|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
That's a nice post. However, you are under the assumption that the Constitution was written with the thought of something like a telephone in mind. There is no way that the authors were thinking about such things when they penned the Constitution. So, to say that the Constitution prohibits such actions isn't true. It is applying what IS in the Constitution with a very wide blanket.
Having said all that, there must be limitiations to what can and will be monitored. I have ZERO issue with them monitoring telephone calls to countries that support terrorism without a warrant. I am really unsure why anyone else would.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,120 Likes: 143
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,120 Likes: 143 |
Technology and privacy don't go together. If you want your stuff ot stay private, then I suggest you get rid of every piece of technology you use. The internet isn't private, if someone wanted to put in the effort, they can find out what you do online. You know that line when you call a business "calls are recorded for quality assurance" I find it funny that no one ever complains about that. All it takes is one disgruntled employee to pull up your personal info. Privacy has been dead for years, why are people suddenly so worried about it?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
However, you are under the assumption that the Constitution was written with the thought of something like a telephone in mind.
That's like saying "...under the assumption that the Constitution was written with the thought of something like an assault rifle in mind."
It may be a true statement, but it doesn't stand as a defense for gun control. A lot of things weren't around when the Constitution was written, and we have to sometimes search for what's best in the spirit of the law.
And giving the government this power is certainly against the principles that those men stood for. They would never grant a government that power.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
As they are not around to actually ask them and neither of us have ever talked to them, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't know if they would have agreed to it or not. I do know that you are right in your comparison and that is why I have no problem with regulations on assault weapons.
I have serious doubts as to whether they would allow that kind of power or not, as I'm positive that there were spies involved in the war that they fought for freedom and I'm pretty sure they didn't get a warrant before sending them out.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 238
Practice Squad
|
|
Practice Squad
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 238 |
Quote:
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure legal american citizens can NOT be held as illegal enemy combatants for any period of time. UNLESS there is proof of a threat to america. And, at that time, the proof has to pass the muster of an American court.
U.S. Citizen arrested in Chicago held as enemy combatant
Seems that if the POTUS rules you are an "enemy combatant" during wartime, you can be held indefinitely without trial. Threat or no threat, U.S. citizen held without trial.
Quote:
From WikiPedia
On September 9, 2005, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit ruled that President Bush had the authority to detain Padilla without charges, in an opinion written by judge J. Michael Luttig. In the ruling, Luttig cited the joint resolution by Congress authorizing military action following the September 11, 2001 attacks...
As I read that, federal courts ruled that the POTUS can hold a U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant if the allegation of "providing material support to [the enemy]" is made.
And yes there is some Habeus rights, but don't you think the government should prove you are worth holding before they hold you rather than you can be held until you prove you don't deserve to be? Notice no warrants seem necessary here, just allegations [of providing material support] and declaration [that you are an enemy combatant] are enough to have you arrested and held.
I guess my point is that it may seem far fetched, but the way the laws and rules are currently written, it's not outside the realm of possibility that a nefarious actor at the top of the executive level of government could do these things.
Original Dawg Talkers Pick'ems Champion
2008
2010
Dawg Talk Member Since: 08/24/01
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
Alot of things "could' be done with many laws today. You can be held for 72 hours with no charges whatsoever and none over brought. Does that mean that because it "could" happen, that it happens all the time?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
but the way the laws and rules are currently written, it's not outside the realm of possibility that a nefarious actor at the top of the executive level of government could do these things.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 238
Practice Squad
|
|
Practice Squad
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 238 |
Quote:
As they are not around to actually ask them and neither of us have ever talked to them, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't know if they would have agreed to it or not. I do know that you are right in your comparison and that is why I have no problem with regulations on assault weapons.
I have serious doubts as to whether they would allow that kind of power or not, as I'm positive that there were spies involved in the war that they fought for freedom and I'm pretty sure they didn't get a warrant before sending them out.
Sorry Coach - The group of people charged with determine was or wasn't intended by the Framers has already tackled this, way back in 1967. Katz v. United States rules that so long as an individual can justifiably expect that his conversation would remain private, his/her conversation is protected from "unreasonable search and seizure" by the Fourth Amendment.
