Thread: Judge: Wiretapping surveillance program unconstitutional

Nowhere did I say that "people who support the government support tyranny.

Previously you said:

Again, if you believe that the government should be allowed to tap private phone conversations without a warrant, you are, by definition, supporting tyranny

People can look at that and decide for themselves what to make of that.

And no, I'm not desparate. Just pointing out that you financially support those you oppose as much as the rest of us taxpayers do.

Seems to me that for whatever reason you just want to keep on and on. So, by all means .... keep going.

LadyDrake, you asked why I would leave you to answer CrocketsGhost, Past, perhaps it is because I am not at all sure what he really said. I think Crockett must be either a lawyer or a Senator in disguise, and I know you could answer him much better then I ever could. CrockettsGhost, I am pulling your chain a little and having a bit of fun at my own expense. I try hard not to take myself so seriously all the time, I know this is a serious subject and a sore subject for many so I apologize if you think I am taking it to lightly in this post. LadyDrake didn't mean to infer you were a lawyer or a senator, only that I had great faith in your ability to understand what he said.

Originally Posted by Ladydrake

Nowhere did I say that "people who support the government support tyranny.

Previously you said:

[quote:19zjfiec]Again, if you believe that the government should be allowed to tap private phone conversations without a warrant, you are, by definition, supporting tyranny

People can look at that and decide for themselves what to make of that.

And no, I'm not desparate. Just pointing out that you financially support those you oppose as much as the rest of us taxpayers do.

Seems to me that for whatever reason you just want to keep on and on. So, by all means .... keep going.[/quote:19zjfiec]
What the hell is that supposed to mean? I said quite plainly that there is a difference between supporting the government and supporting specific policies that are tyrannical. Do you even understand the definitions of tyranny or usurpation?

Now as for financial support, you have no idea what sort of taxes I pay or do not pay, so that's another flawed premise.

I've seen people get defensive when their errors are pointed out, but SHEESH!

Originally Posted by nittygritty

LadyDrake, you asked why I would leave you to answer CrocketsGhost, Past, perhaps it is because I am not at all sure what he really said. I think Crockett must be either a lawyer or a Senator in disguise, and I know you could answer him much better then I ever could. CrockettsGhost, I am pulling your chain a little and having a bit of fun at my own expense. I try hard not to take myself so seriously all the time, I know this is a serious subject and a sore subject for many so I apologize if you think I am taking it to lightly in this post. LadyDrake didn't mean to infer you were a lawyer or a senator, only that I had great faith in your ability to understand what he said.

Wow. You guys can't logically or even ethically defend your premise so you pretend to not understand the contrary argument and Ladydrake claims I said things that I never said. With those sorts of manipulations, you guys should be working for the illegal alien agenda!

LadyDrake, you asked why I would leave you to answer CrocketsGhost, Past, perhaps it is because I am not at all sure what he really said.

Yeah, I can see how that could be the case.

LadyDrake didn't mean to infer you were a lawyer or a senator, only that I had great faith in your ability to understand what he said.

Nah, I don't think there's any question that I'm neither of those things.

Thanks for the vote of confidence ... I think.

What the hell is that supposed to mean. I said quite plainly that there is a difference between supporting the government and supporting specific policies that are tyrannical. do you even understand the definitions of tyranny or usurpation?

I see you hold yourself to a double standard. You question my ability to understand what you "said quite plainly" yet you've shown you seem to lack the same comprehension skills you wish to hold me to.

Now as for financial support, you have no idea what osrt of taxes I pay or do not pay, so that's another flawed premise.

The only way it would be flawed is if you pay absolutely no taxes at all ever on anything. Is that what you are telling me? That you pay none at all?

I've seen people get defensive when their errors are pointed out, but SHEESH!

Yeah! First two quotes are great examples.

Wow. You guys can't logically or even ethically defend your premise so you pretend to not understand the contrary argument

Is it your contention that you know for a fact that nitty is pretending to not understand you? Wow. Neat trick.

and Ladydrake claims I said things that I never said.

Kinda sucks when someone does that to you doesn't it? Maybe you'll remember that next time you do it to someone else.

With those sorts of manipulations, you guys should be working for the illegal alien agenda!

You accused me of being desparate and then you say that?

Keep going Crocket, I'm sure the next rant that comes from you will probably prove entertaining.

Ok, I've had my fun. I'm done.

Let me ask the ALIPAC members against the wiretapping this: Would you support wiretapping if there was a way it could be used to deport a bulk of the 12-20 million illegal immigrants currently residing and working in the United States?

Sorry, got caught up with crocket. Anyway ... if there was a way, I'm not sure how it would help physically remove them from the country. I mean it's pretty easy to find them. And they seem to be rather proud of the fact they are illegal, so you could just ask them.

CrockettsGhost, Quote:

Wow. You guys can't logically or even ethically defend your premise so you pretend to not understand the contrary argument and Ladydrake claims I said things that I never said. With those sorts of manipulations, you guys should be working for the illegal alien agenda!

Crockett, you are way out of line man, does it make you feel a bigger man in your eyes to try to reduce those who think differently then you to being in your words, without logic and ethics? I would like to beg our pardon here, I am as ethical a person as you evidently think yourself to be. I am that, without trying to demean others or to try to make them look small in others minds just becasue they in your opinion fail to measure up to your standards of "logical and ethical way's of thinking" to defend what we believe. Then to say we should be working for the illegal alien agenda? I think that statement is beneath you Crockett, and you should be man enough to apologize to LadyDrake for that crack! That was totally uncalled for.
LadyDrake before you get all over me for coming to your defense as I well know, you need no one to defend you as you are quite capable of that yourself. That is just the way my dad raised me, to defend the injustices done to women and children and to some men who can not defend theirselves for whatever reason.
CrockettsGhost, my dad also told me one more thing, he said there was smart men, intelligent men and educated fools, I am not calling you a fool, I am saying what you said made yourself appear to be very foolish .

