|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
Thank you for providing CASE LAW that INTERPRETED the Constitution to say this. It's not in the constitution.
As for your other link concerning the media having phone records reviewed, where does it say it fell under this agreement and where does it say that a warrant wouldn't be obtained? After all, they are investigating government leaks. That was a reach, at best, to say that affects Joe Citizen. How many of us have federal informants and are investigated for it?
Wait...what???
It's right there in the 4th amendment, it's even in bold in my post in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. The court case i cited distinctly states that phone and e-mails count as personal effects under the 4th amendment, what more do you want?
You want me to show in the constitution where it says the word "phone records"....... Give me a break.
If you want to have a serious debate, then make serious posts.
~Lyuokdea
Last edited by Lyuokdea; 05/03/08 07:58 PM.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Phil, I heard Hillary say torture doesn't work and we all know Hillary doesn't lie.....Well except for everytime she opens her mouth.
I don't really understand what this means, but I'm fairly certain it doesn't contain a valid point.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
However, I was referring to THIS war with that statement and you know it.
This war is rather similar...we're fighting a lot of elements that wouldn't have existed if it weren't for our invasion of Iraq.
Quote:
However, are you SERIOUSLY saying that the Viet Cong didn't use geurilla warfare, and using civilians as weapons much like these terrorists?
Where did you infer that?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
There you go again with your crap you spew as fact when it's only your opinion. When we entered Viet Nam, we had not just had the largest terrorist attack on U.S. Soil. There also wasn't intel that stated that they had WMDs. Once again, you dismiss facts to make your erroneous point.
It's pretty clear, Phil, that the tactics are very similar between the Viet Cong and the terrorists. That's what I was referring to. However, we get it. Everything the U.S. has ever done or ever will do is bad. Alll those against the U.S. are excused because we are so bad.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
Again, it ISN'T in the Constitution. In fact, the Founding Fathers wouldn't have even been able to FATHOM something like phone records. What you have cited is an INTERPRETATION of the Constitution in a court ruling. You are a bright guy. Surely you understand that interpreting the Constitution isn't the same as what the Constitution says. If it were, then there would never be any danger of Roe vs. Wade being reversed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
Again, it ISN'T in the Constitution. In fact, the Founding Fathers wouldn't have even been able to FATHOM something like phone records. What you have cited is an INTERPRETATION of the Constitution in a court ruling. You are a bright guy. Surely you understand that interpreting the Constitution isn't the same as what the Constitution says. If it were, then there would never be any danger of Roe vs. Wade being reversed.
Right...
So the point your trying to prove is that the founding fathers lived before alexander graham bell
very good sir, i conceed the point,
~Lyuokdea
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
My point is that you are claiming that the Constitution protects phone records. I said that only the interpretation and case law said it. Phone records, IMO, aren't covered by the Constitution. Since those records are kept by a public utility company, one regulated by the government, and it is not your actual conversations, I can see the arguement that they aren't covered by the 4th amendment.
My whole point is that people interpret the Constitution to cover what they want it to cover and at times totally contradicts what the spirit of the Constitution was and is.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
My point is that you are claiming that the Constitution protects phone records. I said that only the interpretation and case law said it. Phone records, IMO, aren't covered by the Constitution. Since those records are kept by a public utility company, one regulated by the government, and it is not your actual conversations, I can see the arguement that they aren't covered by the 4th amendment.
My whole point is that people interpret the Constitution to cover what they want it to cover and at times totally contradicts what the spirit of the Constitution was and is.
My first argument is that the relevent case law on the subject disagrees with you, as evidenced by the ruling which I posted.
My second argument is that arguing that it's not in the constitution carries no weight in an argument...of course it isn't. Neither is any authorization for a government to set up a website, it means nothing.
Given the current trend towards loose interpretation of the constitution, it really is the case law on the constitution that matters, not the document itself.
Also, you've yet to explain how I want things both ways, how i'm just complaining to complain, and why it destroys national security for the executive branch to be at least minamally checked by the courts.
~Lyuokdea
Last edited by Lyuokdea; 05/03/08 09:33 PM.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
I wasn't directing it at you, but rather how the Constitution is so loosely interpreted. I think that they SHOULD be held in check. The disagreement is whether phone RECORDS are something that should be such a big deal. I don't think so. Conversations, that's a different story.
