JustIgnoreMe's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of JustIgnoreMe's arguments, looking across every debate.

Yea, when I first heard the announcement I thought it was going to be a net negative for Dems, but I created the debate because I think your right that it very well could be beneficial.

JustIgnoreMe(1797) Clarified
1 point

Um, what?

Several words there, but not many of them relate to each other much less the debate.

Do you mean internet censorship by site moderators, or by some governments?

Pretty sure this fake (a 14 yr old would not be proud of a staring contest time of 3 seconds), but cool or not, you shouldn't include an address publicly online.

Pretty sure this fake (a 14 yr old would not be proud of a staring contest time of 3 seconds), but cool or not, you shouldn't include an address publicly online.

JustIgnoreMe(1797) Clarified
1 point

A) Belief in the bible does not necessitate a belief in hell - ref

B) There is no actual voluntary abortion in the Bible.

C) The accidental abortion in Leviticus 21 is treated as a property crime against the father not as murder.

Does this mean I can be prochoice?

Whether you believe in God or not, you can be both pro-life and pro-choice simultaneously. Take divorce - the New Testament says not to get divorced except for adultery. You can believe that this rule is fine for you, but not necessarily that the government should impose this on everyone. The Bible doesn't command you to support all morals in the Bible being made laws for everyone, they are for those who choose to believe.

JustIgnoreMe(1797) Clarified
1 point

Yea - I found it fairly odd. Did they think I was endorsing child porn, or did they not like the implication about the Libertarian platform, or ...?

I was fully expecting that someone was going to post a Libertarian defense, which I believe to be partly achievable - e.g. the size and power of a government large enough to enforce such a law, etc., but a down-vote with no post seemed more shameful than when it happens for some other posts.

God is pro-choice and God wasn't born ;)

ref ref

JustIgnoreMe(1797) Clarified
2 points

she is getting people to engage in debate

Posting is a bit different than engaging in debate.

JustIgnoreMe(1797) Clarified
1 point

Actually, he has been the one pushing to close it, the Republicans in Congress have been the ones trying to keep it open.

That's more or less a definition of civil contract.

Except the government is basically a party to the marriage contract as it not only recognizes it, but provides benefits based on it.

So why the need for redefining marriage?

Is removing an exclusion on who can enter a contract a redefining of the contract itself?

Was allowing interracial marriage a redefining of marriage?

why not grant it to another group of consenting adults?

Yes, logistics is a valid state concern, but I think the government can and should overcome those hurdles for polygamy. (We already allow people to marry lots of people, just not at the same time.)

JustIgnoreMe(1797) Clarified
1 point

"Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates."


JustIgnoreMe(1797) Clarified
1 point

What do you think will prevent it from being closed?

A) Al Qaeda wouldn't use Gitmo if they didn't think it was effective.

B) If it makes no difference, then why spend millions of dollars per prisoner per year housing them at Gitmo rather than under 100 thousand for imprisoning them at a SuperMax?

Obama is currently trying to release these scumbags

Bullshit. (And bullshit you've been called on multiple times.)

beyond petty

It may be small, but it is the heart of why your statement above that 1=0 is false.


therefore 1=0 and 0=0

Incorrect. Therefore either 1=0 OR 0=0


Left hand side of the equation

Sure, they can be on money (some already are).

Lincoln and Washington both have a coin and a bill - maybe we can use one of those as an option.

Who would you like to put?

Just before simplifying to a = b + a, you have

a(b-a) = (b+a)(b-a)

When you divide both sides by (b-a), you are dividing by 0

- only Chuck Norris can divide by 0 ;)

there willingness to bow to Obama

Many of the military officials called for it to be closed before Obama became President and/or made their statements after they had retired, so fear of Obama was not their impetus.

Do you think GW Bush, Colin Powell, John McCain, etc. were bowing to Obama before he even became President?

The lies of mistreatment are false. Dis-proven.

Can you really claim both that torture at Guantanamo worked and that we didn't torture at Guantanamo?

(Congress won't)

Just because "Congress won't" doesn't mean it isn't the better option, or isn't a practical one, or isn't at least worthy of discussion. Is the reason they won't, at least to a significant degree, partisan?

Both of your responses not only ignore my statements, but seem to suggest that you understand Guantanamo not to be necessary.

How is that an argument for keeping it?

If whatever happens at Guantanamo can happen elsewhere (while I do encourage you to take up GN's challenge regarding evidence that torture worked, it isn't necessary to resolve for our discussion since, as you seem to concur, the treatment can occur outside Guantanamo) for cheaper, with less propaganda utility, without conveying any additional rights, etc., how is it beneficial?

They are coming for us because WE ARE the great Satan. End of story

If I call you the Great Satan, does that instantly provide me with an army? Or, do I need to convince people, and the more evidence I can provide, the more people I can convince, correct? Military officials and people from both parties believe it to be a net negative and endorse closure - what overriding benefits that those people did not consider are you offering in its defense?

What would your PC sensibilities prefer "radical Islamic terrorist scumbags"

- you may not have finished your question here.

I would add Colin Powell to that list.

"if it was up to me, I would close Guantanamo, not tomorrow, but this afternoon" - ref

Jihadiology------ that's going to be your source? Really

Didn't make it past the first link, eh? The links marked #2, #3, and #4 link directly to a propaganda magazine created by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

Without Gitmo, we would not have found OBL in the way we did.

Silliness. Presumably you mean to endorse the torture program, not that the torture had to take place at Guantanamo Bay to be effective...

release more scumbags

The same false choice you have already been called on.

How many times have terrorists dressed up their captors in orange jumpsuits before torturing/killing them? Hint not zero.

Here's another ref for Gitmo being used as propaganda.

1 of 115 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]