A question can be dodged, or a question can be answered. When a question is not answered, and instead the question is quoted and said to be an example of "proviing my point", then the question quoted is not answered, rather, the question quoted is dodged. The failure to communicate is willful. The person failing to answer the question willfully dodges the question, but that is not enough, the question asked is propped up, falsely, as a claim of some nebulous proof of some other false representation.
I didn't dodge your question, I provided a direct example of you using semantics to attempt to refute my argument instead of refuting the actual argument or the logic behind it.
It is your power that perpetuates legal torture, as more and more of your type add to the total power focused toward what you are doing right now. It is this abject refusal to know the facts, and this contorted disinformation campaign of willful production of falsehood that covers the true nature of the crimes, not limited to willful torture, not limited to willful mass murder, and reaching for the extinction of the human species.
Wait, I'm the one attempting to character assassinate? You're sitting here saying that I support legal torture, refuse to know the facts, and willfully produce falsehoods in covering up the reach for the extinction of the human species. It is pretty ironic when you go on and on about insulting people, character assassination, etc. and then throw out this slew of ad hominem baseless attacks.
This person is ratcheting up the personal attacks, to a much higher degree.
How is putting for a hypothetical situation (which you never addressed) "ratcheting up the personal attacks, to a much higher degree"?
Does anyone else see the dodge going on here? The twisting of facts? The willful distortions? The so called government, from day one, covered up their abuse of the law power with The Constitution. Today isn't any different, it is the same thing, what was then, is now, and it isn't a surprise. All the bad, of what is now, was reported to be what will be by the people who opposed The Constitution. This is what the thing was made to do, this is the result of the plan, as it was planned to occur.
I didn't distort anything, you failed to address the hypothetical situation in which such measures would be necessary. Who is doing the distortion?
The character assassin is following orders, as he has already confessed.
Oh really? Man, you don't even try to veil your hypocrisy, do you?
There can never be admission of the facts, no such thing can exist, either you are with us, or you are a terrorist. I can now read that loud and clear.
You are projecting and creating division and a terrorist boogeyman where none exists.
That whole doom day parade, with those lurking fictional terrorists, is not in my world. I don't accept that legal fiction, because it is false, it is a false front, and I know what the false front covers up. A little bird didn't tell me, the criminals confessed, and fellow friends of liberty uncovered and reported those facts.
What does this have to do with anything? When did I mention the fictional terrorist boogeymen like al Qaeda?
Blind obedience, or just a willful effort to be ignorant, for now?
Aaand more hilariously ironic insults!
If they find cause to censor me, which is most likely your plan, then so be it.
Oh look, more!
The price that may have to be paid, for acceptance into the club of those who are exceptional, those who are, at least for a time, not on the list, to be punished, collectively, the price for that exceptional treatment, may be a requirement, for the petitioner, to parrot the cover stories, to add to the power that employs collective punishment, perpetuating it.
Even more!
You are resorting to childish ad hominem attacks and have yet to address ANY of the hypothetical situations I put forth or any of the holes I have found in your argument. You just continue to parrot the same lines about legal criminals, violence, threats of violence, etc. Unless you can start putting forth some real evidence and employ a debate tactic in which you actually address my points and don't devolve into accusations, proclamations, and insults, I really have no interest in continuing to try and understand your dogmatic position.