Yes, right now the case law is what matters. However, the Supreme Court changes, as you know, and that doesn't mean that interpretation will not change. THAT's what I have a problem with....trying to apply the Constitution based on who is in power at the time, be it Conservative or Liberal. The spirit of the Constitution is constant, IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
There also wasn't intel that stated that they had WMDs.
I know that you've never taken the time to read any of the intel or pertinent information regarding ther Iraq situation, so let me try to clarify:
There was NEVER - not then or now - ANY intelligence report of any kind from any agency that EVER stated that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. NEVER.
The best one could find is minority intel that suggested that Hussein was attempting to reconstitute a program, but no agency ever declared that he actually had possession of them (outside the Bush administration).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,804
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,804 |
Quote:
So let me see........we want the govt. to protect us, yet we don't want the gov't. to be able to do anything to protect us - unless, of course, they go to a persons house, knock on the door and say "we are going to tap your phone lines. If you could just sign here allowing us to do so, our nation would be greatly obliged. Thanks.".
Yes Arch, we need them to protect us from "the terrorists".
We do NOT need them "protecting us from ourselves" by infringing on "American citizens rights".
Big difference in case you missed that point.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,804
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,804 |
Quote:
Not sure where all that came from, but let me say this: those that complain about being watched and listened to: first of all, if you have nothing to hide, why worry about it. Let's face it, our gov't. is not going to monitor 300 million phones on a daily basis. They have these things called "leads", which means if they have reason to suspect someone, they will follow up on it - a pretty basic premise, really. If those leads don't pan out, they quit.
That's the biggest load of horse crap I've ever heard!
Then why are the phone companies "in fear of law suits" if they only "tracked terrorists"? You see Arch, This administration came up with a very vague term that has no real meaning as a "catch all Phrase" so they can spy on almost ANYONE! The phrase? "Possible enemy combatant".
Now you see, that could be almost ANYONE who disagrees or speaks out against the government. That doesn't mean "just terrorists".
And your double talk? Since when is demanding your right to privacy be upheld mean "you have something to hide"? It doesn't.
What does it mean? It means that many of us fully understand that once you begin permiting the government to erode your rights, it's a slippery slope. And that once you permit them to start that process, where does it end?
We have something to "protect" Arch, not "hide". Big difference. But you buy into this administrations rhetoric and refuse to stand up for your rights. And even though you won't admit it and refuse to see it, I bet you'll live to regret supporting such measures some day...........
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,804
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,804 |
Quote:
Arch, you're trying to reason with liberals.
Since when is someone who believes the constitution and Bill of Rights should be FIRMLY UPHELD become a "liberal"?
Oh yeah, that's right, when it doesn't fit your agenda. Because the last time I checked, MOST who uphold those principals are REPUBLICANS! Especialy when it comes to the second ammendment. ( the right to bare arms ) I guess you guys pick and choose which rights you wish to uphold and simply throw out the rest? Of course you do. Because your a "Bushie" not a "conservative".
Don't YOU believe in the Constitution and The Bill of Rights? Or only the parts Bush says you should agree with?
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,804
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,804 |
Quote:
You are making your presumption based on your misguided belief that you actually have a RIGHT to be on that road... you do not. You being allowed to take your vehicle onto that road and then get stopped by them is a PRIVILEGE granted to you.
Sorry, but I do believe you are wrong about that. Unless they "changed the law", which they are good at........
..........they need "probable cause" to stop you in the FIRST place! Which they do NOT have in such road block type scenarios. But once again, in the "name of safety" such rights are revoked.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,804
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,804 |
Quote:
Just so we're clear.....a form of interrogation that "broke" member of the CIA in 14 seconds doesn't "work"? The longest a member of Al Queda lasted was a little over 2 minutes before breaking. That doesn't "work"?
Oh it "breaks them" all right. It breaks them into telling you whatever you want to hear. Wheather it's true or not!
They'll tell you their mom is purple and their dad is a Martian if that's what you want to hear to get you to stop.
It's innacurate, not true and pointless, oh, but they'll tell you!
Quote:
Oh, I forgot. everything the U.S. does is bad. Foreign terrorists are the result of evil America and should be protected.
