Does anyone even care?

[Mr. P]

READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ



READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ





You claim that the act says something which completely contradicts what it says in 1802 (a)(1)(B) - yet you provide NO QUOTE WHATSOEVER TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM.


Here's a tip - its better to admit you were wrong and you werre duped by a conservative blogger, than it is to continue to appear as if you can't read.

I have a better tip. Take your own advice and READ..You'll find the answer. Hell it's only two pages, and it's like Prego, it's in there I promise.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No one does. That's because he circumvented judicial oversight. That's the whole point of checks and balances - so at least one branch knows what the other is doing, even if the people themsevles don't know, it makes it far less likely for a government to have too much power if one branch is checked by the other.

I would think you would be happy to limit possible prosecutions to terrorist activities.

Wrong.



Its called a slippery slope. And you have yet to say why we shouldn't do the same thing for regular criminal suspects, as according to your line of reasoning, only those actually committing crimes would have anything to worry about.

It's a slippery slope if you had said we will eventually get to x. You didn't You immediately concocted a strawman noone is espousing except you. I do not support it for all crimes, because all crimes are not a threat to our very existence.

Anything else, retard?

 

[Bonnie]

Have anything worthwhile to contribute?

Well if you consider Bush a law breaker then you must also consider Clinton one as well since he admitted doing the same thing when he was President.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

(Oh really and how do you know this..oh wise one!)

Is there evidence to that effect?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I'm sorry spidey. The law needs to change then.

So you agree then that Bush broke the law?

You seem to think we must be defeated in the war on terror to preserve our rights.

You seem to think we must be defeated in the war on crime to preserve our rights.

Your brain is a tragedy. The sad thing is you're smart. You're just heavily indoctrinated with a load of lib crap.

Just pointing out what the law is, and that it was broken.

Isn't the constitution a flexible, living, breathing document anyway, that should change at a whim to accomodate modern thinking?

We're not talking about the Consitution. We're talking about a federal law. At any rate - its the judiciary that has the power to intepret the Constitution, not the executive.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I have a better tip. Take your own advice and READ..You'll find the answer. Hell it's only two pages, and it's like Prego, it's in there I promise.

Hmm. How about instead of me taking your word for it, you cut and paste the relevant text and show it to me?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

It's a slippery slope if you had said we will eventually get to x. You didn't You immediately concocted a strawman noone is espousing except you. I do not support it for all crimes, because all crimes are not a threat to our very existence.

Anything else, retard?

Murder kills more people than terrorism. You don't consider dying to be the biggest threat to your existance?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Well if you consider Bush a law breaker then you must also consider Clinton one as well since he admitted doing the same thing when he was President.

I do consider that Clinton broke the law. I'm glad I never voted for him. However, the U.S. Senate did not believe there was sufficient evidence to convict him, as they acquitted him of the impeachment charges.

So you're saying its OK for Presidents to break laws since Clinton did it? Is that your logic?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Murder kills more people than terrorism. You don't consider dying to be the biggest threat to your existance?

Individual acts of murder do not have the potential to destroy our nation. Get a clue man. Learn about the spirit vs. the letter of the law. How free will we be if we lose this war? Your perverse argument is idiotic and antiamerican.

 

[Bonnie]

Does anyone even care that the president has tossed the 4th amendment out of the window by authorizing searches of American citizens without warrants?

To answer your original question, NO I DON'T CARE that he has authorized wire tapps of possible terrorists in this country attempting to communicate with terrorists outside the U.S. without a warrant first. But I like the way you spun that question, your good at it.....

 

[Mr. P]

Where in there?

Well, if ya stop being a litigator that picks the parts that support their side only, and read the whole thing in context, you’ll find it.

I'd like to see you file your 1040 just using the lines you "think" support your cause.

 

[archangel]

Is there evidence to that effect?

It is on " need to know" basis...so here is my suggestion to you...fill out a application for Federal Law enf or Intelligence...if accepted and complete the training..and are aassigned to a unit that does this type of work...then you will have your answer!

***sneaks out***

 

[dmp]

:blah2: :blah2: :blah2: :blah2:

incorrigible

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Individual acts of murder do not have the potential to destroy our nation. Get a clue man. Learn about the spirit vs. the letter of the law. How free will we be if we lose this war? Your perverse argument is idiotic and antiamerican.

The spirit of the law does not ever say the complete opposite of the letter of the law.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Well, if ya stop being a litigator that picks the parts that support their side only, and read the whole thing in context, you’ll find it.

Where? Tell me where?


Oh - I think I get it. You think that Congress issued a declaration of war, and therefore he is allowed under 1811. Sorry buddy, no declaration of war has been issued by Congress in over 6 decades.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

To answer your original question, NO I DON'T CARE that he has authorized wire tapps of possible terrorists in this country attempting to communicate with terrorists outside the U.S. without a warrant first. But I like the way you spun that question, your good at it.....

So you think its good that the President is intentionally violating Federal Law? You beleive he is above the law, like a dictator, or a monarch?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The spirit of the law does not ever say the complete opposite of the letter of the law.

I agree. Too bad that's not the case here. You might have had a point.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

It is on " need to know" basis...so here is my suggestion to you...fill out a application for Federal Law enf or Intelligence...if accepted and complete the training..and are aassigned to a unit that does this type of work...then you will have your answer!

***sneaks out***

FACT: You have claimed that the wiretaps somehow filter out the words from the US persons - while providing absolutely no evidence to support your claim.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I agree. Too bad that's not the case here. You might have had a point.

So when the law says that wiretaps w/o warrants are not allowed if a US person is party to any part of the conversion, the spirit of the law says that wiretaps w/o warrants are allowed if a US person is party to any part of the conversion, and you don't consider "are" and "are not" to be polar opposites?

 

[Bonnie]

I do consider that Clinton broke the law. I'm glad I never voted for him. However, the U.S. Senate did not believe there was sufficient evidence to convict him, as they acquitted him of the impeachment charges.

IM not referring to Lewinsky or perjury, Im referring to wire tapping.

So you're saying its OK for Presidents to break laws since Clinton did it? Is that your logic

?

No, because I don't see this act by Bush as breaking the law, and by the way all those who are asking for hearings were fully informed this was going on from the very beginning, much like everything else they accuse Bush of doing behind their collective backs. And by your own admission you say Clinton was found to not have broken the law, therefore how can Bush have???