Which is Outdated: The Constitution? Or The Patriot Act!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Why do you keep insisting that I don't provide proof for my statements when I do? Why do you keep insisting that the Patriot Act is Constitutional when Bush said this is a NEW DAY?

Tell you what. You still dismissed the points that I made. Answer the questions I had brought and you evaded, and I will talk. If you don't, I'll have to insist that you are just ranting and are a member of the fifth-column of treason in the United States who would reward a President with kingdom for failing to protect the American people, and would be satisfied of a major investigation of a major tragedy taking place a year after...

1. That's why I wouldn't make a president a king who fails to protect us? And who is proud enough to show pictures of his failure at 911 for his re-election campaign?

2. That's why I would stage an independent investigation of 911 right away after the tragedy? Remember? I think differently from you guys.

3. I would not empower a president who has had family ties to the Bin Ladens to be able to destroy anyone based on accusation of having ties to terrorists.

All of the three points above IS YOUR WISDOM, and not those of Americans.

Folks, none of these absurdities--including Constitutional soldiers begging for body armor while those who are not, torturing and running prison camps--comes from our logic nor psyche. The absurdities taking place are being allowed by the fifth column propaganda team that knows everyone else doesn't substantiate their views. It is not our beliefs running the world into destruction now.

[edit on 1-6-2006 by tmac100]




posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by tmac100
Why do you keep insisting that I don't provide proof for my statements when I do?


You havent proven a damn thing man, thats why hes saying that. You can just type things down but it doesnt make them true. If you want people to see the information, or make them see things your way its going to take more than you saying that someone called the constitution outdated because you heard they did.(just an example) If you want people to believe you here, you will need sources linked in your writing. You cant just say the sky is falling and people believe you, back up your claims with sources. The internet is chock full of them, use it.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   
But I've proven everything I've said. That's why the world is being run by your thoughts! I wouldn't allow the following you cannot touch on...

1. I wouldn't make a president a king who fails to protect us? And who is proud enough to show pictures of his failure at 911 for his re-election campaign?

2. That's why I would stage an independent investigation of 911 right away after the tragedy? Remember? I think differently from you guys.

3. I would not empower a president who has had family ties to the Bin Ladens to be able to destroy anyone based on accusation of having ties to terrorists.

All of the three points above IS YOUR WISDOM, and not those of Americans.

People don't have to believe me here. They just need to change the three points around by making American thoughts rule America and not the Bush propaganda team.

Don't worry. If no one would believe me, at least it makes those whose thoughts rule the world by the three points above become very concerned and obsessive when I post and demand answers. You guys do everything but address the points above. Who would know what Judge Judy would conclude if the points were asked you by her and you miss it as much times as you missed that the Constitutional soldiers needed body armor?

[edit on 1-6-2006 by tmac100]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by tmac100
But I've proven everything I've said. That's why the world is being run by your thoughts! I wouldn't allow the following you cannot touch on...
[edit on 1-6-2006 by tmac100]


With what, your own words? How have you proven anything? All of your threads that have been recently posted are just rants. You do understand what I'm saying when I said earlier, if you want people to believe you, provide links to your claims. You cant just state something and expect people to take it as fact because "we should take your word for it." Thats ridiculous.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   
You mean if the readers believed me, and the following absurdities were corrected, America would fall??...

1. That's why I wouldn't make a president a king who fails to protect us? And who is proud enough to show pictures of his failure at 911 for his re-election campaign?

2. That's why I would stage an independent investigation of 911 right away after the tragedy? Remember? I think differently from you guys.

3. I would not empower a president who has had family ties to the Bin Ladens to be able to destroy anyone based on accusation of having ties to terrorists.

All of the three points above IS YOUR WISDOM, and not those of Americans.

The three points above prove that I just rant, and America would fall because the Bush propaganda team says so?

You mean just because you repeat and will not address the fact of your thoughts guiding America into absurdity proves who is ranting, you know that I just rant in a free country?

I didn't have to tell anyone that you would come back and still not address the points!



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by tmac100
1. That's why I wouldn't make a president a king who fails to protect us? And who is proud enough to show pictures of his failure at 911 for his re-election campaign?

2. That's why I would stage an independent investigation of 911 right away after the tragedy? Remember? I think differently from you guys.