No, not EVERYTHING! But in regards to our foreign policy in the middle East and oil rich countries? If that's what you meant here, it's probably THE MOST ACCURATE comment I've ever seen you make outside of Pure Football!
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
LOL, keep going, Pit. You and Phil have shown that the U.S. never does anything right. That's what keeps you to going. You can complain and rail against the government, no matter what they do. As Arch said, had they not reviewed those phone RECORDS and another attack would have happened, you and Phil would have been railing about how inept they were because they didn't stop them. Oh, and Phil, once agin you want your uninformed OPINOIN to be accepted as fact. You don't "know" that I haven't read the reports. Once again, you make claims you have abosolutely no clue about and want them accepted as fact.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,804
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,804 |
Quote:
LOL, keep going, Pit. You and Phil have shown that the U.S. never does anything right. That's what keeps you to going. You can complain and rail against the government, no matter what they do.
We aided, supported and supplied weapons to Bin Ladin in the 80's. Was that okay with you Coach?
Quote:
As Arch said, had they not reviewed those phone RECORDS and another attack would have happened, you and Phil would have been railing about how inept they were because they didn't stop them.
I guess you believe that by supporting people like Bin Ladin and Hussein in the past and inflicting these evil tyrants on the people of that part of the world to it, then going and destroying their countries, killing their families to overthrow the VERY SAME PEOPLE we helped put in power in the first place are perfectly fine and acceptable in "your world". Must be a sad and very double standard "little" world you live in.
Quote:
Oh, and Phil, once agin you want your uninformed OPINOIN to be accepted as fact. You don't "know" that I haven't read the reports. Once again, you make claims you have abosolutely no clue about and want them accepted as fact.
Yes he does "have a clue". Just because you refuse to look at things from a global concept and are like many who only look at "me and mine", you have shut yourself off from being open minded and looking at things on a global scale. And since you "refuse to read these reports",because if you DID, you wouldn't be spouting such drivel, you are openly admiting that you have NO CLUE as to the overwhelming evidence their was NOT to attack Iraq. Yet you keep on spouting about it.
And you think Phil is "uninformed" because he DID read them???
It's attitudes like yours that will be the downfall of America.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
Thanks for ONCE AGAIN proving my point about you, Pit. You complain that they supported Hussein and then you complain because he was romoved from power ALL IN THE SAME POST. Thanks for showing you just want to blame the U.S. for EVERYTHING. As for the rest of your tirade about Phil, you make my point again. Phil said he "knew" that I hadn't read the reports. He stated his erroneous OPINION as fact. You followed suit. I HAVE read all the reports. You claim that I refuse to look at anything on a outside of me and mine. You're right. The safety and well being of the U.S. will ALWAYS be my primarty concern, just as the safety of my family will always be my first priority. The rest is just the same old drivel as always. You sit on your high perch and say people don't look at everything when forming their opinions, yet that is EXACLTY what you do. Nothing like falling back on the same old tools you use in every post....hypocrisy and projection. Now, throw out a few more erroneous claims about the people that disagree with you. That's always high on your debating tactics, too.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
I HAVE read all the reports.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
You're right, Phil. You are the ONLY one that has bothered to actually study up on this. After all, the rest of us are all blind sheep that DARE to disagree with your opinoin....oops, sorry to insult you by not calling it fact.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
You're right, Phil. You are the ONLY one that has bothered to actually study up on this.
I most certainly am not, nor have I ever claimed to be.
Quote:
After all, the rest of us are all blind sheep that DARE to disagree with your opinoin....
Please don't lump yourself into an overarching group. I am speaking to you and only you -- it is clear by nearly every statement that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. For years now you have been woefully uniformed. You are incapable of citing evidence to back your stance, you are boorish, rude and repetitive, all without making a point. You rewrite the same paragraph three of four times, and usually what you're saying is untrue.
