Been there already, Go back to posts 265 and 266 of this thread... there's also more than 20!!! sources of information there... mainly news sites, videos of Bush and his administration, AND links to the the patriot acts themselves.
Title 3 : Enhancing Investigations of Terrorist Plots
Subtitle A : Terrorism Identification Database
Section 302: Collection and Use of Identification Information from Suspected Terrorists and Other Sources
Or were you just skimming through the posts waiting for me to say something that wasn't sourced??
I mean, did you choose to ignore those posts just so you could come up with this sort of argument??
Remember, Posts 265 and 266 then get back to me.
Oh? So these posts will identify the "rights" you claim have been "lost" and will specify how they were lost? Okay, I'll go re-read those posts.
No, no, and no...
Sorry, but mere claims of rights being lost are not representative of arguments demonstrating such a loss.
In other words, all you have is someone else (yes, I know you're cribbing your posts here) claiming that some right was lost. That's a claim, not an argument.
Sorry, but a draft of Patriot II does not demonstrate that Bush is guilt of "treason," "fraud," or any "lesser crime" as you assert.
Try again.
Oh, "Other Sources", like blood draws by local cops...bwahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa!!!
Now we know that your integrity is completely shot. No reasonable can draw from that that it represents cops doing roadside blood draws.
No. YOU made a claim. Now specify the specific provisions supporitng that claim.
You are merely cribbing what someone else has already said about these provisions. I am sure that they cite specific sections....just copy and paste their whole argument will ya so we can stop playing these games...
And, sorry, but demanding that someone read an entire bill and somehow divine what specifically you meant would lead to your, errr, the somebody else's conclusion, that you pasted here is unreasonable.
Prove your points. Do it with specific citations.
Ignore what? Your repeated references that lacked any specificity whatsoever? Yeah, I saw those.
You do realize that it is your obligation to prove your points, right?
Those posts do not prove what you claimed.
Mere speculation doesn't count for anything. Especially not when we see that your speculation that "Other Sources" would supposedly imply raodside blooddraws by cops.
Dismissed!
What showing the friggin law that was signed that takes away your rights is not a representative argument???????
Satements like this SHOW a clear misunderstanding as to what your actual rights are... since your rights are essentially a legality that is GUARANTEED, and these are being legislated away. Why I seriously doubt that you are remotely qualified in discussing your rights... when you continually demonstrate a lack of knowledge as to what they are, and how laws such as these should not be allowed to pass in the first place.
READ THE FRIGGIN PATRIOT ACTS!!!!! You'll see that what I'm saying is at least one interpretation of the law that was signed.
There are two things I honestly do not "get" on this subject.
One is why so many conservatives will defend this (Patriot act) to the end no matter of its content and very real opportunity for abuse. I really want to hear some answers on this, and I am not wanting to discuss every legal point, but just why would anyone defend something that erodes the Constitution and can have a negative effect on American Citizens.
Two is why so many on the left seem to want to make it look like GWB sat down and wrote this all himself? Sure he is and was on the top of his administration etc, but I am more interested in who really put it all together, and what were they really after when they did.
2) Because the left realizes that we needed something like this. By keeping quiet and pushing the blame on president Bush they get what they want without any sort of fallout from a document not popular with their constituents. You'll notice that the left makes a real effort to make people forget that they've been in control of legislative branch for 2 years now. It makes things alot easier.
Did you read the post or are you just pretending??
What showing the friggin law that was signed that takes away your rights is not a representative argument???????
Satements like this SHOW a clear misunderstanding as to what your actual rights are... since your rights are essentially a legality that is GUARANTEED, and these are being legislated away.
Why I seriously doubt that you are remotely qualified in discussing your rights... when you continually demonstrate a lack of knowledge as to what they are, and how laws such as these should not be allowed to pass in the first place.
READ THE FRIGGIN PATRIOT ACTS!!!!! You'll see that what I'm saying is at least one interpretation of the law that was signed.
If it says in the law this applies to 'x, y, z, 'OR anyone that is a terrorist suspect'. That's a broad statement that can have broad application.
No, you're right, Bush didn't plan the war before he was elected, the downing street memo is fake, the PNAC document is fake, the patriot act legislation, the legislation for the first act that 2 judges decided was unconstitutional... that was propaganda.
How about you read through THE WHOLE POST, ALL THE SOURCES at the bottom, hell... I could send you about 30 more that I didn't bother getting into.... But, I've clearly gone so far over your head on this one, that you think laughing will make it go away.
Untill patriot act came around. GO READ THE ACT. Cypher through the legal speak and you will find EVERY BIT of what I posted. if the draft copy isn't 'legit' enough for you... the first of the 2 links was a VERBATIM COPY of the law that congress signed. The page even has a LINK TO A GOVERNMENT SITE WITH THE SAME INFO!!
I've done that/... you say 'no that's not the case... bwahahaha...' make yourself out to be a real class act and then tell me to try again... NO, I've made my case and you ignoring the sources, or trying to attack my interpretation of the first act (since the draft doesn't count in your opinion)
EVERY point in the post I made referred specifically to the act, article and section number, if your not sure how that works... Section 312 would be starting at that line and then continuing untill the line before section 313... I didn't think it would be necessary to quote the entire act for you... that's why I linked to it multiple times... I sourced every claim... even claims that were made by other news sources.... WTF else could you possibly want??
