• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Warrantless Wiretapping

Should the government be allowed to wiretap American citizens without a court order?

  • Yes, this is an important national security tool.

    Votes: 14 26.9%

  • No, the government needs to obtain a warrant first.

    Votes: 38 73.1%

  • I don't know.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    52
Originally Posted by Vandeervecken
You've changed your question. Your original question was can an amendment be passed without a specific act of congress, and that is a yes. Now when shown that you change your question. Bad form old bean.
Click to expand...
Will you stop argueing semantics, you know god-damn well what I mean.
 
Billo_Really said:
Will you stop argueing semantics, you know god-damn well what I mean.
Click to expand...


Why is it whenever you are shown to be wrong you claim the person that showed you to be wrong is arguing semantics?

Clue one dude, LAW is nothing BUT semantics. Every word, every comma, every codicil, it is vitally important to read it just right.

If you are semantically sloppy as a habit you have no business discussing, much less debating law.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Vandeervecken
Why is it whenever you are shown to be wrong you claim the person that showed you to be wrong is arguing semantics?

Clue one dude, LAW is nothing BUT semantics. Every word, every comma, every codicil, it is vitally important to read it just right.

If you are semantically sloppy as a habit you have no business discussing, much less debating law.
Click to expand...
These are true statements in a court of law. But this is not a court of law. This is a discussion on whether an and Amendement can be passed without an act of Congress. An "act" being defined here for the purposes of this discussion as any act or participation required by a Congressional body. That was my point all along. So you see, I didn't change anything. You're just trying to back track for whatever reason you have deemed.

In a debate, you should not submit a rebuttal until you are able to recite the opposing point of view, back to your opposition, to their satisfaction. Until you can do that, then you don't know what your responding too.
 
Billo_Really said:
These are true statements in a court of law. But this is not a court of law. This is a discussion on whether an and Amendement can be passed without an act of Congress. An "act" being defined here for the purposes of this discussion as any act or participation required by a Congressional body. That was my point all along. So you see, I didn't change anything. You're just trying to back track for whatever reason you have deemed.

In a debate, you should not submit a rebuttal until you are able to recite the opposing point of view, back to your opposition, to their satisfaction. Until you can do that, then you don't know what your responding too.
Click to expand...


You cannot have a meaningful debate on the law if you cannot define the terms. You cannot define the terms. You get mad when this is shown. You asked if AN AMENDMENT could be PASSED without CONGRESS VOTING ON IT.

It can. I showed how. You redefined your question.


Sorry of precision bothers you, but then your arguments that a biased source in the other thread is an acceptable place to get factual information shows the weakness you have in any debate. You cannot define the terms, and you rely on a biased source for information, yet you decry the debating skills of others? No wonder you have Michael Savage as an avatar.
 
Goobieman said:
Yes. See the previous post.

This is how the states retain their sovereignty in a federal system -- they can change the Constitution, even dissolve it, without the Federal Government having any say in it whatsoever.
Click to expand...

I think this is accurate, but it should also be noted that this has never happened before and is very unlikely to happen.
 
Originally Posted by Vandeervecken
You cannot have a meaningful debate on the law if you cannot define the terms. You cannot define the terms. You get mad when this is shown. You asked if AN AMENDMENT could be PASSED without CONGRESS VOTING ON IT.

It can. I showed how. You redefined your question.


Sorry of precision bothers you, but then your arguments that a biased source in the other thread is an acceptable place to get factual information shows the weakness you have in any debate. You cannot define the terms, and you rely on a biased source for information, yet you decry the debating skills of others? No wonder you have Michael Savage as an avatar.
Click to expand...
I don't think I have ever heard Michael Savage. I lost a bet to Navy Pride, so I have to have this ridiculous avatar for a few more hours and then it is back to mine.

Your avoiding my point and avoiding my question. Did you know that listening is 75% of a conversation. Or do you just like to hear yourself talk?

Now what is my point?
 
I can't wait for the investigation to be over and for the wiretapping to be found legal. We need to get back to it as soon as possible and catch some bad guys.
 
Originally posted by KCConservative:
I can't wait for the investigation to be over and for the wiretapping to be found legal. We need to get back to it as soon as possible and catch some bad guys.
Click to expand...
There you go repeating yourself again. You're lucky I'm not a coward or I would report you.
 
Originally posted by Pacridge:
Report him for what, repeating himself? Checked the rules don't see any concerning this.
Click to expand...
He has already publically stated he got temporarily banned for reposting the same statements on multiple threads. I'm just going off of his own information.
 
Billo_Really said:
He has already publically stated he got temporarily banned for reposting the same statements on multiple threads. I'm just going off of his own information.
Click to expand...
nice try, william. the suspension you're so interested in was for copying and pasting the exact post into multiple threads. I was not aware of that rule before I did it and I paid the price. That isn't the case here, bill. But you're right, I did repeat myself....just so I could drive you nuts. Report it please. I beg of you.

:lol: :2wave:
 
Billo_Really said:
He has already publically stated he got temporarily banned for reposting the same statements on multiple threads. I'm just going off of his own information.
Click to expand...

Well we don't publicly discuss, usually, why someone was suspended. He can tell you it was for whatever he wishes. He can also repeat himself...repeatedly... all he likes. Go look at the "Impeach Bush" thread cnredd, a mod, posted repeatedly "Update, Bush still not impeached." Not against the rules.
 
Originally posted by pacridge:
Well we don't publicly discuss, usually, why someone was suspended. He can tell you it was for whatever he wishes. He can also repeat himself...repeatedly... all he likes. Go look at the "Impeach Bush" thread cnredd, a mod, posted repeatedly "Update, Bush still not impeached." Not against the rules.
Click to expand...
Like I said, I'm just going off of what he told me.
 
Originally posted by KCConservative:
nice try, william. the suspension you're so interested in was for copying and pasting the exact post into multiple threads. I was not aware of that rule before I did it and I paid the price. That isn't the case here, bill. But you're right, I did repeat myself....just so I could drive you nuts. Report it please. I beg of you.
Click to expand...
No way, I'm not a coward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom