1
   

Oprah "Freys" President Bush: Read It Here First

 
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 01:06 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:
But, here's an "actual public record" from the White House:

Quote:
Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

Test for Brandon:

Was Bush lying to us or was he engaged in a satire of his own?

Take all the time you need to figure it out and then report back with your answer.


With the usual illogic of liberals, you have given me the quotation, but not evidence that it's a lie. Further, it would be better if you would specify which sentences in the above quotation you are calling lies.


I asked YOU if Bush was lying when he made the above-quoted statement.

I don't know, but you can't assert that he was unless you present evidence that he was.


You don't know?

Let's take each sentence and try to figure it out.

True or False:

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order.

This sentence is: TRUE

A wiretap requires a court order. Sources: United States Constitution, Fourth Amendment; Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act; Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (Keith), 407 U.S. 297 (1972).

Brandon:

Do you agree that the first sentence of Bush's statement (quoted above) is TRUE? If you agree, we can continue this discussion.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 02:14 am
Roxxxanne wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
Gosh, Brandon, you are making yourself look like a complete fool by your absurd denial.


And he continues. Amazing.

Imagine having the effrontery to espouse the conservative cause here! Heavens!
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 02:15 am
Debra_Law wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:
But, here's an "actual public record" from the White House:

Quote:
Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

Test for Brandon:

Was Bush lying to us or was he engaged in a satire of his own?

Take all the time you need to figure it out and then report back with your answer.


With the usual illogic of liberals, you have given me the quotation, but not evidence that it's a lie. Further, it would be better if you would specify which sentences in the above quotation you are calling lies.


I asked YOU if Bush was lying when he made the above-quoted statement.

I don't know, but you can't assert that he was unless you present evidence that he was.


You don't know?

Let's take each sentence and try to figure it out.

True or False:

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order.

This sentence is: TRUE

A wiretap requires a court order. Sources: United States Constitution, Fourth Amendment; Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act; Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (Keith), 407 U.S. 297 (1972).

Brandon:

Do you agree that the first sentence of Bush's statement (quoted above) is TRUE? If you agree, we can continue this discussion.

Sorry, link please to the law you quoted.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 05:20 am
zzzzzzzzzz
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 05:31 am
Oprah Vs Bush. Cage match?

Who would win?
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 05:39 am
Oprah would. She could slip in a couple of pretzels between her breasts and put them in bushs mouth. The choke hold is always effective, Even the skinny Oprah could beat him with that strategy.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 05:44 am
Ya know, all joking aside I really thin Oprah would beat up Bush. I can almost see it. It's beautiful.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 05:57 am
bush would have brandon hiding under the ring with a steel chair though.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 05:59 am
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
bush would have brandon hiding under the ring with a steel chair though.

And just when she least expected it, I would pounce! Ha!
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 09:35 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:
But, here's an "actual public record" from the White House:

Quote:
Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

Test for Brandon:

Was Bush lying to us or was he engaged in a satire of his own?

Take all the time you need to figure it out and then report back with your answer.


With the usual illogic of liberals, you have given me the quotation, but not evidence that it's a lie. Further, it would be better if you would specify which sentences in the above quotation you are calling lies.


I asked YOU if Bush was lying when he made the above-quoted statement.

I don't know, but you can't assert that he was unless you present evidence that he was.


You don't know?

Let's take each sentence and try to figure it out.

True or False:

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order.

This sentence is: TRUE

A wiretap requires a court order. Sources: United States Constitution, Fourth Amendment; Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act; Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (Keith), 407 U.S. 297 (1972).

Brandon:

Do you agree that the first sentence of Bush's statement (quoted above) is TRUE? If you agree, we can continue this discussion.

Sorry, link please to the law you quoted.


http://www.google.com/
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 10:47 am
Debra_Law wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:
But, here's an "actual public record" from the White House:

Quote:
Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

Test for Brandon:

Was Bush lying to us or was he engaged in a satire of his own?

Take all the time you need to figure it out and then report back with your answer.


With the usual illogic of liberals, you have given me the quotation, but not evidence that it's a lie. Further, it would be better if you would specify which sentences in the above quotation you are calling lies.


I asked YOU if Bush was lying when he made the above-quoted statement.

I don't know, but you can't assert that he was unless you present evidence that he was.


You don't know?

Let's take each sentence and try to figure it out.

True or False:

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order.

This sentence is: TRUE

A wiretap requires a court order. Sources: United States Constitution, Fourth Amendment; Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act; Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (Keith), 407 U.S. 297 (1972).

Brandon:

Do you agree that the first sentence of Bush's statement (quoted above) is TRUE? If you agree, we can continue this discussion.

Sorry, link please to the law you quoted.


http://www.google.com/

Searching on what? Do you want to prove your case or not?
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 02:47 pm
Again, Brandon, I asked YOU if Bush lied. You said you didn't know.

I asked if YOU agreed whether Bush's first statement--that wiretaps require a court order--was true.

Even when I gave you citations to authority, you're too lazy to look them up yourself to determine if you agree or disagree.

I think you're old enough to blow your own nose and wipe your own butt. If you're too helpless to carry on an adult discussion, go to the kindergarten room and fingerpaint.

Now back to the subject: Is Bush telling the truth when he says that a wiretap requires a court order?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 02:49 pm
Debra_Law wrote:
Again, Brandon, I asked YOU if Bush lied. You said you didn't know.

I asked if YOU agreed whether Bush's first statement--that wiretaps require a court order--was true.

Even when I gave you citations to authority, you're too lazy to look them up yourself to determine if you agree or disagree.

I think you're old enough to blow your own nose and wipe your own butt. If you're too helpless to carry on an adult discussion, go to the kindergarten room and fingerpaint.

Now back to the subject: Is Bush telling the truth when he says that a wiretap requires a court order?

Just give me a citation to the quotation at issue so that I may know if you have represented your source accurately. It's an entirely reasonable request, and if you are unwilling to make your case according to the conventional rules of debate, then you lose.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 02:53 pm
Yes, he was telling the truth. BUT there is an exception when you are secretly monitoring terrorist communications. Obviously the idea of a secret is that no one knows about it... especially those that you are monitoring. According to what I have heard, the allowance of the Bush administration to use any means necessary to defeat the terrorists supercedes the law you have sited.

There has been no evidence of any abuse of the terrorist monitoring program.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 02:58 pm
McG:

Any means necessary? Where do you find authority for Bush to use "any means necessary to defeat the terrorists?"
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 02:59 pm
Quote:
According to what I have heard, the allowance of the Bush administration to use any means necessary to defeat the terrorists supercedes the law you have sited.


There exists no allowance for, or of, the Bush administration, that allows them to use any means neccessary to defeat 'terrorists.' Where is this written?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 03:02 pm
It's paraphrased.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 03:17 pm
McGentrix wrote:
It's paraphrased.
Is that another word for RW spin?
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 03:23 pm
McGentrix wrote:
It's paraphrased.


paraphrased from what?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 03:27 pm
No, it's another word for not wanting to look up the exact wording. You know that I am referring to the congressional resolution passed in the wake of the September 11 attacks that authorized the invasion of Afghanistan and other counterterrorism measures, so why the silly questions?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/28/2021 at 04:51:10