Many can and have be well read and informed on the subject and still disagree with my opinion. You, however, have very little idea what you're talking about and it's fairly obvious - to both those who agree and disagree with your stance.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
LOL, once again you rewrite history to try to belittle someone who dares disagree with you. I write the same three or four things because you have YET to prove YOUR stance. YOUR stance, and others', is that "Bush lied to start the war". I have repeatedly asked for you to prove your allegations. You can't. Instead you go off on your tirade that I am uninformed and start slinging crap at me. Why, because you get called on your groundless accusations that you cannot prove and after much deflecting and skirting the issue, yhou are forced to the tactic of last resort....to start hurling drivel like your last two or three posts. Of course, it's all deflection, but it's nothing new. You make accusations and then demand others to prove them wrong. Classic left wing tactics. Keep the faith, Phil....you found at least one follower in Pit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877 |
LOL, once again you rewrite history to try to belittle someone who dares disagree with you. OMG....Irony Alert....Irony Alert........Please notify the Pot calling Kettle Division to Report this violation........
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,804
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,804 |
Quote:
I HAVE read all the reports.
IF that "were true" then you would know the OVERWHELMING evidence that Sadaam had NO WMD and NO nuclear program! Therefore, you would KNOW that Bush totaly ignored the vast majority of reports to selectively state very scetchy and refuted intel as "fact". And you in turn are suppoting a very flawed logic on his part. And you would realise he "cherry picked" to only listen to what "he wanted to hear and repeat".
But I simply do not believe you.......................
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,804
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,804 |
Quote:
Keep the faith, Phil....you found at least one follower in Pit.
I don't "follow" anybody. I just use common sense and can see the obvious. You ought to give that a try some time.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
LOL, you and common sense in the same sentence is as funny as screen doors on a submarine. I don't care WHAT you believe, Pit. You want to Monday morning QB. The veiw may be very clear from the throne you sit on, but Excl said it best previously. Quite simply, as arch said earlier, had Bush done nothing and we would have been attacked again, you would have been screaming incompetence because he didn't do anything. You have a way to complain no matter what is done. It's win/win for you. Funny, I just heard last night on a pretty good debate on the radio (didn't catch the whole thing) about detail plans and attempts to gain WMDs that were found in Hussein's personal papers. I guess those were "planted", but Bush was too stupid to "plant" WMDs. Keep spewing your venom, Pit. It won't be long until there will be a new president for you to whine about and claim all your conspiracies about. Even if it's your choice, you will still find a way to tell us all how much better a job you could do running the country. We'll all get a good laugh and move on, as always.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,804
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,804 |
Quote:
LOL, you and common sense in the same sentence is as funny as screen doors on a submarine.
That's pretty funny coming from you of all people.
Quote:
I don't care WHAT you believe, Pit.
Yes, let's ignore reality and live in denial. Sorry, that's not me. And I realise you "don't care". You just care enough to stick yourself squarely in the middle of it, right?
Quote:
You want to Monday morning QB.
When a QB ignores three open WR's and throws an interception to the ONLY WR that is triple covered?
It's not a hard job to second guess him.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
LOL, your projection onto others is humorous, but after this many years, it is also a little tiresome. Keep spewing your crap, Pit. Why don't you run for office, knowing how much better you could make decisions that affect out country? It's easier to sit back and complain about anyone in office.
Enjoy, Pit. Your laughable posts will continue and you have nothing new to add....and haven't for years. You never prove your babblings, but ignore anyone that asks you to and continue your rants. Get back to me when you can prove your statements with more than just you saying it. You can't, but you'll still keep railing, I'm sure.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,804
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,804 |
I think you've said enough to leave it at that. Sometimes you're your own worst enemy. So we'll let your comments stand on their own merit, or lack there of. 
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844 |
Quote:
I think you've said enough to leave it at that.
Sometimes you're your own worst enemy. So we'll let your comments stand on their own merit, or lack there of.
You were referring to "yourself", "weren't" "you"?
Like it or not, the gov't. can and WILL do what they can to protect this country. I know you hate Bush and will ride any wave that comes along in an attempt to make him look bad, but come on.........you're being crazy.
On another note, the privilege of driving is just that - a PRIVILEGE. It is NOT a right. You are against dui checkpoints and your reason is it is unlawful search and detainment. Why? Because the authorities are randomly stopping drivers? Golly, you must be against airport security as well, right? Airports don't even do it randomly - EVERYONE goes through a metal detector - EVERYONE takes their shoes off, EVERY checked bag goes through and x-ray machine - and they don't have probable cause on anymore than about (my guess here) 0.0001 percent of the time. So, you are against airport security, right? Because, after all, it does infringe on your rights.
