1
   

Oprah "Freys" President Bush: Read It Here First

 
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 03:27 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 03:29 pm
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?
Don't you mean "Yes, it's another word for not wanting to look up the exact wording?"

The exact wording might not be the way you just represented it so you wouldn't want to use the exact wording.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 03:33 pm
No.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 03:49 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 03:53 pm
Debra_Law wrote:
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.

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.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 03:55 pm
Quote:
It's paraphrased.


No, it isn't. I would like you to point out where this authority is granted. Specifically, where it says 'whatever it takes' to get rid of terrorism.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 04:14 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 04:20 pm
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?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 04:24 pm
<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.....
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 04:26 pm
old europe wrote:
<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.....

After a piercing, trenchant argument like this, what can I do but admit debating defeat.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 04:27 pm
Aww, come on, big boy....


I'll focus again: So you asked DL to provide a source....?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 04:33 pm
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?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 04:38 pm
old europe wrote:
Aww, come on, big boy....


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

If she's going to state an excerpt from the law, I want a link. In fact, I do not trust her in genereal to excerpt accurately. Asking for a link in an online debate is perfectly proper.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 04:44 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Asking for a link in an online debate is perfectly proper.


That's true.

Brandon9000 wrote:
In fact, I do not trust her in genereal to excerpt accurately.


You don't have to.


On the other hand, she provided a lot of information. If you do not trust her, you could verify her claims easily.

And if you'd find out that she was wrong, her argument would loose quite some weight.

But then, if you're not willing or too lazy to verify her claims, it makes you appear as if you're afraid that she might be right.


But that is, of course, merely my opinion...
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 05:02 pm
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?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 05:10 pm
It takes a back seat to party loyalty.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 05:25 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
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?



Telling someone you don't know the answer to the question isn't actually answering the question. It's claiming ignorance.

I tried to help you out. I tried to take you by the hand and help you figure out the answer to the question.

We started with the first line from Bush's quoted statement.

Bush stated that a wiretap requires a court order.

Is Bush's statement true or false?

I provided you with several well-known citations to authority to substantiate the truth of Bush's statement.

If you wanted to read the cited authority, it would take a second to google the cited authority and find the link. I mean, how hard do you suppose it is to find a link to the Fourth Amendment?

Search Hint: Cornell LII

Click on the link provided for Cornell LII and you will find links on that webpage to the Constitution, the United States Code, the Code of Federal Regulations, Federal Rules of Evidence, etc. . . . everything you need!

FISA is in Title 50 of the United States Code. The Statutory Scheme begins at Section 1801:

50 U.S.C. ยง 1801 et seq.

The Criminal Code is in Title 18. With a quick review, you will find the federal wiretap law.

Finding links to the Supreme Court cases is even easier than that. You may simply use the volume number and page number given in the citation to find the case on Findlaw.

Example: DRAPER v. UNITED STATES, 358 U.S. 307 (1959)

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/368/307.html

I have not hindered your ability to read the cited authority, the only thing hampering you is your own laziness. You refuse to type in a simple search and read.

One more time: Do you agree or disagree that Bush's statement is true--that a wiretap requires a court order?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 06:24 pm
Brandon - Bush never lies and nobody can prove he lies.

Deb - Is this statement by Bush the truth?


Brandon - I am not going to believe that statement by Bush is true until you prove it to be true.


Way to support your original statement there Brandon. :wink:
0 Replies
 
John Creasy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 06:41 pm
Oprah sucks
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 07:03 pm
Debra_Law wrote:
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?


Obviously the program is not violating the fourth amendment then. Why is that every congressman that has learned about what the program does has not demanded that it cease? Do you suppose that once they find out the details, they discover that it does not, in fact, break any law?

You, me, we can argue about it until the cows come home, but until the facts are known, and I hope they are not until the program is no longer useful as an intelligence gathering tool, we can only conjecture about whether or not it is against the law.
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 05:34:32