and candidate.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
You did the moment you said "Rants can be credible arguments, nice try." But I didn't need you to say that for me to know what you were implying.

That IS reading between the lines, and I'm very good at it.

---

Quote:

---

Okay, now find the part about congress having the power of the purse. Or tha fact that congress that put up road blocks for the transfer of detainees.

---

Quote:

---

When ever you are presenting evidence were you have to "read between the lines" your going to miss.

---

Quote:

---

The information he leaked was more information than contained in the Patriot Act or any other source of public information.

---

Quote:

---

Than calling thing propaganda has no punch. It removes any type of negative connotation making your point moot.

---

Quote:

---

Than don't make broad stament that you can't back up.

---

Quote:

---

Nothing you posted indicates a puppet government in Pakistan, just the trouble relationship between the US government the Pakistan governement and the Pakistan military.

---

Quote:

---

Get rid of parties and you are still going to have groups of individuals that pool resources to try and get certain people elected and certain agenda's passed.

---

Quote:

---

So having primaries does not reduce anyone's chances because getting elected is not based on chance, it based on votes.

---

Quote:

---

Reading between the line is a form of assumption. You know what they say about assuming things right?

---

Quote:

---

At least not how I define tyranny.

---

Quote:

---

Also, when you arguments start to be more about the structure of the argument rather than the content, I'd say give it up.

---

Quote:

---

Also why should ad hominem's always be a bad thing.

---

Quote:

---

If someone is batshit crazy, you do discount their argument. Of course you do.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:


We have different definitions of tyranny. It doesn't mean one definition or the other is invalid.

---

Quote:

---

I hope to enjoy being entirely discounted soon then.

---

Quote:

---

You know what "definition" means.... right?

---

Quote:

---

Then you must be having a blast.

---

Quote:

---

BTW I didn't mean to imply you were insane

---

Quote:

---

what I have observed is that words can lose their impact if they are defined too broadly -

---

Quote:

---

You're all focusing on the definition that involves quashing criticism by cutting people's hands off or killing whole populations and villages for dissent.

But it can also be a nebulous kind of oppression that ignores existing protections under the law as well or applies them unjustly or unevenly. Both can accurately be described as tyranny.

---

Quote:

---

Inverted totalitarianism is a term coined by political philosopher Sheldon Wolin in 2003 to describe the emerging form of government of the United States. Wolin believes that the United States is increasingly turning into an illiberal democracy, and he uses the term "inverted totalitarianism" to illustrate the similarities and differences between the United States governmental system and totalitarian regimes such as Nazi Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union.[1][2][3][4] In Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt by Chris Hedges and Joe Sacco, inverted totalitarianism is described as a system where corporations have corrupted and subverted democracy and where economics trumps politics.[5] In inverted totalitarianism, every natural resource and every living being is commodified and exploited to collapse and the citizenry are lulled and manipulated into surrendering their liberties and their participation in their government by excess consumerism and sensationalism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:



I think that language is and has always been flexible, and considering all the other existing definitions for tyranny, it's perfectly all right to use the term tyranny to describe even low key kinds of tyranny.

Because you can always use more colourful language and epithets to describe the really awful ones. Such as, perhaps, "murdercracy" or "genocidal douchebag tyrant". That conveys it pretty well I think.

---

Quote:

---

I think rather than call Obama a tyrant, you'd be better off acknowledging the vast amount of power that America wields and often misuses in the world, economically, militarily and culturally, regardless of who is Pres.

---

Quote:

---

Last time I tried to point this out I was just about shouted off the board for being an Amerikahater.

---

Quote:

---

I think its catastrophising, something the right appear to do with Obama and his policies.

I mean really, the right call Obama a tyrant not due to the list that you and Signy came up with, which applies to every American President since ww2 frankly, but the fact that he has implemented a health care system that looks somewhat public in nature.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Which is not something I ever denied or argued against. And still doesn't address the technically complicit argument.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Just because it will be unlikely-to-impossible to find a US ambassador or secretary of state admitting upfront that "yes, Pakistan is currently a puppet state we are using for the War on Terror," and an official from Pakistan who will say "yep, that's totes true", unless I personally hacked their email, doesn't mean that my analysis is logically flawed or even wrong.

Sometimes you won't find direct confirmation, especially in regards to foreign affairs and diplomacy. Sometimes, you have to piece together the available evidence and use Occam's razor a little bit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
The information he STOLE was more information than was contained in any source of public information. The information he LEAKED was already blatantly obvious and easily obtainable from public information.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
That doesn't make any point moot.

Propaganda sometimes being factual does not mean that facts cannot be used to manipulate (hence propaganda).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
The problem we have, and that I specifically have with you, is that it CAN be backed up, but because of the nature of the internet arguments we have, it can never be backed up to your satisfaction.

But since I am to the point of no longer caring again, I'm gonna make any ole broad statement I want to whenever I want to.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Yeah, a memo that says "pls help us Americans, military coup threat" totally suggests that they are completely independent and not reliant on us for anything, definitely not keeping them in power.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
This is some basic probability and statistics. It doesn't particularly matter the method of selection. If we sequentially threw knives at candidates to select the last one standing, instead of voting, what I'm saying would still apply. Only in a particularly more final manner.