3. I would not empower a president who has had family ties to the Bin Ladens to be able to destroy anyone based on accusation of having ties to terrorists.

All of the three points above IS YOUR WISDOM, and not those of Americans.

The three points above prove that I just rant, and America would fall because the Bush propaganda team says so?

You mean just because you repeat and will not address the fact of your thoughts guiding America into absurdity proves who is ranting, you know that I just rant in a free country?


1. who is this king you speak of, because we dont have one here man? You must have a very distorted view of our government system. Go back to civics class.

2. There was an investigation after 9/11, but its kind of hard to investigate immediately when you have 3-4 months worth of rubble to dig through for evidence no? Oh and by the way, this commission that did the investigating made up of bi-partisan members operated independently from Congress.
9/11 Commission

3. To the Bin Laden family, not Osama himself. The bin Laden family disowned Osama.......PUBLICLY!!!
Bin Laden familiy disowns Osama Publicly

see that red text up there, thats a link to a source substantiating my claim there. So do us all a favor on this board and when you make a claim, use a source to back it up. Have a nice day.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by tmac100
Why do you keep insisting that I don't provide proof for my statements when I do? Why do you keep insisting that the Patriot Act is Constitutional when Bush said this is a NEW DAY?

When did I "insist that the Patriot Act is constitutional?" And I haven't asked for "proof," only a reason for me to believe what you are saying. A reason, that is, other than the mere fact that you are saying it.


Originally posted by tmac100Tell you what. You still dismissed the points that I made. Answer the questions I had brought and you evaded, and I will talk....
1. That's why I wouldn't make a president a king who fails to protect us? And who is proud enough to show pictures of his failure at 911 for his re-election campaign?

2. That's why I would stage an independent investigation of 911 right away after the tragedy? Remember? I think differently from you guys.

3. I would not empower a president who has had family ties to the Bin Ladens to be able to destroy anyone based on accusation of having ties to terrorists.

All of the three points above IS YOUR WISDOM, and not those of Americans.

Hmmmm. I hadn't recognized the above as questions. I thought they "WAS MY WISDOM." So here goes:


1. That's why I wouldn't make a president a king who fails to protect us?
How should I know why you would or wouldn't do something?


And who is proud enough to show pictures of his failure at 911 for his re-election campaign?
Oh, Oh, I know this one! Is it Bush?


2. That's why I would stage an independent investigation of 911 right away after the tragedy? Remember? I think differently from you guys

What is why you would stage this investigation? I'm supposed to answer this "question"? What does it have to do with the Constitution, the Inquisition or the Patriot Act?


3. I would not empower a president who has had family ties to the Bin Ladens to be able to destroy anyone based on accusation of having ties to terrorists.
Well, good for you then, but this is a "question"? You didn't even use a question mark on this one - you aren't even pretending here.

Harte



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 05:57 PM
link   
FINALLY AN ATTEMPT TO ANSWER!! WHAT REFLEXES!!

Question #1 was not answered. Even the point of why Bush must have supreme power over the American Constitution for failing to protect us with no way to reward the other presidents who succeeded for so long to make even the world believe we were impervious to terrorism! When Bush came, then were those thoughts eliminated.

#2, we, the, as they call us, "Conspiracy Theorists" WOULD HAVE THE INVESTIGATION RIGHT AWAY! Evidence would be fresh to be used. We would still have the investigation while more and more evidence is collected. We would not set a precedent for investigations after major disasters as was done.

Incidentally, that's why when Bush was given reason to NOT TO HAVE AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION AT ALL, (he claimed we must not have one AT ALL because, said he, it would take up too much resources that would be needed for the War on Terror) Bush did not give the same thought out excuse as just this one member of the propaganda team.

3. If it is true that the Bin Laden family publicly disowned Osama, to the point of Bush telling us at first we must have Osama "Dead or alive" to then change his mind (waver, waffle, flip-flop, take your pick!) later and go after Saddam and tell us he is not concerned about Osama, HE WILL HAVE TO MAKE SIMILAR VERY LAXED RULES WHEN HE TIES THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO TERRORISTS!

Again, it is the sanity and the psyche of the Bush propaganda team being exercised here!

[edit on 1-6-2006 by tmac100]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by tmac100
Question #1 was not answered. Even the point of why Bush must have supreme power over the American Constitution for failing to protect us with no way to reward the other presidents who succeeded for so long to make even the world believe we were impervious to terrorism! When Bush came, then were those thoughts eliminated.