Can't have it both ways. So, which way will it be?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,804
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,804 |
Quote:
I know you hate Bush and will ride any wave that comes along in an attempt to make him look bad, but come on.........
I don't "hate him" but I feel he has preyed on the fear of the American people in order to gut this nation of many rights. Wheather that be purposfully or otherwise. People do some crazy things when they permit fear to rule the day.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
I know you hate Bush and will ride any wave that comes along in an attempt to make him look bad
This coming from the guy who feels this way about the Clintons. I smell projection. 
But, seriously, Arch...even if you disagree with the stance...you can't see how someone can have concern for military tribunals, warrantless searches. trials without a lawyer, illegal wiretaps without it being tied to a hatred for Bush?
People talk constantly of a slippery slope...this is a big one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844 |
Make no mistake about it, I dislike the Clintons, both of them. I have never, not once, attempted to hide that - I flat out put it out there in no uncertain terms: I dislike Bill and Hillary. Some, though, don't state their dislike of people so bluntly. They may feel they are being coy, or perhaps they think they are covering their dislike, but it shows........over and over and over, yet when called on it, they deny it. Why hide it? If you like someone, great. If you dislike someone, great. Why hide behind misanthropic missves. (I don't know what that means - just felt like a good time to say it. It's kinda catchy, really........misanthropic missive, I like it. ) However, on to your last point: "concern for military tribunals, warrantless searches. trials without a lawyer, illegal wiretaps " Military tribunals are not illegal, are they? You may argue WHO goes before a military tribunal, but they are not illegal. Warrantless searches? What do you mean? Do you mean? Airport searches? Those are warantless, aren't they? Do you mean traffic checkpoints? The state has a right to stop you for any reason they choose - at any time. Now, they cannot detain you without cause - and they don't. Trials without a lawyer? Who? Illegal wire taps? Who? When? Perhaps the times have changed. Let's face it, back when the constitution was written phones were not. Do you have a problem with cops that sit on the side of the road checking every car that passes? Checking for speeding? I mean, that is warrantless, too, isn't it? Or is your problem that you want the laws of the past to dictate what happens today? Most of the past laws were/are good. However, as society changes, the need to change the ability of our law enforcement (and our national security) change as well. Would you agree?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Trials without a lawyer? Who?
Anyone. I don't care if it's the love child of Hitler and bin Laden - they are entitled to a lawyer.
Quote:
Illegal wire taps? Who? When?
Anyone. Get a warrant...it's not hard.
Quote:
Perhaps the times have changed. Let's face it, back when the constitution was written phones were not.
There weren't semi-automatic weapons or handguns back when the Founding Fathers were around...perhaps times have changed and it's time to reexamine the 2nd Amendment?
Quote:
Do you have a problem with cops that sit on the side of the road checking every car that passes? Checking for speeding?
Nope.
Quote:
I mean, that is warrantless, too, isn't it?
No, it isn't. Now, if they were to search your car without a warrant....
Quote:
Or is your problem that you want the laws of the past to dictate what happens today? Most of the past laws were/are good. However, as society changes, the need to change the ability of our law enforcement (and our national security) change as well.
Would you agree?
In this context, no, I do not agree, and I imagine if I put this line of thinking into another context, you wouldn't, either.
What if I were to say to you that the Second Amendment was at one point a good law, but given the changes that have taken place in our society - the threat of school shooting, increased violence and robbery, etc. - it's time to revise them to keep up. After all...the laws of the past shouldn't dictate the present, right?
(For the record...I am not advocating the above.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,804
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,804 |
Quote:
Some, though, don't state their dislike of people so bluntly. They may feel they are being coy, or perhaps they think they are covering their dislike, but it shows........over and over and over, yet when called on it, they deny it.
Why hide it? If you like someone, great. If you dislike someone, great.
This IS pretty funny!
Let me clarify...............as if you'll believe the truth when it smacks you up side the head!
I have "never met" George Bush. But guess what Arch? MOST of my friends ARE GOP supporters!
Let me ask you a logical question. If I "hate" George Bush so much as you claim, how is it possible that so many of my friends are "his supporters"?
