GunnyL said:
Is this supposed to make any kind of sense? I responded DIRECTLY to your comment. First sentence. Please make sure when in your haste to play the pseudo-intellectual you don't overlook the obvious.
If my opinion and question FOLLWING my direct response to your post is a bit too tough for you, please accept my most humble apology for talking over your head.
uhhh... lets take a look an in depth look at this.
First let us observe my original post.
Mr.Conley said:
I don't care if some bueraucrat has to fill in some paperwork, they still have to get a warrent. Its not like a warrent is such a terrible thing. I've never come across a group of people who seem to hate warrents so much. If they are so bad why don't we just get rid of them, just like the Chinese.
The first line says that the 'spies' should be required to get a warrent, regardless.
The second line states that warrents are a good thing. At least good enough to be included in the Constitution that is (See my first post in this thread for evidence).
The third line states that many people in this thread consider warrents pointless as evidenced by various statements, such as...
This one, that says warrents are a pointless waste of paper.
"Getting a warrant after-the-fact amounts to a paper-drill. So THAT is what you libs have made all this fuss about? Good job."
And this one that says they are a waste of time.
"When time is of the essence any extra hurdle is too much. It's funny you libs are so freedom oriented when it comes to protecting alquaeda phone calls."
And this one that says it would just be to much more work.
"Even afterward. They should just get on to the next case instead of farting over process papers."
And this one that says the Constitution should just be ignored
"...when the government actually comes into a situation where they actually would need to bypass the fourth amendment, they could just do it."
The last line states that one of the differences between us and Communist China is warrents.
Now lets take a look at your response.
GunnyL said:
It is not a case of my hating warrants, nor have I seen anyone else make a statement that they hate them.
The first sentence does bear some similarity to my third sentence, but it was admittedly a filler, and not actually related to my main point. But your statement is unrelated to either my main point or my third sentence. You first state that you don't want to talk about warrents and no one else has said anything anti-warrent either. Both statement statements are unrelated to my post. Your opinion on warrents has nothing to do with whether a domestic spy program requires a warrent, and the second point I have already disproved.
GunnyL said:
What I see is the actual point to the exercise getting lost in the minutia.
In this sentence you say warrents are useless because warrents are somehow 'dewarrentatized' in the process of getting a warrent. You don't address whether a domestic spy porgram should be required to obtain a warrent before wiretapping a US citizen's phone.
GunnyL said:
Warrants or no, if terrorists are making calls then we should be listening. I don't care WHO they are calling nor WHERE they are calling.
Your third sentence again has nothing to do with what I say. You simply state that we should be trying to prevent an attack by listening in on terrorist conversations. Warrents are not even mentioned.
GunnyL said:
Lawmakers on BOTH sides say the program is necessary; yet, the ones on the left STILL have to point a finger at Bush just because they have found yet another excuse.
This sentence simply says we should be listening to suspected terrorist call, and that lawmakers agree. It is a valid point for having the program, but does not relate to whether the program should get a warrent, the point of my post, and is again unrelated.
GunnyL said:
GMAFB already. The precedence is set for the President, regardless or party, to act in what he feels is the best interest of the security of this Nation. A ruling otherwise will be unprecedented, and just another instance where the left ties our hands behind our backs instead of thinking of a way to better security.
In this post you comment on the fact that the President can, should, and does do what he feels is best for the security of the nation. However, you fail to address whether this power is greater than that of the Constitution. You are not defending whether warrents are required to tap the phone calls on US citizens, but whether the president can try to protect national security, two related but seperate issues. Again you don't deal with my post.
GunnyL said:
Are YOU more important than the entire Nation?
This is a question to me and obviously does not relate to warrents or wiretaps.
GunnyL said:
Not to me you aren't, so get off your high-horse and apply some common sense.
In this last sentence, you start insulting me. Unfortunately, my position on my "high horse" has little to do with whether domestic spying requires warrents.
As we can now see, your post has nothing to do with mine.
By the way, good work on personally attacking me in the last to posts addressed to me, it really helps validate your position.