#2, we, the, as they call us, "Conspiracy Theorists" WOULD HAVE THE INVESTIGATION RIGHT AWAY! Evidence would be fresh to be used. We would still have the investigation while more and more evidence is collected. We would not set a precedent for investigations after major disasters as was done.

Incidentally, that's why when Bush was given reason to NOT TO HAVE AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION AT ALL, (he claimed we must not have one AT ALL because, said he, it would take up too much resources that would be needed for the War on Terror) Bush did not give the same thought out excuse as just this one member of the propaganda team.

3. If it is true that the Bin Laden family publicly disowned Osama, to the point of Bush telling us at first we must have Osama "Dead or alive" to then change his mind (waver, waffle, flip-flop, take your pick!) later and go after Saddam and tell us he is not concerned about Osama, HE WILL HAVE TO MAKE SIMILAR VERY LAXED RULES WHEN HE TIES THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO TERRORISTS!
[edit on 1-6-2006 by tmac100]


OK, question one is pointless since Bush doesn't have supreme power in the US. Youre being very stubourn on this one.

You cant have an investigation with no evidence to analyze. You have to interview people multiple times. Witnesses, officials, police, firemen, experts. You cant just go in and wing the presentation in such a case, an investigation takes time. And this commission was independed if you would bother to look in the link I included in my last post titled the 9/11 Commission.

Its all about politics man. Catching either one of them was a big public support winner. It was a case of which we could get to first. We got to Sadaam obviously. The hunt for Sadaam and Osama are simply political victories that arent completely necessary in these conflicts.
Finding Saddam not key in Iraq War victory
A guide to the Hunt



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Again, Bush doesn't right now have all power. That doesn't mean that his policies with his Patriot Act we heard about already from the Inquisitions doesn't require this and doesn't lead that way. Naturally a Bush propaganda team will be very crafty! Bush and propaganda team is clearly headed that way. Statements that Bush has not reached that point in treason is a deliberate evasion with no conscience just like Bush.

Next, you still didn't even address the point that Bush DIDN'T WANT AN INVESTIGATION AT ALL! I would have an investigation RIGHT AWAY and interview all RIGHT AWAY. As the evidence comes, the investigation will continue!

Next, we struggled to get to Saddam after he was contained under No-Fly-Zones and we beat the daylights out of his country (bombed him "into the Stone Age") during Operation Desert Storm. Then after that we are told we are not even thinking about Osama. Who cannot tell that the Bush propaganda team have for years been holding a crusade against PARANOIA, especially when people even begin to believe in a free country that there is a conspiracy?? Where were they when Bush told us even though he didn't find WMDs, he would have attacked Iraq anyway in order to, "SAVE AMERICA??"

Just proving that the same mentality that guarantee the three absurd points of leadership grip Bush and his propaganda team have over the world CONTINUE unless we ourselves ACT!



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   
This is what I'm talking about, you use words like clearly, and word your sentences like clearly points to this or that. If youre going to word sentences that way you have to provide tis thing called proof. Youre arguments are baseless.

Bush initiated and signed in the order for the 9/11 investigation if you had bothered once again to read the link containing the proof to back up my statement you would know this.

Desert Storm occured 12 years before the current Iraq war. We regretfully left him in power back then. You have any idea how much money Saddam had? Oil-for-Food ring a bell. How much do you think Saddam made off of that little program? Heres a link to how Saddam made his hundreds of millions of dollars pre the 2003 invasion.
Financing Saddams Illicit Procurment

OK, youre off on another planet now. Good luck with all of that.

[edit on 6/1/2006 by ludaChris]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
In all your ranting, I have yet to see you give an example of how the USAPATRIOT Act is diametrically opposed to any Constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties.

You really have never heard the arguments?

Courts

Section 805 ruled unconstitutionally vague

January 23, 2004, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins ruled that Section 805 (which classifies "expert advice or assistance" as material support to terrorism) was vague and in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments, marking the first legal decision to set a part of the Act aside. The lawsuit against the act was brought by the Humanitarian Law Project, representing five organizations and two U.S. citizens who wanted to provide expert advice to Kurdish refugees in Turkey. Groups providing aid to these organizations had suspended their activities for fear of violating the Act, and they filed a lawsuit against the Departments of Justice and State to challenge the law, claiming the phrase "expert advice or assistance" was too vague. [10]

Collins granted the plaintiff's motion that "expert advice or assistance" is impermissibly vague, but denied a nationwide injunction against the provision. The plaintiffs were granted "enjoinment" from enforcement of the provision.

