The History of the Democrat Party

Southern Man said:
Actually in post 52 I asked you a specific question which you refuse to answer and I've decided that I've entertained you on it long enough.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I forgot you can't read.

I answered that question. And I have been asking you to give some explanation as to why it was relevant.
 
I answered your question in post #71.

Then in post #78 I told you that I had answered it. You even quoted my post #78.

"Try reading the posts. I answered your question. (post #71) It is still not relevant, but I answered it nonetheless."





Now you are claiming you never knew anyone answered your question?

No wonder you want to dodge the topic.
 
WinterBorn said:
I answered your question in post #71.

Then in post #78 I told you that I had answered it. You even quoted my post #78.

"Try reading the posts. I answered your question. (post #71) It is still not relevant, but I answered it nonetheless."





Now you are claiming you never knew anyone answered your question?

No wonder you want to dodge the topic.
Click to expand...

The Southern Man now sees that you stated: "But, in the interest of furthering the debate, the claim is that they are talking to someone involved in terrorism. " and humbly apologizes for not hanging on your every word.

If they are involved with someone who is involved with terrorism then the authorities have probable cause.
 
Southern Man said:
The Southern Man now sees that you stated: "But, in the interest of furthering the debate, the claim is that they are talking to someone involved in terrorism. " and humbly apologizes for not hanging on your every word.

If they are involved with someone who is involved with terrorism then the authorities have probable cause.
Click to expand...

You don't have to hang on every word. Just read the damn posts. Especially since I told you several times more.



Is it that someone is involved with terrorism or that someone is on the phone with someone in the middle east? There is a difference.

And the fact that they, according to the patriot act, are not required to have probable cause tells me that they have no real evidence that either caller is involved in terrorism.

If they have probable cause they can get a warrant.
 
Southern Man said:
The Southern Man now sees that you stated: "But, in the interest of furthering the debate, the claim is that they are talking to someone involved in terrorism. " and humbly apologizes for not hanging on your every word.

If they are involved with someone who is involved with terrorism then the authorities have probable cause.
Click to expand...

now, that would justify tapping the suspected terrorists phone, but not the as yet unsuspected american, right?
 
WinterBorn said:
You don't have to hang on every word. Just read the damn posts. Especially since I told you several times more.



Is it that someone is involved with terrorism or that someone is on the phone with someone in the middle east? There is a difference.

And the fact that they, according to the patriot act, are not required to have probable cause tells me that they have no real evidence that either caller is involved in terrorism.

If they have probable cause they can get a warrant.
Click to expand...
If you want your posts read then you should post more relevance, and if you can't do that, simply less.

Again, the fact that the citizen is having a conversation with a terrorist gives probable cause. The Act gives a type of "General Warrant".
 
Southern Man said:
The phone would not be tapped unless he was talking to the terrorist.
Click to expand...

So let me see if I have your rationale right.

#1 - If they are talking to a terrorist, they have probable cause.

#2 - the Gov't wouldn't tap a citizen's phone unless they were talking to a terrorist?

That about cover it?




Look, the Patriot Act extended the place the gov't could go, look, and search without warrant or probably cause. They didn't do that because they knew they would HAVE probable cause. They did that so they could go fishing and hope to get lucky.

But please reread the 4th amendment and tell me where it says anything about who they are talking to?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
and now we come back full circle to the 'guilt by association' thing, or in this case, 'suspicion by association'. that seems a little unconstitutional to me. you?
Click to expand...

Of course he doesn't. He thinks that the fact that they are talking to someone in a certain area means they are talking to a terrorist.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
and now we come back full circle to the 'guilt by association' thing, or in this case, 'suspicion by association'. that seems a little unconstitutional to me. you?
Click to expand...
You are who you associate with generally. Now if the citizen happens to be ordering a pizza and the terrorist works at Pizza Hut as a cover and the call gets logged then that's an inconsequential event. Is that your concern?
 
Southern Man said:
If you want your posts read then you should post more relevance, and if you can't do that, simply less.
Click to expand...

Both posts were short and to the point. You kept dancing around the topic so I answered the question to continue the debate.

The fact that you missed them has nothing to do with anything except you knew you didn't have an argument so you wanted to pretend you didn't see it.
 
Southern Man said:
You are who you associate with generally. Now if the citizen happens to be ordering a pizza and the terrorist works at Pizza Hut as a cover and the call gets logged then that's an inconsequential event. Is that your concern?
Click to expand...

no, things like THIS are more my concern. The government and it's alphabet agencies are too incompetent and not accountable enough for their errors.
 
Southern Man said:
You are who you associate with generally. Now if the citizen happens to be ordering a pizza and the terrorist works at Pizza Hut as a cover and the call gets logged then that's an inconsequential event. Is that your concern?
Click to expand...

Our concern is with the violation of clearly stated rights. The fact that you are unconcerned tells me that your previous "The US Constitution is a simple, plain spoken document and the democrats want to destroy it" was just trollery.
 
Southern Man said:
What makes you think that you know how I think? WTF?
Click to expand...

Because you have defended tapping the phone of US Citizens without a warrant or probable cause. You claim who they are talking to make its ok, but until something is said (while they are listening) it is largely impossible to tell whether the person on the other end is a terrorist or not.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
no, things like THIS are more my concern. The government and it's alphabet agencies are too incompetent and not accountable enough for their errors.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what this article has to do with the Patriot Act: "But drug task-force agents opened fire on him after he tried to avoid them, putting his car in reverse and striking one of the officers..." It seems to me that running down a police officer in your car while trying to escape is just cause to use deadly force.
 
Southern Man said:
I'm not sure what this article has to do with the Patriot Act: "But drug task-force agents opened fire on him after he tried to avoid them, putting his car in reverse and striking one of the officers..." It seems to me that running down a police officer in your car while trying to escape is just cause to use deadly force.
Click to expand...

yeah, god forbid someone who is plain ole innocent should be afraid for their lives when they just finished stopping at an ATM machine, and all of a sudden thugs with guns come running at you. I forget though, that as the model republican, you espouse total obeisance to authority.

the main point is that government does two things well, and only two things.

1) they violate rights
2) they fuck shit up.
 
Southern Man said:
I'm not sure what this article has to do with the Patriot Act: "But drug task-force agents opened fire on him after he tried to avoid them, putting his car in reverse and striking one of the officers..." It seems to me that running down a police officer in your car while trying to escape is just cause to use deadly force.
Click to expand...

Did you watch the video?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top