The History of the Democrat Party

[WinterBorn]

which specific question are you referring to?

He means the "Talking with who?" question.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

He means the "Talking with who?" question.

i figured that and you answered it perfectly.

 

[DamnYankee]

which specific question are you referring to?

Who are these American citizens talking to?

 

[DamnYankee]

i figured that and you answered it perfectly.

If an American citizen is talking to a known drug dealer on the street do the police have probable cause to delay the citizen and question him?

 

[WinterBorn]

Who are these American citizens talking to?

Again, it does not matter. You are seeking to circumvent the requirements listed in the US Constitution.

 

[WinterBorn]

i figured that and you answered it perfectly.

Thank you.

 

[DamnYankee]

Again, it does not matter. You are seeking to circumvent the requirements listed in the US Constitution.

You are seeking to circumvent a debate, otherwise you'd answer the question.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

If an American citizen is talking to a known drug dealer on the street do the police have probable cause to delay the citizen and question him?

for simply talking to him? no. guilt by association/suspicion by association has been a discredited theory by the courts many times.

 

[WinterBorn]

You are seeking to circumvent a debate, otherwise you'd answer the question.

No I am not. The discussion is about whether the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. In the 4th amendment, there is no mention of there being an exception based on who is being communicated with.

So who the american citizen is talk to has no bearing on whether the patriot act is unconstitutional.

If you want to claim that it is constitutional, then do so.

 

[Topspin]

Pure bullshit.

Mainman is exactly correct,
southerntool all your wereas's are ancient history you useless windbag/ shrugfuck

 

[WinterBorn]

You are seeking to circumvent a debate, otherwise you'd answer the question.

Ok, I have stated several times that who they are talking to does not matter. And, according to the US Constitution, it doesn't.


But, in the interest of furthering the debate, the claim is that they are talking to someone involved in terrorism.

 

[DamnYankee]

for simply talking to him? no. guilt by association/suspicion by association has been a discredited theory by the courts many times.

No one said anything about guilt; we're talking about probable cause.

 

[DamnYankee]

Mainman is exactly correct,
southerntool all your wereas's are ancient history you useless windbag/ shrugfuck

The last three paragraphs are very recent examples and show a relationship with past practices.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No one said anything about guilt; we're talking about probable cause.

and talking to another individual is not probable cause. It might make it that for approaching the known drug dealer, but not the other individual because there is no other known information about them.

 

[DamnYankee]

and talking to another individual is not probable cause. It might make it that for approaching the known drug dealer, but not the other individual because there is no other known information about them.

Since winterborn wussed out, why don't you take up the slack and answer the question so we can debate specifics instead of generalities?

 

[Topspin]

I can't help noticing that when I mention the Constitution, and specifically the Enumerated Powers, liberals tend to scatter like cockroaches when you turn on the light.

Because like sty you are not only not an expert you lack both degrees required to be a lawyer. LOFL shrugfuck

 

[DamnYankee]

Because like sty you are not only not an expert you lack both degrees required to be a lawyer. LOFL shrugfuck

So you have to be a lawyer to interpret the Constitution?

 

[WinterBorn]

Since winterborn wussed out, why don't you take up the slack and answer the question so we can debate specifics instead of generalities?

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



So please tell us how who you are talking to changes the meaning of the 4th amendment?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Because like sty you are not only not an expert you lack both degrees required to be a lawyer. LOFL shrugfuck

when lawyers and judges interpret the constitution, we all lose. the constitution is better read and understood by regular every day citizens.

 

[DamnYankee]

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



So please tell us how who you are talking to changes the meaning of the 4th amendment?

Tell me, if a cop stopped you and asked you how fast you were driving and you used that answer, would you expect him to accept it?

Obviously, no. You apparently realize that a real answer will be injurious to your argument.