NDAA debate thread.

[SomethingFishy]

Post your arguments supporting the NDAA bill here. I will be happy to have a serious debate with someone who has actually read the bill and supports it. There must be someone, I keep seeing all these posts about how anyone who is against this bill is just an Obama hater.

I would appreciate it if we could debate the merits of the expanded War On Drugs, the expansion of the failed Missile Defense system and the research and development of Sci-Fi weapons including non-lethal crowd control weapons and Rail Guns.

I would also appreciate facts only, no White House rhetoric, no op-eds and no spin, I want to debate what is [actually in the bill not what someone says is or isn't in the bill, or someones opinion of what those things mean.

[SomethingFishy]

1. Bueller..... Bueller?

[quinnox]

2. heh heh

no takers I guess, wonder why.

[limpyhobbler]

3. recommended

[maximusveritas]

4. What's the point of debating it? It's already been passed and signed into law.

Nothing is going to change your mind or those of the bill's supporters clearly.

[SomethingFishy]

8. The point is that there can be no debate because the bills

supporters have NOT READ THE BILL. They support it without knowing what is in it.

And I tried this before the bill was passed, been trying for weeks.


Let me ask you something, do you think a debate on the merits of NDAA is less useful than another post about Ron Paul, Matt Tiabbi, or Glen Greenwald?

[Spazito]

5. It probably would be helpful to have the NDAA bill in question as part of the debate...

Here it is, all 5168 sections:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112 :./temp/~c112QAuIdy::

Is the plan to start at section 101 and work through each one?

[SomethingFishy]

6. I have read the entire bill... it took me 5 days

Which is why I want to know how people can support it. E very single supporter of this bill has epically failed to come to me with a reasoned debate. I have been at this for weeks trying to get someone, anyone, who spends time knocking anyone who is against this bill to tell me WHY they support it. They can't, they are too busy pissing on Tiabbi and Greenwald to educate themselves enough to have a reasoned debate.

Or is it that their support is unconditional? As long as there is a "D" next to the name it's ok.


I think we could skip many parts of the bill, matter of fact I listed the things I wanted to start with. Did you miss that part? Are you the one? You posted the bill, have you read it? Do you support it? Can you make a reasonable argument for dumping billions into Rail Guns and Missile Shields?

[Spazito]

10. You may have read it but others may not hence...

the provision of the link and given you did not provide the Sections of the bill you wish to debate, it left your "NDAA debate thread" very much lacking, imo.

Stating this:

"I have been at this for weeks trying to get someone, anyone, who spends time knocking anyone who is against this bill to tell me WHY they support it. They can't, they are too busy pissing on Tiabbi and Greenwald to educate themselves enough to have a reasoned debate."

is hardly conducive to initiating "reasonable" debate and more toward the discouragement of actual discussion and, as such, hardly an invitation for genuine debate and discussion.

[SomethingFishy]

11. I knew there would never be a debate.

People here are too busy with Paul and Greenwald and Tiabbi to actually be informed about what they are talking about.

This thread was a call out. It didn't work. The people who supported this bill without knowing what was in it will do the same next time and keep doing it right up until we flush the whole experiment down the shitter. And while they are spinning down the drain they will be blaming it all on.. someone else.

[johnaries]

7. With all those restrictions, you don't want a "debate"

you just want reinforcement of your own opinions. It's like Colbert asking "great President, or greatest President".

[SomethingFishy]

9. What restrictions? I want to debate THE FACTS.

The only "restrictions" are on bullshit third grade name calling and outside opinions.

The only reason you can't do it is because you DIDN"T READ THE FUCKING BILL.

Don't come in here with your sad little bullshit, just fucking admit that you support a bill you didn't read and then go away.

Not one of you fucking "supporters" of this bill has read it yet you come in here and claim I am making "restrictions". The only restrictions I have are on lies and outside opinions.

Apparently you feel restricted if you have to actually think for yourself. That is not my problem. Go back to ragging on Greenwald, you don't need to educate yourself for that.

[stevenleser]

13. You said in your OP we cannot express an opinion of what the bill means.What kind of debate is that?

If you want 'facts' then just post the entire text.

[Dewey Finn]

12. Like you, I don't support this bill.

But I really don't see what would be served by the debate you propose. Could your opinion be changed? Alternately, do you think you're going to change anyone else's?