My whole point is that I don't mind the government having rights to listen to phone conversations, but why can't they just ask for a warrant even 3 days later under FISA?
The executive branch, legislative branch and judicial branch are to be co-equals so my whole problem is that one branches power should not be able to operate outside the reasonable checks of the other branches.
Original Dawg Talkers Pick'ems Champion
2008
2010
Dawg Talk Member Since: 08/24/01
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
They may have "tackled this" but that doesn't mean they were right in their opinions. In fact, it doesn't mean that those that are charged with that responsibility NOW agree with what those judges determined. They can give their opinions and they hold weight because of their position. That doesn't mean that they are right in their opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 238
Practice Squad
|
|
Practice Squad
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 238 |
Quote:
Alot of things "could' be done with many laws today. You can be held for 72 hours with no charges whatsoever and none over brought. Does that mean that because it "could" happen, that it happens all the time?
The last time I checked, 72 hours is a lot shorter period of time than indefinitely. 
Why can U.S. citizen's ruled illegal enemy combatants be held longer than 72 hours since 72 hours is the "law of the land"?
Original Dawg Talkers Pick'ems Champion
2008
2010
Dawg Talk Member Since: 08/24/01
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
My point is that there are laws that "could" be abused already. That doesn't mean they will be abused just because they "could" be.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 238
Practice Squad
|
|
Practice Squad
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 238 |
Last time I checked, no one was calling for Katz to be overturned. That is was a travesty or miscarriage of justice.
The point is that right now, Katz enforces the law until it is overruled.
Original Dawg Talkers Pick'ems Champion
2008
2010
Dawg Talk Member Since: 08/24/01
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 238
Practice Squad
|
|
Practice Squad
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 238 |
Quote:
My point is that there are laws that "could" be abused already. That doesn't mean they will be abused just because they "could" be.
I guess my point is that these loopholes are not good things and we shouldn't be opening more, we should be closing the ones we have.
Original Dawg Talkers Pick'ems Champion
2008
2010
Dawg Talk Member Since: 08/24/01
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 Likes: 516
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 Likes: 516 |
And with your last statement I can agree unequivocally. There is ALWAYS the possibility of abuse of ANY system.
But, my point is if our gov't. has to tell you in advance that they are spying on you, how effective will that be?
Padilla is being held for some reason. As a citizen, he has a right to trial if I am correct. Now, maybe the "illegal enemy combatant" thing has to do with why he's not gotten a trial. I don't know and I have not read enough about it to state my opinion.
I will say, however, that is 1 person out of supposedly 300 million.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
Thanks for replying for me, arch. You said it perfectly. Just about any law "could" be abused.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 238
Practice Squad
|
|
Practice Squad
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 238 |
Quote:
But, my point is if our gov't. has to tell you in advance that they are spying on you, how effective will that be?
I'm just saying they should have to tell a judge to get a warrant as prescribed by the 4th Amendment. And not even in advance, even 72 hours later as the FISA law allows.
Original Dawg Talkers Pick'ems Champion
2008
2010
Dawg Talk Member Since: 08/24/01
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
But, my point is if our gov't. has to tell you in advance that they are spying on you, how effective will that be?
Obtaining warrants through proper channels has been fairly effective for a long time.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 238
Practice Squad
|
|
Practice Squad
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 238 |
Quote:
Padilla is being held for some reason. As a citizen, he has a right to trial if I am correct. Now, maybe the "illegal enemy combatant" thing has to do with why he's not gotten a trial.
Padilla eventually got a trial (and was convicted) but it was because of public pressure, not legal right. According the the circuit court's opinion that I cited above, as an "illegal enemy combatant" he was not due a trial under the law.
Original Dawg Talkers Pick'ems Champion
2008
2010
Dawg Talk Member Since: 08/24/01
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 Likes: 516
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 Likes: 516 |
Padilla was found guilty?
Perhaps there is some tweaking that needs to be done, but again, I stand by my assertion that not just any John Doe is going to be held for no reason. And if it does happen, for an american citizen, the trial will come. If found innocent, there should be recourse for the accused.