An example. There are five candidates running for a senate position. If all of them were evenly matched in terms of public perception the day of the election and everyone had their favourite candidate, mathematically they'd each have about a 20% chance of winning.

Now let's say they're members of the same party and they go through a primary first. After that, they're pitted against a member of the other party, who also is evenly matched in the public polls, and that person was the only candidate the other party fielded (which pretty much doesn't happen, but bear with me here).

Mathematically, the chances of any one of those candidates in the primary going on to win the election overall becomes (1/5) x (1/2), or 10%. Which, you'll notice, is a lower probability than 20%.

Now, this is very much simplified, because in real elections and primaries the races are not necessarily close and the outcomes are not random, but rather swayed by a number of factors. But it is still a mathematical certainty that a process of successive selection would impact the probabilities overall.

http://www.ehow.com/how_8119611_calculate-probability-consecutive-even
ts.html

This is also why the odds against correctly guessing every bracket for march madness are enormous.

http://www.businessinsider.com/perfect-march-madness-bracket-2013-4

Quote:

---

Reading between the line is a form of assumption. You know what they say about assuming things right?

---

That given sufficient premise and supporting information, an assumption can be a valid basis for a logical argument. Which I've told you before and you never learned the lesson.

In fairness, right now we are clearly both subject to the assume --> ass-you-me clause. Also we are involved in an internet argument which exacerbates the perception.

---

Quote:

---

It is part of the reason that Obama's powers as commander and chief of the military does not fit the definition you gave, and means he does not have the power to just close gitmo.

---

Quote:

---

Sine I post a link saying that he leaked classified information you are now simply being willfully ignorant.

---

Quote:

---

It does because you are trying to use propaganda to put the political system in a negative light, but using such a broad definition takes that away.

---

Quote:

---

Helping keep them in power, most likely. That does not equal a puppet government.

---

Quote:

---

A puppet state is a country that is officially independent, but not in practice. Puppet governments are usually kept in power by military force provided by an occupying country. Puppet state is a biased term. It is used to denigrate the government of the alleged puppet state.

---

Quote:

---

Very few people pick random people to vote for. If a candidate cannot get a majority of voters to vote for him, or at least more than the other candidates, they have zero chance to win. Run the race as many times as you want that the candidate will never win.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
That's what a commander in chief is. He is in command of all the minutia, regulation, deployment, management, and executive orders of that military. That he is also at the whim of the economic or political restraints on the military does not negate what a commander in chief is.

If an army was in the field starving because their home nation couldn't spare the money to feed them, and didn't have the means to extricate them, their commander in chief would still be the commander in chief.

He has a responsibility to close Gitmo, and has not, because of the conspiring of others. He is guilty by way of inaction, and complicit in the tyranny that is Gitmo.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Manipulation is negative. Propaganda is manipulation. Facts used to manipulate (propaganda) is negative.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Yes, it does. If they need help from a foreign power to stay in power and prevent collapse or popular revolution/military coup, then by definition that is a puppet government.

Quote:

---

A puppet state is a country that is officially independent, but not in practice. Puppet governments are usually kept in power by military force provided by an occupying country. Puppet state is a biased term. It is used to denigrate the government of the alleged puppet state.

---

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppet_state

We removed their national debts to secure an agreement to base military operations from their country and fly predator drones at their borders, and they are unpopular enough with their people that they need to ask us for help to keep them in power.

They are a puppet government that is entirely beholden to us for their existence, via economic means and support, who have to capitulate to our demands or lose that support, and in the near future may very well require military support to remain in power if this memo is to judge by.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I was not saying that people pick random candidates to vote for. I was saying that serial selection reduces the probability of any one particular outcome at the final end result.

The reason I used a very basic example was to get the mathematical principle across. The reason I then used the march madness brackets as another example was to demonstrate that this still applies even in a non-random sampling.

Also, your "they have zero chance to win if they can't get the majority of voters to vote for them" argument not only shows a questionable understanding of probability, but also demonstrates an incomplete perception as to how our election system works.

A candidate can win without a majority vote, it's called the electoral college.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So here we are: another President, and another set of catastrophes-in-the-making. What the President does is important, and when he (or she) misuses tyrannical power, then he (or she) is a tyrant. The fact that it happens so frequently doesn't make it any better, just more accomodated.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Seems the whole using the power of the federal govt to unduly target US citizens because of their political views is textbook definition of tyrannical.

---

Including, perhaps, "free speech zones" and the assertion that "if they are not with us, they are against us."

---

Quote:

---

Not every tyranny has to be on The Hunger Games or the Taliban level of tyrannical in order to qualify. Sometimes tyranny is subtle.

---

Quote:

---

You're confusing Dem Party policy with Bush's war on terror proclamation ,right after 9/11.

---

Quote:

---

A tyrant (Greek t??a????, tyrannos), in its modern English usage, is a ruler of a cruel and oppressive character who is an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution, and/or one who has usurped legitimate sovereignty. A tyrant usually controls most everything.

---

Quote:

---

1. An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.
2. A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner.
3. An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person.

---