Another executive order from Obama ..

[Liability]

Ridiculously unnecessary action. Big Brother just keeps gettting bigger. How sad.

Vapid dopey ^ Paulian post.

 

[Liability]

We'll just have to agree to disagree, I hope I am wrong I just don't see it that way though.

Ok. But the words in the EO say what they actually say. So, I don't see how you can read them any other way.

You're still ok in my book, even if I did speak abrasively to you.

I'm feeling a little guilty at the moment and a little contrite.

Sorry.

But the words in the EO say what they actually say. So, I don't see how you can read them any other way.

I have a strong sense of perception. I pick up on things that others miss.

Not in this case. You read into shit that isn't there.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Ok. But the words in the EO say what they actually say. So, I don't see how you can read them any other way.

You're still ok in my book, even if I did speak abrasively to you.

I'm feeling a little guilty at the moment and a little contrite.

Sorry.

But the words in the EO say what they actually say. So, I don't see how you can read them any other way.

I have a strong sense of perception. I pick up on things that others miss.

Not in this case. You read into shit that isn't there.

Maybe you read it wrong. As I said I have a strong sense of perception at least since my death back in 85

 

[Liability]

I have a strong sense of perception. I pick up on things that others miss.

Not in this case. You read into shit that isn't there.

Maybe you read it wrong.

Nope. I read it correctly and, unlike some folks, I didn't add words to it or pretend that the words that ARE there have alternative meanings.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Not in this case. You read into shit that isn't there.

Maybe you read it wrong.

Nope. I read it correctly and, unlike some folks, I didn't add words to it or pretend that the words that ARE there have alternative meanings.

As I said I have a strong sense of perception at least since my death back in 85

 

[Liability]

Maybe you read it wrong.

Nope. I read it correctly and, unlike some folks, I didn't add words to it or pretend that the words that ARE there have alternative meanings.

As I said I have a strong sense of perception at least since my death back in 85

Your strong sense of perception is no substitute (obviously) for reality.

The thing says what it says. No more.

Every time I die, I keep coming back.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nope. I read it correctly and, unlike some folks, I didn't add words to it or pretend that the words that ARE there have alternative meanings.

As I said I have a strong sense of perception at least since my death back in 85

Your strong sense of perception is no substitute (obviously) for reality.

The thing says what it says. No more.

Every time I die, I keep coming back.

It opens the door for more government take over. So is it your opinion that the government can take over the private sector in the name of national security?

 

[Liability]

As I said I have a strong sense of perception at least since my death back in 85

Your strong sense of perception is no substitute (obviously) for reality.

The thing says what it says. No more.

Every time I die, I keep coming back.

It opens the door for more government take over.

Because you say so? You can point to not one actual provision of the EO that opens any such door (excepting by reference to your somewhat paranoid type imagination).

So is it your opinion that the government can take over the private sector in the name of national security?

Since that "question" requires acceptance of your false premise, the "question" is meaningless.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Your strong sense of perception is no substitute (obviously) for reality.

The thing says what it says. No more.

Every time I die, I keep coming back.

It opens the door for more government take over.

Because you say so? You can point to not one actual provision of the EO that opens any such door (excepting by reference to your somewhat paranoid type imagination).

So is it your opinion that the government can take over the private sector in the name of national security?

Since that "question" requires acceptance of your false premise, the "question" is meaningless.

Since that "question" requires acceptance of your false premise, the "question" is meaningless.

It requires a simple yes or no answer. In your opinion is it acceptable for the government to take over the private sector in the name of national security?

Because you say so? You can point to not one actual provision of the EO that opens any such door (excepting by reference to your somewhat paranoid type imagination).

Is it acceptable to you for the government to take control of the private sector for national security? After all that's exactly what this executive order does, in the name of national security.

 

[Liability]

It opens the door for more government take over.

Because you say so? You can point to not one actual provision of the EO that opens any such door (excepting by reference to your somewhat paranoid type imagination).



Since that "question" requires acceptance of your false premise, the "question" is meaningless.

Since that "question" requires acceptance of your false premise, the "question" is meaningless.

It requires a simple yes or no answer. In your opinion is it acceptable for the government to take over the private sector in the name of national security?

Because you say so? You can point to not one actual provision of the EO that opens any such door (excepting by reference to your somewhat paranoid type imagination).

Is it acceptable to you for the government to take control of the private sector for national security? After all that's exactly what this executive order does, in the name of national security.

No. It doesn't require a simple yes or no. YOUR question had been "So is it your opinion ...."

The "so" was a tell.

It was your suppressed premise. (What it means is that you are asking a very stilted question "AS a consequence of my prior premise, does it follow that ....?")

Since your original premise was a false premise, nothing logically follows from it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Because you say so? You can point to not one actual provision of the EO that opens any such door (excepting by reference to your somewhat paranoid type imagination).



Since that "question" requires acceptance of your false premise, the "question" is meaningless.

It requires a simple yes or no answer. In your opinion is it acceptable for the government to take over the private sector in the name of national security?

Because you say so? You can point to not one actual provision of the EO that opens any such door (excepting by reference to your somewhat paranoid type imagination).

Is it acceptable to you for the government to take control of the private sector for national security? After all that's exactly what this executive order does, in the name of national security.

No. It doesn't require a simple yes or no. YOUR question had been "So is it your opinion ...."

The "so" was a tell.

It was your suppressed premise. (What it means is that you are asking a very stilted question "AS a consequence of my prior premise, does it follow that ....?")

Since your original premise was a false premise, nothing logically follows from it.

In other words if you answer the question it will make you look like a hypocrite if you answer no, but if you answer yes it will make you wrong in defending what obama did. So you play dumb and just refuse to answer the question.

 

[paulitician]

Ridiculously unnecessary action. Big Brother just keeps gettting bigger. How sad.

Vapid dopey ^ Paulian post.

You would support such Big Brother absurdity. Go figure?