As for what you said about FISA and even getting a warrant even 72 hours later - believe it or not, some of these bad guys plan things years in advance.
I don't like the thought of someone being arrested and held for no reason, but golly, I have to give the gov't. the benefit of the doubt in these 1 out of 300 million cases (or 1 out of a possible 300 million).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 238
Practice Squad
|
|
Practice Squad
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 238 |
Quote:
As for what you said about FISA and even getting a warrant even 72 hours later - believe it or not, some of these bad guys plan things years in advance.
I'm confused...  Wouldn't whoever is listening to the phone conversations have some reason to expect to gather some relevant evidence from the phone conversation? All that is needed for a warrant is probable cause. I think you would be hard pressed to find a federal judge who says "not good enough"  to a request for a warrant if some national security information is likely to be discovered from a phone conversation.
There is no giant computer listening to our calls and picking out keywords. That is still the stuff of science fiction. Currently the NSA or CIA sends a letter to the phone company saying, "hey, I wanna listen to this line for national security reasons." They have some reason to be listening, why can't they run that by a judge? Why does it have to operate outside the system of discover (the 4th Amendment) that has worked for 130 years? 
Original Dawg Talkers Pick'ems Champion
2008
2010
Dawg Talk Member Since: 08/24/01
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,712 Likes: 1678
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,712 Likes: 1678 |
Quote:
That's a nice post. However, you are under the assumption that the Constitution was written with the thought of something like a telephone in mind. There is no way that the authors were thinking about such things when they penned the Constitution.
Nor could they foresee semi-automatic pistols or assult rifles Coach.
You can't have it both ways. Either our rights should be upheld or they shouldn't.
You wish to "pick and choose" based on political agendas and what suits your purpose.
One of the many things wrong with 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: 11,790 Likes: 309
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,790 Likes: 309 |
He isn't having it both ways. He also believes in regulations on assult weapons. Whatever "assult" means.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,712 Likes: 1678
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,712 Likes: 1678 |
NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY. The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htmIt's a LONG article. But it appears that this "spy program" includes spying on "Americans" without a warrant too.  It is what it is. An open invitation for abuse.
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: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
Quote:
NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls
The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.
The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm
It's a LONG article. But it appears that this "spy program" includes spying on "Americans" without a warrant too.
It is what it is. An open invitation for abuse.
I don't mind the data collection. The computer does the work and looks for patterns like an incoming call from Afghanistan and then after that call is done a call to Pakistan is made.
The computer is looking for patterns that are suspicious. Just like the police watch cars every day is not spying, but the moment they see something suspicious they will pull that car over.
But also don't understand why they can't have the FISA court on 24/hr notice and once they get something suspicious they get a warrant.
![[Linked Image from mypsn.eu.playstation.com]](http://mypsn.eu.playstation.com/psn/profile/Letherface.png)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,712 Likes: 1678
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,712 Likes: 1678 |
Quote:
But also don't understand why they can't have the FISA court on 24/hr notice and once they get something suspicious they get a warrant.
They had and or would not need FISA to be open "24 hours a day". That is just a "false talking point" that people buy into. In fact, the FISA law gives you 72 hours BEFORE getting a warrant and up to a year to use that warrant before having to extend it.
But in the current political climate, a mirage has been set that gives people the "impression" that you must attain a warrant "before" you can wiretap. It is simply not true. As long as you can attain that warrant within 72 hours AFTER you've begun survielance, then you are just fine under FISA law.
So please don't buy into the propeganda that is spread around that "You can't wait around on FISA". Because that's not true at all......................
________________________________________________
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act resulted from extensive investigations by Senate Committees into the legality of domestic intelligence activities. These investigations were led separately by Sam Ervin and Frank Church in 1978 as a response to President Nixon’s usage of federal resources to spy on political and activist groups, which violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[4] The act was created to provide Judicial and congressional oversight of the government's covert surveillance activities of foreign entities and individuals in the United States, while maintaining the secrecy needed to protect national security. It allowed warrantless surveillance within the United States for up to one year unless the "surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party". If a United States person is involved, judicial authorization was required within 72 hours after surveillance begins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act
I know it's not the most reliable source. But in this case they are correct and if anyone disputes it, let them provide a link that does so. They can't.