Actually, in all honesty, he seems like the kind of guy I would like to sit down and have a few beers with. And in all honesty, I actually think that he is doing what "he believes is best for our country". ( no matter how misguided I feel those policies to be )
Here's what I "do hate". MANY of his policies! I believe he picked VERY poor advisors and listens to those advisors. And as a direct result, we're in the mess we are now.
As a person? I actually believe that I would like the man. I can't say for sure having never met him. But as a politician? I hate the things "he's done" to our nation.
If you can't seperate the two, that's a problem you must deal with. However, I can.
Actually Arch, I think I would like to sit down and have a few beers with you some time. Your beliefs and your passion are quite in line with the people I grew up with and my friends.
While we totaly disagree on our politics, above and beyond that, I feel we have more in common than you would like to admit.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844 |
Quote:
Quote:
Or is your problem that you want the laws of the past to dictate what happens today? Most of the past laws were/are good. However, as society changes, the need to change the ability of our law enforcement (and our national security) change as well.
Would you agree?
In this context, no, I do not agree, and I imagine if I put this line of thinking into another context, you wouldn't, either.
What if I were to say to you that the Second Amendment was at one point a good law, but given the changes that have taken place in our society - the threat of school shooting, increased violence and robbery, etc. - it's time to revise them to keep up. After all...the laws of the past shouldn't dictate the present, right?
(For the record...I am not advocating the above.)
Wow, you're good! And I mean that.
My answer to that would be: We're comparing apples and oranges. No, I would not agree with taking guns away, but I do agree with warrantless wire taps.....crazy, huh?
First off, gun laws have changed with our society. It used to be just about every one had a gun (going way back here). There were no "gun" laws - only the don't use them in a crime, don't murder, etc. Anymore, gun laws change yearly.
You have to be a certain age to buy one. There are certain types that are banned. You cannot buy one without a back ground check. If you have been convicted of a felony you cannot own a gun. You cannot carry a gun unless you pass MORE background tests, and in some states you cannot carry. In some areas, DC, you cannot have a functioning handgun in your home (it has to be broken down). There are areas that, even if you have every license available, you are not allowed to have a gun. You cannot have a loaded gun in your car unless you have a concealed carry permit, in the states that allow that.
Gun crimes, crimes committed with a gun, carry a minimun 7 year ADDITIONAL sentence (at least here in Ohio) added on to whatever sentence you get for the actual crime.
Gun laws have changed with the times - and with the people's wishes (I use people's wishes loosely here).
If I am a legal ccw license holder, if I get stopped by a cop for ANY reason, I am required by law to inform the officer of that fact, and where my gun is...............you see, gun laws have changed over time.
While I am totally against illegal search and seizure, or illegal detainment, I also understand that the wiretap laws have not changed, and in fact phones were not even in existence at the time of the writing of the constitution. For someone to say "you can't tap my phone because I have a constitutional right......" I find funny. The "right" is a right against illegal search and seizure, or illegal detainment. Not a right to not be checked.
No one has a problem with airport security (other than the fact that we all hate it). No one complains about a cop sitting alongside the road using a radar gun, checking all cars coming his way. No one has a complaint about dui check points. The complaint is "hey, check me if you want, but don't prosecute me if I didn't do anything wrong", and with that I agree. I just take it a little further I guess.
If the gov't. wants to moniter my phone line, have at it. They'll get bored really quick.
You have to keep in mind the gov't. isn't doing this to everyone. They are checking calls coming from overseas, or calls going over seas. When they see a pattern, they check it out. If someone is calling mom or dad overseas, big deal. End of story. Phone tap undone.
They are not checking you, or me, or anyone, making local calls.......unless you're making local calls to a person calling a number known for bad activities - if that makes any sense.
Back to your example - gun laws have not been static over the decades - they change - too often for most to keep up with, actually.
Monitering someones phone call without a warrant? Yeah, that could lead to other issues, but with 300 million people in the country........the gov't. isn't going to moniter anything but a miniscule amount of calls - those going over seas to known terrorist countries/areas/numbers.
And I'm against people being tried with out attorneys.......that is why I asked "who". Everyone deserves an attorney, and a competent one at that, if they are prosecuted for a crime.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844 |
I'm not going to quote the whole post.
