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...
Did you read the post or are you just pretending??
Sorry, but mere claims of rights being lost are not representative of arguments demonstrating such a loss.
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.
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.
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.
Sorry, but a draft of Patriot II does not demonstrate that Bush is guilt of "treason," "fraud," or any "lesser crime" as you assert.
OMG, I swear you skimmed my post for keywords that you could argue on and nothing more.
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.
Are you high??
Oh, "Other Sources", like blood draws by local cops...bwahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa!!!
you're not even making arguments... wtf??
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.
Now we know that your integrity is completely shot. No reasonable can draw from that that it represents cops doing roadside blood draws.
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!!
No. YOU made a claim. Now specify the specific provisions supporitng that claim.
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)
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...
I WROTE THAT from scratch... I listed EVERY source I looked at that I even used a word from... so go back and try again, I know it's more that 120000 chars, so it might be too deep for you, I dunno... but like I said, I was going to restart, so I did, I sourced everything... except maybe the few logical arguments that I've added...
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.
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??
Prove your points. Do it with specific citations.
More evidence that you didn't read it beyond finding keywords that you might take a stab at.
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?
Ya, but you continually ignore the point and post rubbish to make it seem like you weren't talking out of your a&&... how can I prove a point with that level of debate???
Those posts do not prove what you claimed.
Hence, why I restarted my argument from scratch... goes to show that you're not quite 'done' as ... not quite starteed.
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.
I think you're doing this on purpose.
I'll rephrase that for you : 'dismissed without having read or understood the argument'.
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.
You're not quite a good enough liar to have pulled that one off... go read it, watch the videos in there, and get back to me... don't cheat this time, it looks bad when you get caught.