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: 11,063 Likes: 139
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,063 Likes: 139 |
I have read some of this in the papers and listened to the media. I am concerned because it seems to infringe from what it "gives" the government. Tradeoffs in security for personal freedoms. If we are doing it to protect what may be legislated away, then it becomes a twisted argument that begs itself. Kind of an oxymoron. I have been conditioned by experience (sorry; child of the 70's) not to blindly trust government. I fIam suspicious of smaller items, the bigguns like this make me crawl. Knee jerk or not, this sounds bad and wrong. I want protected. I do not think the "war on Terror" is "winnable" as in there is an end game with victory conditions in chess. But we ARE neglecting a bunch of domestic priorities, sacrificed on the altar of sound bytes for political points. Rights finish second. Quite an agenda up front. Hope we win soon. Pyrrhic victory comes to mind.  
"Every responsibility implies opportunity, and every opportunity implies responsibility." Otis Allen Glazebrook, 1880
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449 |
Quote:
Quote:
As for what you said about FISA and even getting a warrant even 72 hours later - believe it or not, some of these bad guys plan things years in advance.
I'm confused... Wouldn't whoever is listening to the phone conversations have some reason to expect to gather some relevant evidence from the phone conversation? All that is needed for a warrant is probable cause. I think you would be hard pressed to find a federal judge who says "not good enough" to a request for a warrant if some national security information is likely to be discovered from a phone conversation.
There is no giant computer listening to our calls and picking out keywords. That is still the stuff of science fiction. Currently the NSA or CIA sends a letter to the phone company saying, "hey, I wanna listen to this line for national security reasons." They have some reason to be listening, why can't they run that by a judge? Why does it have to operate outside the system of discover (the 4th Amendment) that has worked for 130 years?
Some of that stuff that is only in science fiction does exist. I'm not saying the giant computer exists as something I have facts on, but a kid I went to high school with is in the military stationed in New Mexico. He works on "top secret" stuff. He told me that since doing this he was amazed with the technology we have that nobody knows anything about. He didn't elaborate on any of the work he's done, but said a vast amount of science fiction has been worked on, continually worked on, or is complete. Just because we don't know about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Isn't that the point of having an advantage over your enemy? Them not knowing what we're capable of.
I also have a future father-in-law who has lived in Guianna(spelling? West Indies in S.America), Holland, and the U.S. of course. From living in the different countries he has told me that there are plenty of examples of technology that was made and used by various governments that weren't released to the public for decades later. A CD player is one of these examples which were used in the 70's but didn't hit the civilized world until the late 80's.
Wasn't it last month that they released information about some under ground facility that housed seeds of every plant and other vital samples and information that could help us in the future due to man made or natural disasters? I bet people said that is stuff of science fiction before it was released also.
I don't think a super computer is too hard to fathom seeing how man has made an underground facility over 17 miles long that is used to smash atoms together.
With all that said, I can't vouch for the validity of what I've been told; But all the same these are people that I have much respect for and have no reason to lie to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
You accuse others of not reading a thread before responding.  I CLEARLY stated that I supported regulation of "assult" weapons previously. So, I CAN have it both ways, since I am being consistent in my statements....unlike others. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283 |
I swear you two have a crush on each other! 
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good" Thomas Paine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,712 Likes: 1678
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,712 Likes: 1678 |
Quote:
You accuse others of not reading a thread before responding. I CLEARLY stated that I supported regulation of "assult" weapons previously. So, I CAN have it both ways, since I am being consistent in my statements....unlike others.
Well I don't
How about semi-automatic pistols that shoot 17 shots Coach? Do you support regulating those too? How about semi automatic shot guns?
Where does it begin and end Coach? Did our forefathers forsee any of these things? Are you saying that you can "interprit the constitution"?
Inquiring minds want to know?