So unless you want me to get the case to the level where I could take Bush to court and stand a chance, Get real... All I went on was news sources, bush's and his administrations testimony, the draft copy of the patriot act 2, and the first patriot act as it was signed into law.
1) The Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States to determine which freedoms and liberties are guaranteed.
First, no, I won't simply read the acts
No, no, and no. None of the "rights" you had posted before were infringed and some were not even guaranteed.
No, I read it. What I read was supposition that the specified provisions violate this or that right. That's all it is. And, as I said, supposing that the law violates a right is not evidence that it does, in fact, violate a right.
You have to establish that a right was lost or was violated. Citing legislative language doesn't do that. You'd have to cite actual instances.
First, no, I won't simply read the acts and hope to divine what you're really arguing. It's your argument, so your burden.
Second, whose interpretation?
Look, if you're going to argue that rights were lost or violated, you have to show actual instances.
Again, I'm not going to divine what it is you're talking about in those acts. It's your burden to make your argument with explicit instances and examples.
Your supposition of what it might be, like cops doing roadside blood draws, demonstrate that you're bieng foolish and those suppositions deserve zero scrutiny.
You say a law violates a right. You cite a right. You cite a provision. You don't, though, demonstrate how it violates that right. And what you're relying on is mere supposition about the application of the provision.
I'm not asking you to post the entire act. And sourcing every claim is rather irrelevant. That you provided a source doesn't mean a right has been violated or lost. All you've done is presented someone else's supposition about the applicability of the law and the implications of that application.
I see it more like this:Here's how it appears to me...
Bush wanted to invade Iraq. Americans wanted to invade Iraq. Congress gave Bush the authority to use force. We went to war. Troops start dying, things go wrong, and Americans remember that real wars aren't like the one's they watch on TV. As the 9/11 adreneline rush starts to wear off Americans lose their stomach and Bush's political opponents sieze the opportunity. Bush is villified and detested by many of the same citizens who initially supported the invasion and by many of the same politicians who gave him the authority to go to war in the first place.
That's why throughout our history the people are spoon-fed feel-good half-truths for every war.The lesson? Americans are fickle and weak-willed. They'll trumpet for war at the drop of a hat. But when they see the real cost of war that's when they change their minds.
You channel the anger to accomplish the goals. You can't fix stupid and you usually can't reason with it either but you can use it."Just kill someone damnit, because I'm mad as hell and I got my little America flag and I want a reason to wave it! Oh...my! Look at the blood and the bombs and the bullets! Is this what war is like!? No, we need to stop this! Oh please! How could the President do this!? He should have told me it'd be like this! He's evil! He's a Nazi!"
Bush is not the first nor will he be the last to do such.Anyone who tries to place the blame soley at Bush's feet is a partisan fool. Americans allowed themselves to be fooled while the Congress acted in cowardice and contrary to the Constitution. They knew precisely what they were doing when they gave Bush blanket authority to conduct generalized hostilities. This war is not Bush's fault. It's America's fault. It's my fault. It's your fault.
1) You don't want to hear legal points and yet site the Constitution which is a legal document? That should be your answer right there. The Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States to determine which freedoms and liberties are guaranteed. Freedoms and liberties cannot be infringed if they are not defined. Definition requires interpretation of the law. And now we're back at the Supreme Court.
2) Because the left realizes that we needed something like this. By keeping quiet and pushing the blame on president Bush they get what they want without any sort of fallout from a document not popular with their constituents. You'll notice that the left makes a real effort to make people forget that they've been in control of legislative branch for 2 years now. It makes things alot easier.
I am not wanting to discuss every legal point
You channel the anger to accomplish the goals. You can't fix stupid and you usually can't reason with it either but you can use it.
...Anyone who tries to place the blame soley at Bush's feet is a partisan fool. Americans allowed themselves to be fooled ....
That says it all. It's the weak willed American people's fault, because they allowed themselve to be fooled ... by a president and administration that misreprented, misimplied, and flat out lied about why we needed to go to war in a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 or AQ.
I disagree with you contention we Americans are weak willed.
But I agree with you that we were fooled, and maybe let ourselves be. Some still do.
The fact that most Americans will not support a wrongful war when they've learned they were fooled does not indicate weakness and should be a surprise only to the partisan.
Anyhow are the lefties and righties ready to agree that George W Bush did not drag us into war by our ear?
How about the idea that most wanted to see the war happen initially?
Maybe even get into just where the two extremes parted company on the whole issue.
I believe there is a whole lot more here than most are realizing.
in the big picture, you surely are a douchebag:lol:Wow did I just quote myself :doh.
That says it all. It's the weak willed American people's fault, because they allowed themselve to be fooled ... by a president and administration that misreprented, misimplied, and flat out lied about why we needed to go to war in a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 or AQ.
The fact that most Americans will not support a wrongful war when they've learned they were fooled does not indicate weakness and should be a surprise only to the partisan.
I agree, the media's treatment of Mr. Bush has been a disgrace. If he received a fraction of the coverage he deserved, he and his ilk would have been impeached, removed from office and thrown in jail long ago.
Well said, the media has in fact pretty much rolled over and played dead with this evil man.
If Obama is not yet God, he will very soon be at the present rate of media worship we are viewing. The TV comedians are going to be unemployed soon simply because they won't jump on him, ie., no material.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?