You realy are making yourself look very foolish, #1 I responded to this poor attempt of yours, #2 this was a totally different argument, of your feelings of what a president can and can not do, over my feelings...Not on the issue of GWB...Stop filling in the story with your lies,,,
What you are stating is not even close to factually correct, for the last god daxx time reread the posts, you're only making yourself look like a bigger god daxx fool...................
Just because you responded doesn't make it correct. It was not, I pointed it out exclusively in the last three links I made. Apparently you don't handle being wrong very well. BTW, what's the official position, as of this post?
I don't need to, I've quoted them twice now. I suggest you do it, as you have clearly said one thing, and got caught saying another as I've quoted. Should I quote them another time? Nah, you'd just deny it or make up some excuse that even though it appeard you were talking about Bush, it was really Clinton. Don't be ashamed of what you post
Alright if you realy want to look that foolish please post them on how I directly stated GWB broke the constitution,,,you're in need of hand holding and I did offer so lets do it... 1 at a time though please, I want to make sure you understand each one before we go to the next, more than 1 might be to confusing for you.
It is fact. If you think otherwise... 1. You're pretty much alone. 2. You're dilusional or in some state of denial. Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. People held without trial. You can leave disgraced now. (And nobody is defending anybody's "right" to blow up anything) (Is that a "right" granted by the constitution??? The right to blow stuff up??? Hmmmmm. Imagine that! You learn something new every day!) Abu Garaib. I saw the photos of American armed forces with Iraqi prisoners on a leash. (I would call that abuse) {You're not looking too good right about now, GTech} (Couldn't have said it better myself!) Actually, I was referring to the creation of the Patriot act, but, whatever floats your boat!
Third time's a charm? http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=518760&postcount=3786 Actually, I believe fourth time now.
Been disputed a number of times. I posted a link to the full information including documentation. You either accept it or do not, but it clearly shows you are wrong. When terrorists have rights under our constitution, let me know. Why is the base in Cuba? Who are there? What are they classified as? If that's your idea of a disgrace, you are a novice! I'm not looking too good? Well, if making excuses for terrorists and lying is what is considered looking good these days, I can accept that Let's see, a handful of individuals commit abuse at a prison. They are charged with crimes, as they should have been. They were given trials. They were sentenced and punished. But, what does that have to do with the abuse of constitutional rights? It appears you are suggesting that everyone should enjoy our rights. I'm all for the patriot act. It's been very successful. I think it's success bothers some people.
Your first one, we are doing this one at a time... My quote you are taking as I am stating GWB broke the constitution...Is this seriously the best that you can do? This was in response to your statement. As you can see you're whining because I want the 'full story' and I'm putting an if in, as in if it was used against NON us citizens I have no problem, against US citizens I have a problem...Your position a blank check to the president... You are also bringing up the 'other presidents authority which ties directly back to Clintons decison, hence the argument on that issue rages.... My entire response... This is an internal argument, not directed at the NSA spying but what you feel is allowable and what I feel is not...I clearly state in the same post.. Stating yet again I have not taken a position on it, as I want the FULL STORY... Next, or do you still think this is saying GWB broke the constitution, which it is not....
Your words, which have the been the center point of this hilarious little sqabble: Exactly what I've been saying. My response below and might I add a "thank you" for bolding as I believe you may actually get where I'm coming from. Note the bold. I was responding regarding Bush and noting, in what you bolded, that other presidents (Clinton and Carter) had done the same. Establishing that from my perspective, your comment was in fact directed at Bush in regards to breaking the constitution when you said: It comes down to what is legal under the constitution, you appear to have no problem with the president breaking the constituion, I however do. In regards to the full story, I also have previously pointed out your post regarding a year to fact check the story in your response to mia. Two sides here. On one hand, suggesting the NYT wouldn't put it out without fact checking and that could be an excuse, then your position that you don't believe it's the full story. Your statements conflict each other. And yes, you did (as I stated) on one hand make a statement (which I included to your credit) that you have said you didn't think GWB did violate the constitution. But you have also suggested (as I have argued over and over) that he did.
