NDAA in the House
I'm pissed about sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA. Extrajudicial detention has been a pet issue of mine for a long time. It's bad if George Bush does it, and it's bad if Obama does it. But who exactly did what? Here's the rough overview showing for how NDAA became law.
§1021 was added to NDAA in the House by H.AMDT.325, sponsored by Rep Connie ( Read more... )
§1021 was added to NDAA in the House by H.AMDT.325, sponsored by Rep Connie ( Read more... )
You absolutely have. I spend a lot of time trying to phrase my thoughts clearly and succinctly. Slanderously inaccurate misrepresentations of what I've carefully written is both insulting and frustrating, whether you're intentionally distorting me in bad faith or a good faith reader unable to understand what he's reading. I post this stuff to invite productive discussion, and there's nothing less productive than repeating myself to someone who's probably not going to understand anything more the second or third time around.
and maybe that was a little cheep.... but i didn't you know attacked your mom.
My mom has never imprisoned and tortured hundreds of thousands of people. So by slandering me with the accusation that I'm a fan of police states you've actually said quite a bit worse than whatever you could say about my mom. Maybe I'm a bit touchy about this because I just spent a week traveling in a real actual police state, where people don't have the luxury of misunderstanding the online political discussions that you're not allowed to have.
amongst your other pleasantries... you take a shot at my listening skills
Exhibit A: this comment
I didn't "take a shot at your listening skills". I offered a genuinely constructive suggestion about how to avoid miscommunication. I said that you've got a long-standing habit of misunderstanding my points, that you must understand someone's point before you can disagree with it, and that the technique called active listening is useful for assuring both parties that you understand a point before you respond to it.
Of course you don't understand that, because you really do have a long-standing habit of misunderstanding my points, so you instead call it a "cheap shot" to demonstrate how badly you misunderstand what I'm trying to say thus proving that point. Which is an insulting and frustrating button, as you've correctly identified.
in this instance i wasn't debating anything (nope not a straw man) it was just a snarky aside...
That's irrelevant. If I say "Vern Buchanan's public comment says that he wants to see every American arrested without trial", that's making a misleading and inaccurate straw man of his statement. Especially if I'm intentionally misrepresenting what he said so that I can be "glib and hyperbolic".
i'll refrain form commenting here further.
Much appreciated. I'm serious. Don't come back. Ever.
Reply
Leave a comment