Section 505 ruled unconstitutional

On September 29, 2004, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero struck down Section 505—which allowed the government to issue "National Security Letters" to obtain sensitive customer records from Internet service providers and other businesses without judicial oversight—as a violation of the First and Fourth Amendment. The court also found the broad gag provision in the law to be an "unconstitutional prior restraint" on free speech. [11]



Eight states (Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana and Vermont) and 396 cities and counties (including New York City; Los Angeles; Dallas; Chicago; Eugene, Oregon; Philadelphia; and Cambridge, Massachusetts) have passed resolutions condemning the Act for attacking civil liberties.

en.wikipedia.org...


US Constitution (Bill of Rights)
Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

US Patriot Act
Freedom from unreasonable searches: The government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

www.scn.org...
etc. etc. etc.


Nor have you shown us where anyone has called the constitution "outdated,"

Yea, he's probably referring to this article...

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the "Constitution is an outdated document."

www.capitolhillblue.com...



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Bush signed in the order for the 911 investigation after many people were unsatisfied that he would not have one at all. My opponent knows this, but his purposes is not in line with what was established for this free country.

After each point there is no shame, but just another lie. He told us that Bush is not a dictator or king, and that erodes my point that he is headed that way by his written and implied mandate. That lie is proven and then they move on to another lie.

You are the Bush Propaganda team. It is YOUR thoughts that are leading this nation to absurdity and BACKWARD to the Inquisitions. It is your thoughts that allow TORTURE. When you cannot argue, you will persist while making sure you leave the questions unanswered. I have seen that before DURING THE INQUISITIONS.

Your recourse was to further answer my counters. But you knew you couldn't do it. So you just merely, in a free country tell us we have to bow and my posts are rants. I can't even get you to understand that is not how a free country runs. Why were you intelligent enough to miss the points that were countered and continued?

You have three points of even common sense to address. If you refuse to address them every intelligent person would assume that you are more than just ranting: you are part of the Bush propaganda treason team.

The points above is how we would run the country and world as it has always been run.

[edit on 1-6-2006 by tmac100]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Thanks for your help Jamuhun.

You didn't help me. You helped the truth!



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by tmac100
Bush signed in the order for the 911 investigation after many people were unsatisfied that he would not have one at all. My opponent knows this, but his purposes is not in line with what was established for this free country.

After each point there is no shame, but just another lie. He told us that Bush is not a dictator or king, and that erodes my point that he is headed that way by his written and implied mandate. That lie is proven and then they move on to another lie.

You are the Bush Propaganda team. It is YOUR thoughts that are leading this nation to absurdity and BACKWARD to the Inquisitions. It is your thoughts that allow TORTURE. When you cannot argue, you will persist while making sure you leave the questions unanswered. I have seen that before DURING THE INQUISITIONS.


It was congress who wrote the legislation, President Bush just signed it. He didnt write the bill that set up the investigation. Its not the President who makes bills move or be created in congress any faster.

Wait a sec, so I am lying when I say that Bush isnt a Dictator or a King? Because it goes against your point I cant say it? Sounding like a regular dictator there yourself arent you?
Again, you say this lie(whicever lie that is) is proven but offer no proof to me that it is. Which once again gives the impression that this is nothing more than a rant. You offer nothing to substantiate your claims. I'm not sayin it again, thats the last time. You keep repeating yourself time and time again. Same old poo different day.

Man youre killing me here, seriously that last paragraph is a gutbuster. My thoughts are backwards and absurd because they go against yours? I cant dissagree with you? Youre digging a hole with your tongue boy. Youre not asking any questions, youre making unfounded statements with nothing to substantiate them with. Sorry, no dice here my friend.

[edit on 6/2/2006 by ludaChris]

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 2/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris
It was congress who wrote the legislation, President Bush just signed it. He didnt write the bill that set up the investigation. Its not the President who makes bills move or be created in congress any faster.


