Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

Technosoul · Sep 14, 2007, 04:13 pm

[QUOTE=Clarence;430548]#2 what does it have to do with someone who voted against it?

that's a new request for a debate forum. I'm sorry man. I can't debate with you like this.

When I first started looking into Mr.Paul, I sat here and tried for weeks to find what I was missing about Ron Paul before actually forming a meaningful plan to support him. During that time I've accounted for people like you. I can agree to disagree because I can't pound my head off a wall just for you. If you happen to bring up a valid question I'll adress it in hopes that you'll come around and see the opportunity to actually vote for the change you supposedly desire. gday (quote).

******************************************************************************
My point is that he voted no to allowing our government to use modern technology to track down terrorists that might be here in our country and yet voted yes to allowing that survelence to continue as long as terrorists still exsist as a threat. If the bill did not set a time limit as to when the patroit act would be shut down it could remain in effect for ever and ever, as long as terrorists are a potential threat. If a date was set to end it then fine.. I support this vote on that one topic. If no date was set then his vote is not constant. Why vote to allow something to continue, even for a shorter time, if you appose it all together. He should have reframed with a No Vote. This is like voting no on the Iraq war and then voting yes to continue it for a short time - as a short time needs funding.
How can voting to allow it to continue for "even a short time" be consitutional if the whole idea was unconsitutional in the first place.

I think he (perhaps accidently) made a contradictionary goof.

Sep 14, 2007, 04:13 pm	#14 (permalink)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,967	[QUOTE=Clarence;430548]#2 what does it have to do with someone who voted against it? that's a new request for a debate forum. I'm sorry man. I can't debate with you like this. When I first started looking into Mr.Paul, I sat here and tried for weeks to find what I was missing about Ron Paul before actually forming a meaningful plan to support him. During that time I've accounted for people like you. I can agree to disagree because I can't pound my head off a wall just for you. If you happen to bring up a valid question I'll adress it in hopes that you'll come around and see the opportunity to actually vote for the change you supposedly desire. gday (quote). ****************************************************************************** My point is that he voted no to allowing our government to use modern technology to track down terrorists that might be here in our country and yet voted yes to allowing that survelence to continue as long as terrorists still exsist as a threat. If the bill did not set a time limit as to when the patroit act would be shut down it could remain in effect for ever and ever, as long as terrorists are a potential threat. If a date was set to end it then fine.. I support this vote on that one topic. If no date was set then his vote is not constant. Why vote to allow something to continue, even for a shorter time, if you appose it all together. He should have reframed with a No Vote. This is like voting no on the Iraq war and then voting yes to continue it for a short time - as a short time needs funding. How can voting to allow it to continue for "even a short time" be consitutional if the whole idea was unconsitutional in the first place. I think he (perhaps accidently) made a contradictionary goof.