#1 thank you for bringing it up that you did indeed bring up the 'clinton carter' debate, which is what it was about and your not having any 'if' in what you'd support. #2 A secret program, surely you are joking that the itsy bitsy article we read is the 'full story' Do you realy want to make yourself look even more foolish, but afterall that's right you know all, you even know enough to somehow twist what I was saying into what you believe it was.
#1 The context of your comment and what I responded with were clearly not in that context. In fact, I clearly showed that above in that I also noted OTHER presidents (other than BUSH) as in (Carter and Clinton) had done the same thing as what you suggested BUSH did. I guess I should redirect the question to you, since you seem obcessed with "looking foolish"...do you want to continue looking foolish by denying what you said? #2 According to you, they had a year to write it and fact check it. That was good enough for you when discussing with mia. Which position works best for you?
No. You are wrong. Use your head. Everyone has some rights under your constitution, even prisoners and convicted terrorists. Everyone knows that, silly! People awaiting trial. (HINT: Don't ask the question if the answer has the potential to make you look really really REALLY stupid. ) Look above to see why that statement is idiotic. BY GEORGE I THINK HE'S GOT IT!!!!! Eureka! A breakthrough! Everyone should enjoy the protection of the constitution, not just the people that YOU like. It's there for a reason. As I stated before, it has yet to really be put into action. If you value YOUR rights at all, trust me GTech, you DON'T WANT to see how successful it can be. Wake up, and smell the dictatorship! It's right under your nose and you don't even know it! That's how GWB has been able to get as far as he has. It's people like you who have bought his "sky is falling" message and given him the blank check he was hoping for. The single biggest threat to your security isn't coming from the outside. It's GWB. You lost how many in the WTC? 3000? How many has GWB killed with this war of his? Is he looking to surpass the 3000 mark? He already has. What a waste.
#1 look at the entire post, jesus christ,,,if you can not admit you are flat out wrong on this there is no reason to take anything you ever say again with anything than a grain of salt.... #2 fact checking on the information in the article is alot different than the entire story is it not your continued denial on this is realy showing you how you debate in all aspects...realy very sad to say the least.
You mean I should dawn the tin foil, instead of ignoring thoroughly checked facts? What brand of foil should I use? When terrorists have rights under our constitution, let me know. Had I known the response would be so uninformed, I would have rephrased it to allow you a better opportunity. I had no idea you didn't really know the answer. Remind me what prefaces the word "Constitution?" "The United States" Constitution. It does not cover Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries. Can I get a tin foil frequency here?
I suspected as much, although I was hoping that you were intelligent. Really... Tin foil jokes?!?!?!? WTF?!?!?!
I believe that is something that concerns you. But your comment stands, my response stands and how I responded with the belief that you were referring to GWB exclusively in that I mentioned that other presidents (clinton/carter) (meaning other than GWB) clearly establish that. Since it was clear it was not directed at clinton/carter, which I noted in my response, and you insist it wasn't really GWB, what president were you referring to when you said: It comes down to what is legal under the constitution, you appear to have no problem with the president breaking the constituion, I however do. I guess it depends on which way the wind is blowing. Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. It could be no clearer that you did what I have been suggesting, yet you continue to deny it, even when it stares you in the face. Yes, I find that very sad indeed. I guess you are ashamed of the words you wrote.
Are you realy that dumb? Reread the fricken post for christ sake! #1 it is still the debate about what x presidents have done, #2 it is a debate over what you think presidents can do because of course you have no 'ifs' I however do Exactly what it states, You do not have a problem as you have no 'ifs' I do have a problem with breaking it as I have 'ifs' this does not directly nor was it intended to state GWB and I do not see how you could come up with that w/o taking a huge hit from the crack pipe... For the last fricken time, I've stated it what now 20, 30 times? I DO NOT BELIEVE GWB BROKE THE CONSTITUTION ON THE SPY CASE with the facts that we know...what is your problem with understanding this exactly