First off, I bet if we got together we'd agree on more than you think as well.
Secondly, so you don't hate George Bush the person............good. Now, in years of reading your posts, you have called him dumb, ignorant, the worst president ever, a terrible speaker, and on and on........you've blamed him for oil prices, you've blamed him for wars, you've blamed him for the budget, the economy, illegal aliens, etc...........you've never said a good thing about the man or his policies, yet you try to use the "I just don't agree with him" tact.
And, I've seen you do this same thing with basically the republican party as a whole.
That's fine. Doesn't bother me, and if it did it shouldn't matter to you anyway. We all have our likes and dislikes.
However, for you to insinuate that you give Bush a fair shake is hooey, in my opinion. That is solely based on your postings on here (and the other board).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,804
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,804 |
Quote:
Secondly, so you don't hate George Bush the person............good. Now, in years of reading your posts, you have called him dumb, ignorant, the worst president ever, a terrible speaker, and on and on........
I recall making remarks questioning his smarts. I don't recall calling George Bush "ignorant", but I may have. And, depending on how the next decade goes, he may end up being, over the course of time, our worst president ever.
Quote:
you've blamed him for oil prices, you've blamed him for wars, you've blamed him for the budget, the economy, illegal aliens, etc...........you've never said a good thing about the man or his policies, yet you try to use the "I just don't agree with him" tact.
Firstly, I blame many variables on many of these things. And more often than not, I believe Bush has surrounded himself with advisors that set many of these things in motion more so than George Bush himself. And he takes that, what I consider to be "bad advice" all too often.
Quote:
And, I've seen you do this same thing with basically the republican party as a whole.
Really? I supported John McCain in 2000. When he REALLY was a "Maverick". And I still have a great deal of respect for the man. Colin Powell as well. At least he was smart enough to know when to make his exit.
Quote:
However, for you to insinuate that you give Bush a fair shake is hooey, in my opinion. That is solely based on your postings on here (and the other board).
A "fair shake"? Nope, never did! But just an FYI Arch, I NEVER give politicians from either party what many consider to be a "fair shake". I think most all of them do their utmost to decieve us and have alterior motives to some degree or another.
I'd say the closest I've come to "trusting" a politician would be any one of them that can prove my theory wrong. I think Jimmy Carter was "sincere", but didn't do mch to help our country.
I think Bill Clinton sold the American worker down the river with NAFTA. And in eight years in office, permiting illegals into our borders, that Bush only added insult to injury. But both are just as guilty of hurting the American worker.
I feel my dad summed up best my political views Arch........."Son, they're all crooks. So vote for the crook that you feel will do the most for you."
Now on this board, most good debaters are GOP. And I do love to antagonize just a wee tad.
In reality, I do believe that "As the least of us goes, so goes your country." So if our youth have a poor education system ( Not just in "the Burbs" but ALL of America ), I promote fixing it. For it is our nations future. And yes, I base that on the education that the "very least" in our public education get as my guideline.
I believe our infrastructure, the health and education of our country are the keys to our nation being once again the leader and innovator in technology as our future.
So many of these issues are of a high priority to me.
I just believe that if we can find the money to kill people, we can find the money to help people. And charity begins at home.
And I'm not knocking anyone's religion or beliefs, but from my own readings of the scriptures, I think that's the way Jesus would look at it too..................
JMHO
So please remember that it's not "just GOP politicians" that I bust the chops of. However, in many cases I find the platforms of "some" democrats, put more emphasis on "working on things at home" in regards to........
A. Putting more cops on our streets.
B. Actually "investing" in our education instead of trying to "fix it for free". It's like putting a band Aid on a 44 cal. bullet wound.
I could go on, but it's just a matter of priority. We've been steadily falling in ranks of many categories that our nation was built on. Education, medicine, technology and more. I just don't see that as a long range "plan" that is sound for the future generations of our country.
I'm a grandpa now. Have been for some time. And my views are the views that I try to see through the eyes of my grandchildren and the nation and problems they will face.
So while we may think differently on many issues, I do not hate anyone or any politician that "thinks differently than myself", however I do question most all of a politicians motives. I consider it a very prudent thing to do since the life of so many rest in their hands.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Just Between Us ( Surveillance
Bill )
|
|
