U.S soldier getting shot at in open and hit 4 times (Video) (Not Graphic)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ethereal

"THE DAY WE SIGN INTO LAW "

If you don't know what tense that is in, it is in future.
I didn't say all of our freedoms are gone, I never once said I'm against protection.
I explained that I am all for it as long as it's done in a manner that doesn't impose on our freedom.
I didn't "brag" about my education. You basically assumed I was uneducated in your original post. I assured this was false.
I claimed we "lost" the war? This is you once again being a manipulative twat. I said it is a unwinnable war.
I went on to say that if we make laws that take our freedoms away, the terrorists win, they get what they want.
Your whole reply just shows your own ignorance, and I stand by my earlier response regarding your comprehension skills.
Your opinion differs from my own, so instead of bringing any kind of legitimate argument,
You're just going to attempt to numerically dissect every part of my response, hardly going into any detail,
but just making the claims that I contradicted myself over and over. Which is horseshit.

Here is a quote from president Obama regarding the NDAA act that got pushed through earlier this year.

"Applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets."


I guess you're going to say the president is "illogical" too. Closet Mitt fan?

Also, regarding my comments to Canadian: The kid has made at least 2 Canada Vs. United States threads in the past,
And in both of them he talked shit about this country and acted like a Johnny Canada nationalist.
So to be honest I don't respect a fucking thing he has to say about this country.

---

Using your previous statements and chain logic, I've come to the conclusion we've signed into laws that take away our civil liberties because we have fucking sheeps who beg the government for protection. So because you refuse to acknowledge the laws of logic, I'm manipulative for using it? Your arguments DON'T LINE UP. I spend 10 minutes of my time writing a proof out, and what do you do? You call non conditional statements horse shit because your conclusion is correct. If you had HIGHSCHOOL GEOMETRY you would know that your arguments have a ton of logical fallacies. The president isn't illogical, it's just you using quotes in horrible context.

TL;DR Because you can't come in terms with dumb things you wrote, the logic as a whole is flawed and shouldn't be used.

damn thats cray

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noob555

The president isn't illogical, it's just you using quotes in horrible context.

---

Pretty much how I feel about you taking everything I say out of context.
I'm not even going to bother sinking to your level of idiocy, and explaining this to you anymore.
If I really need to systematically break down every sentence I posted,
just so you can get it through your through your thick skull ,this conversation becomes absolutely redundant.
From what I gathered from our conversation, you're all about the government keeping us safe by any means.
Even if that means violating the fundamental principles that makes the U.S. a free country.

That isn't democracy. That isn't America.

To quote you:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noob555

The point of the government is to protect OUR RIGHTS. If they don't protect our rights, we have the right to start a revolution-rebellion.

---

The above I agree with obviously. That being said, why is it that I'm being criticized for not wanting to see laws signed that threaten our sovereignty?
You basically think being "protected" is more important than freedom. So with your logic, you believe in both a police state and democracy/freedom?
Wow. I got news for you kid, you can't have them both. If you have a police state you lose freedom and democracy.
Way to be a hypocrite though, and judge my thought process as illogical when you clearly lack it yourself.
I'll take my freedom over your police state. Statistically speaking, you're more likely to be killed by a police officer rather than a terrorist in the U.S.

Someone should really move this to debate zone.

(Everyone has a good point, and beacuse of that is impossible to give an answer whitout getting someone to hate you)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ethereal

Pretty much how I feel about you taking everything I say out of context.
I'm not even going to bother sinking to your level of idiocy, and explaining this to you anymore.
If I really need to systematically break down every sentence I posted,
just so you can get it through your through your thick skull ,this conversation becomes absolutely redundant.
From what I gathered from our conversation, you're all about the government keeping us safe by any means.
Even if that means violating the fundamental principles that makes the U.S. a free country.

That isn't democracy. That isn't America.

To quote you:



The above I agree with obviously. That being said, why is it that I'm being criticized for not wanting to see laws signed that threaten our sovereignty?
You basically think being "protected" is more important than freedom. So with your logic, you believe in both a police state and democracy/freedom?
Wow. I got news for you kid, you can't have them both. If you have a police state you lose freedom and democracy.
Way to be a hypocrite though, and judge my thought process as illogical when you clearly lack it yourself.
I'll take my freedom over your police state. Statistically speaking, you're more likely to be killed by a police officer rather than a terrorist in the U.S.

---

The thing is, the things you say AREN'T OUT of context, they are STATEMENTS. You make conjunctive statements and when they get attacked, you claim they are conditional statements. The problem is one of 2 things. Either your inability to put together coherent thoughts or your grammar( probably not because you are vehemently claiming that you believe in everything you say). The majority of my post on this thread are about your full blown retarded logic. What I gathered out of MY side of the conversation is that the government is all about protecting our rights. The other 5 post are about your shit logic.


"The point of the government is to protect OUR RIGHTS. If they don't protect our rights, we have the right to start a revolution-rebellion."
I even capitalized OUR RIGHTS. One of the three natural rights being our lives. You aren't criticized for wanting to see laws signed that threaten our sovereignty. You're being criticized for saying there are laws that threaten our sovereignty and at the same time saying the government is protecting us. So the problem isn't just your logic it's your reading comprehension as well. Totally didn't see that one coming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InCognito

I HAVE THE SOLUTION; nuke Iraq.

---

/nawz, Nuke Iran so they don't develop Nuclear weapons and then Iraq will shit themselves and stop fucking with shit.

I can not participate now in discussion - it is very occupied. But I will return - I will necessarily write that I think on this question.

https://i.imgur.com/KE4Fw.png

I think I just got cancer from this post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InCognito

https://i.imgur.com/KE4Fw.png

I think I just got cancer from this post.

---

This guy had massive balls but the entire thing was a quite dumb...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noob555

This guy had massive balls but the entire thing was a quite dumb...

---

Yea, the fact that he just walked like nothing was happening and bullets were literally hitting him and whizzing past his head and he just stood there. And not to mention his fail attempt at "suppressive fire". His Logic = Well I'm just gonna crouch down and fire a few mags while being pounded by machine guns instead of finding decent cover.