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: 74,712 Likes: 1678
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,712 Likes: 1678 |
Quote:
I swear you two have a crush on each other!
I'm sure he would like to "crush me" if he were capable and had the oppertunity.
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 |
I would imagine that common sense is where it begins and ends, Pit. That's why you can't see it. Oh, and it's not a question of if I were able to crush you. That capability isn't the issue. I do enough of that on the board just pointing out your hypocrsy, double standards, lies, and spin.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,133 Likes: 1050
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,133 Likes: 1050 |
Quote:
Quote:
You accuse others of not reading a thread before responding. I CLEARLY stated that I supported regulation of "assult" weapons previously. So, I CAN have it both ways, since I am being consistent in my statements....unlike others.
How about semi-automatic pistols that shoot 17 shots Coach? Do you support regulating those too? How about semi automatic shot guns?
Where does it begin and end Coach? Did our forefathers forsee any of these things? Are you saying that you can "interprit the constitution"?
Inquiring minds want to know?
Nobody even knows what an assault weapon is. Is it a long gun with a pistol grip? Is it a semi-auto with a magazine that holds 20 rounds? Does it have a folding stock? A barrel of a certain length? Does it have to look "scary"?
Try and find a definition that doesn't include numerous hunting and self-defense firearms that millions of law abiding citizens possess and you'll see how "assault weapon ban" is a fancy name for gun control.
Fully automatic weapons are already illegal....and should be.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,712 Likes: 1678
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,712 Likes: 1678 |
That's the point j. I don't believe in controling hand guns or rifles to legal purchasers. Some wish to pick and choose yet have no clear definition. Names and accusations are all they have when posed with a legitimate question. As you can see, they certainly have no desire to actually debate a topic. Just sling mud. But it's becoming accepted and quite typical around here. If ya can't beat em', join em'?
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: 74,712 Likes: 1678
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,712 Likes: 1678 |
Quote:
Oh, and it's not a question of if I were able to crush you. That capability isn't the issue.
Rambone?
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, that's everyone's philosphy with you Pit. You couldn't debate so you started your mud slinging, accused others of it after you did it, then try to play the victim.
The fact is that the topic WAS debated. I explained myself quite clearly. You ignore posts so that you can continue your rants and attacks so you can appear, in your own mind, as right no matter what.
Again, I have no prolbem with regulating and banning AUTOMATIC WEAPONS. Which word don't you understand?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,712 Likes: 1678
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,712 Likes: 1678 |
So in other words, you refuse to clarify or address any of the questions posed to you? See below, yet once again. Quote:
How about semi-automatic pistols that shoot 17 shots Coach? Do you support regulating those too? How about semi automatic shot guns?
Where does it begin and end Coach? Did our forefathers forsee any of these things? Are you saying that you can "interprit the constitution"?
Inquiring minds want to know?
So will it be answers this time, or just more rhetoric?
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: 40,399 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280 |
I think that eavesdropping is a good thing.. and if the government wants me to buy into this warrantless wire-tapping program (which I'm willing to do) all they have to do is allow ME to wiretap THEM too... I mean after all, if they don't have anything to hide then what's the big deal? I promise I'll only listen in on the "bad congressmen"... I want webcams in each of their offices and homes with full audio which I can access from my computer any time I have a few minutes to kill... If they want to know what I'm up to, then fine, I want to know what they are up to as well.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,712 Likes: 1678
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,712 Likes: 1678 |
Well said DC! What's good for the goose is good for the gander!
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449 |
Quote:
I think that eavesdropping is a good thing.. and if the government wants me to buy into this warrantless wire-tapping program (which I'm willing to do) all they have to do is allow ME to wiretap THEM too... I mean after all, if they don't have anything to hide then what's the big deal? I promise I'll only listen in on the "bad congressmen"... I want webcams in each of their offices and homes with full audio which I can access from my computer any time I have a few minutes to kill... If they want to know what I'm up to, then fine, I want to know what they are up to as well.
I could only imagine the stuff we might see.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Bush Signs New Rules on Government
Wiretapping
|
|
