Oprah "Freys" President Bush: Read It Here First

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.

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?

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?

Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

We're not debating, Brandon.

I asked YOU a question.

If you do not have the intellectual capacity to answer the question just say so.

It's paraphrased.

I have answered every question you've asked and you know it. Not my fault if you refuse to furnish a link to your citation. Such a request is prototypical of what happens in debating. I won't take your word that you have excerpted the law correctly. Either give the requested link or admit that you can't make your case.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I have answered every question you've asked and you know it. Not my fault if you refuse to furnish a link to your citation. Such a request is prototypical of what happens in debating. I won't take your word that you have excerpted the law correctly. Either give the requested link or admit that you can't make your case.

No, Brandon, you haven't answered ANY questions.

Try again: Was Bush telling the truth when he said a wiretap requires a court order?

If you lack the intellectual capacity to figure out the answer to that question, just say so.

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

Was Bush telling the truth when he said a wiretap requires a court order?

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

<snicker>

This is funny:

Debra_Law wrote:

Was Bush telling the truth when he said a wiretap requires a court order?

Brandon9000 wrote:

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

Teeheheheeee.....

McGentrix wrote:

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?

The AUMF does not authorize Bush to violate the Fourth Amendment. The AUMF does not expressly or implicitly repeal FISA. The AUMF does not authorize Bush to bypass FISA. The AUMF and FISA are not irreconcilable. FISA specifically allows the government to conduct electronic surveillance without a court order for fifteen days immediately after a war is commenced.

Aww, come on, big boy....


I'll focus again: So you asked DL to provide a source....?

Asking for a link in an online debate is perfectly proper.

In fact, I do not trust her in genereal to excerpt accurately.

Debra_Law wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

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?

The AUMF does not authorize Bush to violate the Fourth Amendment. The AUMF does not expressly or implicitly repeal FISA. The AUMF does not authorize Bush to bypass FISA. The AUMF and FISA are not irreconcilable. FISA specifically allows the government to conduct electronic surveillance without a court order for fifteen days immediately after a war is commenced.

According to the Attorney General of the US it does. Do you have access to more information than he does? Are you a more experienced lawyer dealing with these cases than he is? Do you feel that your opinion carries more weight in this matter than his does?

Debra_Law wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I have answered every question you've asked and you know it. Not my fault if you refuse to furnish a link to your citation. Such a request is prototypical of what happens in debating. I won't take your word that you have excerpted the law correctly. Either give the requested link or admit that you can't make your case.

No, Brandon, you haven't answered ANY questions.

Try again: Was Bush telling the truth when he said a wiretap requires a court order?

If you lack the intellectual capacity to figure out the answer to that question, just say so.

Seems like I answered this one several posts back:

Brandon9000 wrote:

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

Gosh, I'm sorry I asked you to cite your source! That was improper, wasn't it?

McGentrix wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

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?

The AUMF does not authorize Bush to violate the Fourth Amendment. The AUMF does not expressly or implicitly repeal FISA. The AUMF does not authorize Bush to bypass FISA. The AUMF and FISA are not irreconcilable. FISA specifically allows the government to conduct electronic surveillance without a court order for fifteen days immediately after a war is commenced.

According to the Attorney General of the US it does. Do you have access to more information than he does? Are you a more experienced lawyer dealing with these cases than he is? Do you feel that your opinion carries more weight in this matter than his does?

You are wrong. The AG has never said the AUMF authorizes Bush to violate the Fourth Amendment. Only a moron would allege that a congressional statute or resolution can trump the Constitution.

I have extensive legal education, training, and experience--more than enough to know that the Attorney General's legal argument based on the AUMF is without merit. Leading constitutional / legal scholars throughout the nation have evaluated the AG's legal argument and have found it to be without merit.

It doesn't take a lawyer, however, to know that warrantless governmental searchs and seizures of our private communications are contrary to our fundamental constitutional principles. Where's your common sense?