Hey how about you start whining that I never answered your post and gave links even though I did..an oldie but a goodie At least mine was from one post that was there and then not,,,you even told me it's happened to you... Yours was what 4 or 5 times in a row you accused me of not giving a link, even though I did Stop the pissing contest, reread the posts or ask nicely what the quote is meant for...wow wouldn't that be to easy.......hmmm something tells me you're just looking to get your rocks off on an internet 'fight'...how very lame.
No creativity hrb! 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.
No creativity, yeah I don't lie and take things out of context like you do... I stand behind that statement and am proud of it...if you wish to change the meaning into something it's not that's your right, afterall I think all US citizens deserve rights something you dont....
There you go Gtech, I put your famous quote of mine of which you've totally switched the intent of it into my sig just to annoy the piss out of you... My reasoning for an 'if' You not having an 'if' My 'if' again
Yea, you just change the entire meaning of the context and words all together! Glad you are proud of it, you'll see more of it. 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.
The context reread the frickin argument that was going on #1 and the full response I had You are the one changing the context not I......... At the time if you remember correctly it was an argument of 'ifs' not the article itself and 'previous presidential executive orders' My full response in that section of the post.... Look at the argument I am making, how I start it with which is the entire point behind the response... This was a continued argument on what a president can or can not do, not the NSA article itself as you full well knew what my position on that was...I had not taken one
Click, read, hrb. It's plain as day. The context, the discussion, "the president" and the next sentence "other presidents." You can't "shades of grey" your way out of this one. And if you hadn't have called me a liar (in so many words) regarding it, it would have been dropped a long time ago. Usually I let your hypothetical positions go because I know you are not secure enough to take you own position without having both sides between an if. And have often enjoyed debating with you, even though you usually try to skirt around the subject by introducing hypotheticals. You can either learn to deal with it, or we can truce it or you can continue making threats (that was real classy!). Personally I don't care. I won't back down. Your words are there, the context was there, the time frame was there. You said them. You want to continue, by all means, go right ahead! I'm having a blast until something better comes along. You want to truce it, I have no problem with that either. Like the first time you tried to lite into me calling me a liar for deleting posts, I walked away from it and let it go. Ball's in your court.
A link to your reasoning...Yeah that's brilliant............ We were not discussing the NSA, maybe you thought you were but I was not...I already made my feelings on the NSA quite clear... I was discussing the powers of the president and the previous executive order...not the NSA article................
You are taking it fully out of context, I was not nor have I ever been arguing about what is in the NSA report I have been arguing a subissue of it, presidential powers versus ex presidential executive orders.... I would have never called you a liar if you wouldn't have flat out lied about what I stated, in my opinion you did lie as that was not the intent at all... I will not back down either, the ball is in your court.. Be classy and look at it and realise I personally was not arguing the actual NSA report, but the underlying issues of what power the president has, what we should give him, ex presidential executive orders...Sheesh... Maybe it's a misunderstanding, but it was not and never was meant against Bush, it was meant against your opinion of basically giving the president a blank check, mine being letting him do what's within the constitution.
Do you at least understand I have not been arguing against the NSA report one way or the other???? The only items I've stated on it are.. If it was used against non US citizens I support GWB, if it was used against US citizens I do not support him. I then went on to agree with you on as the article was, w/o knowing the full story I agree with GWB and do not think he violated the constitution........ You might think I was arguing the NSA report, I however was not...
What NSA report? Scroll to the top of the page, where I offered you the ball. I can't find any mention of an NSA report. I'm not even aware of an NSA report. There was a NYT article that mentioned the targets were terrorists, but I don't recall any reports from the NSA, sorry. Look at the post: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=519451&postcount=3861 Note my comment. See where I underlined The program. This is me referencing the NSA program and that it had been successful in capturing terrorists in the US. There is no ambiguity here. We clearly know Clinton did not do this. Note above that sentence where I bolded and underlined other presidents, meaning presidents OTHER THAN Bush, have used the same authority. Clearly, establishing here, we are talking in the present and about Bush. How could that possibly be any clearer? Now skip down to your comments, past the hitler reference, the line where you responded to my quoted comments: 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. This is your comment, in regards to MY comment where I was clearly noting the success of the NSA program in capturing terrorists. Not on Clinton's watch, and most certainly never on Carter's watch. This was your comment, as well, when I said "other presidents" (other than Bush) have used the same authority. Bush was the focus of my comments, as clearly shown that "other presidents" used the same authority. I also reference 9/11 and it's clear as day that Clinton was not in office on, or after 9/11, when I said "Had this been going on prior to 9/11...," once again, establishing the conversation, my quoted text in YOUR post, was regarding Bush while noting that "other presidents" had used the same authority. Now to the next line. Other presidents have used 'similiar' tactics, of which have been unconstitutional, I am sure you jest that those are ok? Other presidents, meaning presidents OTHER THAN Bush and even further, regarding the "unconstitutional" argument you tried to make with an article regarding Clinton's executive order. Thus establishing that "other presidents" (other than Bush) had used their authority in the past. So your reference: 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. means, to me, when you say "the president," Bush. You distinguish "other presidents by referring them to "other presidents." Not "a" president, but "the" president. It is also directly in response to my comments where I was clearly talking about Bush, except to note that "other presidents" had used the same authority they have, as Bush has done. Right, I don't dispute you said this. But it's not the only thing you've said, it's in addition to what you said above. In fact, to your credit, I listed this on the list I originally posted to show how there is one position (I think of it as a safety position that one can refer back to when in trouble), then the other position. Correct, however, there was nothing in the NYT article I read to suggest that they have been working on this for a year now, but that it is not complete. In fact, as they reluctantly showed, the targets were terrorists. Still, it is your right to set that condition, for whatever reason. I don't believe I have been saying you were arguing some NSA report. There is a NYT article, but I'm not aware of the "NSA report" you mention. It was "I" that referenced the NSA (but not an NSA report) in my comments, as "the program" when I said it had been successful at capturing terrorists. The crucial piece here, is MY COMMENTS, because I was clearly talking about Bush and I don't think anyone could dispute the context. Of further importance, since it was clear I was talking about Bush, except to note that "other presidents" had used the same authority, your comments were in reference to my comments regarding Bush. You reference "the president" in response to my comments regarding Bush 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 the third sentence, you distinguish "other presidents" from Bush. That is what I read, that is what your comments were.
Gtech,, The NSA report, as in the article and what it reported on I never, not once was debating the findings of the article, I have been the entire time debating the 'presidential powers/ previous executive orders' You were bashing me for having an 'if' of which is where this entire argument has come from, reread the posts in a series, that is what it was for...Not once am I debating what is in the report other than wanting the full story, I am debating YOUR reasoning............. You can jump from line to line to come up with any conclusion you want, it doesn't make it right or what it was intended for I forgot you fear someone debating an internal issue, even if you agree with the basis of the main issue...
The conclusion is perfectly clear, yet it doesn't make it right alone. Your words, in response to my comment, does so all by itself. Even when I break it down, you still deny it. Truly sad.