Actually, Congress DID NOT WRITE THE PATRIOT ACT. I put that in upper case for emphasis. The executive branch wrote it, specifically, a Vietnamese refugee named Viet Dinh.


Viet D. Dinh (also known as Đinh Đồng Phụng Việt or Đinh Phụng Việt; born February 22, 1968) was the Assistant Attorney General of the United States from 2001 to 2003, under the presidency of George W. Bush. He was the chief architect of the USA PATRIOT Act.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Actually, Congress DID NOT WRITE THE PATRIOT ACT. I put that in upper case for emphasis. The executive branch wrote it, specifically, a Vietnamese refugee named Viet Dinh.


Ahhhh, it is isnt it. Oh well. I guess this topic is dead now that this is all we have to discuss.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by tmac100
Thanks for your help Jamuhun.

You didn't help me. You helped the truth!


Yes, thank you Jamuhun, for enabling this guy to continue his rant without him having to do even the tiniest iota of research that would back it up.

Yes, I have seen the arguments, but I'll wager here and now that tmac100 cannot relate what has been said to the actual USAPATRIOT Act. Even though I linked him to the act itself and the appropriate portions of the U S Code that it affects.

Not only that, I have also previously been to the "Concerned Citizens Against the Patriot Act" website you linked. I dismiss any and all commentary on this subject that not only paraphrases the act, but fails to provide links so that any reader could go and see how badly they have mischaracterized the act. I will give them this - at least they do list the numbers of the sections they are complaining about, but you have to dig for that:
www.scn.org...

At any rate, I was glad to see that there is at least someone around here that at least knows something about some of the District Court cases that have involved the act. The real question then becomes, what happens on appeal? Right?

To all concerned, I suggest you go read the Act for yourselves, I linked it so you shouldn't have a problem. I think you might be surprised. The truth is, much of (not all of) what folks complain about in this act doesn't actually originate in this act at all, it was already in the U S Code. The act merely added that these already existing measures could be used in terrorist investigations as well as other ones which had previously been subject to these methods (mainly drug crimes, espionage, etc.)

Regarding the origin of the USAPATRIOT Act, I've read where some of it was originally recommended in the "Partnership For Re-inventing Government" program that was initiated under Clinton-Gore.

Besides which, I don't see the point to be made concerning "who wrote it." After all, The Constitution itself wasn't written by Congress, nor by the State governments, it was mainly James Madison, as I recall. But it was ratified by the Constitutional convention, as well as the State governments.

The Patriot Act was passed by both houses, with very little opposition. The reasons there was little opposition can be debated and they are varied, usually depending on the mindset of the debator. Personally, I believe that the main two reasons this legislation sailed through were both political. The Dems (who would normally oppose anything the majority put up) didn't oppose this because they saw such opposition as a club they would be beaten with by Republicans in the next campaign. They also saw the legislation itself as a club they could use to beat on the Republicans in the next campaign, as soon as the public soured on the thrust of the main ideas in the act.

Everything always boils down to the votes with politicians. That's my opinion anyway.

Harte

[edit on 6/3/2006 by Harte]



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   
I see that your beef with tmac is what you see as him not doing any research.

But let me ask you. Do you support the Patriot Act?



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
I see that your beef with tmac is what you see as him not doing any research.

But let me ask you. Do you support the Patriot Act?


Actually, no I do not. But I also don't see it as the big bad bugaboo it's made out to be.

Fact is, I'd be hard pressed to come up with any (recent) legislation that I could support. My opinion is the less the better, you know?

However regarding the Patriot Act, I'm sick and tired of being told how it is bringing the downfall of our country. I'm a contrarian by nature, I am just not gonna go along with somebody else's idea without looking skeptically at it. What is usually said about the USAPATRIOT Act (mostly) doesn't stand up at all to any serious investigation of the claims.

Similarly, the claims made about PNAC and the neoconservatives. Most of the stuff said about them also won't stand close scrutiny. This certainly doesn't mean that I like Bill Kristol (I do, though), it means what I've said - PNAC never "Calls for a New American Pearl Harbor" for example. Their "agenda" doesn't mention world control, it's just about keeping what we've already got (and I don't know if that's such a good idea, personally.)

I could go on and on about this sort of thing. It's a sort of scare tactic used by political hacks on practically any subject. "Spin" is just a small part of the method. Anyway, to avoid ranting, I'll cut myself off right here!


Harte





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join