Originally Posted by Ladydrake

What the hell is that supposed to mean. I said quite plainly that there is a difference between supporting the government and supporting specific policies that are tyrannical. do you even understand the definitions of tyranny or usurpation?

I see you hold yourself to a double standard. You question my ability to understand what you "said quite plainly" yet you've shown you seem to lack the same comprehension skills you wish to hold me to.

False! I made quite clear that I was referring to specific governmental actions, yet you tried to expand my comment to include any support whatsoever for the government. Your comment was either intentionally disingenuous or further evidence of a serious comprehension problem.

Originally Posted by Ladydrake

Now as for financial support, you have no idea what osrt of taxes I pay or do not pay, so that's another flawed premise.

The only way it would be flawed is if you pay absolutely no taxes at all ever on anything. Is that what you are telling me? That you pay none at all?

First off, I am not telling a perfect (or patently imperfect) stranget about my tax status. Second, your premise makes no sense whatsoever. As I PLAINLY stated above, there are legitimate purposes for government for which taxation is a necessity. You are running yourslef into senseless circles trying to defend your earlier indefensible posts.

Originally Posted by Ladydrake

I've seen people get defensive when their errors are pointed out, but SHEESH!

Yeah! First two quotes are great examples.

Ah, now you've degenerated to the "rubber/glue" gambit. Sad.

Originally Posted by Ladydrake

Wow. You guys can't logically or even ethically defend your premise so you pretend to not understand the contrary argument

Is it your contention that you know for a fact that nitty is pretending to not understand you? Wow. Neat trick.

I am stating my opinion, predicated on the pattern that is emerging in the desperate attempt you to are making to support a fatally flawed premise and to avoid answering any logical rebuttals of that position.

Originally Posted by Ladydrake

and Ladydrake claims I said things that I never said.

Kinda sucks when someone does that to you doesn't it? Maybe you'll remember that next time you do it to someone else.

Now you are demonstrating again that you had rather LIE than defend yourself. I only argued against the premise that you quite clearly defended as being equally valid to its counterpoint. You really have a problem being wrong, and are taking it to absurd and pathetic extremes.

Originally Posted by Ladydrake

With those sorts of manipulations, you guys should be working for the illegal alien agenda!

You accused me of being desparate and then you say that?

Keep going Crocket, I'm sure the next rant that comes from you will probably prove entertaining.

Ok, I've had my fun. I'm done.

You may have had fun, but you didn't do jack squat to support your sorry argument. If your idea of fun is to be logically beaten to a pulp, then I can see myself providing you with hours of future amusement.

Originally Posted by nittygritty

CrockettsGhost, Quote:

Wow. You guys can't logically or even ethically defend your premise so you pretend to not understand the contrary argument and Ladydrake claims I said things that I never said. With those sorts of manipulations, you guys should be working for the illegal alien agenda!

Crockett, you are way out of line man, does it make you feel a bigger man in your eyes to try to reduce those who think differently then you to being in your words, without logic and ethics? I would like to beg our pardon here, I am as ethical a person as you evidently think yourself to be. I am that, without trying to demean others or to try to make them look small in others minds just becasue they in your opinion fail to measure up to your standards of "logical and ethical way's of thinking" to defend what we believe. Then to say we should be working for the illegal alien agenda? I think that statement is beneath you Crockett, and you should be man enough to apologize to LadyDrake for that crack! That was totally uncalled for.
LadyDrake before you get all over me for coming to your defense as I well know, you need no one to defend you as you are quite capable of that yourself. That is just the way my dad raised me, to defend the injustices done to women and children and to some men who can not defend theirselves for whatever reason.
CrockettsGhost, my dad also told me one more thing, he said there was smart men, intelligent men and educated fools, I am not calling you a fool, I am saying what you said made yourself appear to be very foolish .

Look, Nitty, what you have done is to provide an absurd premise, for which I took you to task. Neither you nor your dissembling friend has even made a token effort to rebut a single logical counterpoint that I have made or to address the fundamental ethical errors of your premise that I have pointed out. Instead, one of you (and now both) has engaged in pathetic ad hominem assaults while the other (that's you) pretends not to understand the arguments. This is not adult debate, I'm sorry to say, but rather the rhetorical equivalent of poor sportsmanship.

My purpose in this debate was not to make either of you look bad, but rather to point out the glaring errors of your position and the potential danger for the future of this country the proliferation of such a mindset poses. For my efforts, I have been subjected to an escalating series of personal attacks utterly unrelated to the question at hand. You don't seem to understand the difference between having your premise attacked and being personally attacked, and so you have returned attacks on your premise and your refusal to address the actual counterpoints made with ad hominem attacks on me while totally avoiding the issues raised. That's really bad form on a political discussion site.

I have mostly agreed with both of you in the past, but we are clearly in disagreement on this point. The difference is that I have constitutional law and the very premise of the rule of law on my side while you have only personal preference on yours. That is the point I have been trying to make. We cannot set aside the Constitution because you and a few other Americans think it should be set aside. If you truly believe that there is a problem with some of our guaranteed rights, go the proper route and see if enough Americans agree with you to pass an amendment. Otherwise, I'll thank you kindly to not tread on me.