While I am getting used to flat out ignorance from you Fidoohki - I will be addressing
that shortly, I think your poisonous, immoral, and overwhelmingly trite statement, as reproduced below, should be addressed first.
Reality trumping ideology? Ending in another
tragedy.
While personal attack is not a telling argument, I will at this point note that you would
be unable to find your arse without both hands, a flashlight, and a highly trained, and motivated ass seeking dog.
You seem to be laboring under the false impression that the world is both fair and
safe. Fair is where you go on the pony rides and safe is what inevitably falls on Wile E. Coyote. The safe is Acme. Which you are not.
You are willing to give up the freedoms and rights guaranteed by the constitution so that
innocents will not suffer and tragedies will not occur. This is the basis of your argument. Sorry bubble-boy the world
is not, nor has it ever been a safe place.
Let us step away from your bare faced cowardice for a moment and examine where this line
of thought takes us. Drunk driving deaths accounted for 17, 941 deaths in 2006.
More than died in the 911 attacks. By your tortuous logic, steps should be taken to prevent this, even if it
means wiping your ass with the constitution and stripping your freedom away and tossing it naked and wriggling to the roadies.
All vehicles should be fitted with breathalyzers, GPS locators, and constant monitoring. Every movement of the
vehicle tracked at all times, in all places. Better add constant Finger print/DNA identification and retention on vehicles, to ensure that the driver is
identified, with a national tracking database of both bits of information in order to close the loop on the process.
Why not? If you don't you then have to
explain to every single victim why you did not take these actions.
This is the crux of your argument, applied to a different, even deadlier,
scenario. With the appropriate inflation of response.
So on to the flat out ignorance part of this message.
You noted that I belabored the point of your personal laziness. With good reason, and doubly demonstrated in your response, even after you were called
out on that deliberate ignorance.
I will leave off for a moment your analogy to California and marriage, as it is an inappropriate comparison. Marriage in California at
the time was legal. At no point, at any time, was warrantless wiretapping - in the manner conducted - legal.
Wartime powers not being defined until after this happened? You ignorant twat. No, seriously. Ignorant, lazy, twat.
Wartime powers are laid out in the fucking constitution, the individual roles of the President as Commander in Chief (Hint ARTICLE II), and the
Congress. They were not subject to debate or not defined. You lazy, deliberately ignorant choad. Perhaps you are confused about the AUMF. Perhaps you are confused by awareness of sound
and light and Big Bird.
What the Constitution, and the AUMF do not allow for is the President to break the
fucking law. Any act that he authorizes under either of those powers much be constitutional. Period. Full-fucking-stop.
Yes. Yes there is an obvious need to spike the ball.
What a load of shit with a side order of chips. As I pointed out in the drunk driving
analogy before, your overreaching trite statement can be achingly applied to any preventable tragedy; with the same Constituion raping results.
that shortly, I think your poisonous, immoral, and overwhelmingly trite statement, as reproduced below, should be addressed first.
Quote: All the beliefs and well wishes in the world won't stop a bullet in flgiht. It's a matter of Reality
trumping Idealogy and if you refuse to acknowledge
the former it will most likely end in another 'y'... Tragedy.
Reality trumping ideology? Ending in another
tragedy.
While personal attack is not a telling argument, I will at this point note that you would
be unable to find your arse without both hands, a flashlight, and a highly trained, and motivated ass seeking dog.
You seem to be laboring under the false impression that the world is both fair and
safe. Fair is where you go on the pony rides and safe is what inevitably falls on Wile E. Coyote. The safe is Acme. Which you are not.
You are willing to give up the freedoms and rights guaranteed by the constitution so that
innocents will not suffer and tragedies will not occur. This is the basis of your argument. Sorry bubble-boy the world
is not, nor has it ever been a safe place.
Let us step away from your bare faced cowardice for a moment and examine where this line
of thought takes us. Drunk driving deaths accounted for 17, 941 deaths in 2006.
More than died in the 911 attacks. By your tortuous logic, steps should be taken to prevent this, even if it
means wiping your ass with the constitution and stripping your freedom away and tossing it naked and wriggling to the roadies.
All vehicles should be fitted with breathalyzers, GPS locators, and constant monitoring. Every movement of the
vehicle tracked at all times, in all places. Better add constant Finger print/DNA identification and retention on vehicles, to ensure that the driver is
identified, with a national tracking database of both bits of information in order to close the loop on the process.
Why not? If you don't you then have to
explain to every single victim why you did not take these actions.
This is the crux of your argument, applied to a different, even deadlier,
scenario. With the appropriate inflation of response.
So on to the flat out ignorance part of this message.
You noted that I belabored the point of your personal laziness. With good reason, and doubly demonstrated in your response, even after you were called
out on that deliberate ignorance.
Quote: Fair enough. It was around right after 9/11 and it was at the request of a sitting 'wartime' president.
Now since Wartime powers weren't
really defined til a few years after this happened should they be retroactivey punished for it? I mean this isn't much different than those idiots
in California that want to nullify gay marraiges. Retroactively punishing people because the rules changed is just nuts.
I will leave off for a moment your analogy to California and marriage, as it is an inappropriate comparison. Marriage in California at
the time was legal. At no point, at any time, was warrantless wiretapping - in the manner conducted - legal.
Wartime powers not being defined until after this happened? You ignorant twat. No, seriously. Ignorant, lazy, twat.
Wartime powers are laid out in the fucking constitution, the individual roles of the President as Commander in Chief (Hint ARTICLE II), and the
Congress. They were not subject to debate or not defined. You lazy, deliberately ignorant choad. Perhaps you are confused about the AUMF. Perhaps you are confused by awareness of sound
and light and Big Bird.
What the Constitution, and the AUMF do not allow for is the President to break the
fucking law. Any act that he authorizes under either of those powers much be constitutional. Period. Full-fucking-stop.
Quote: Yes yes. You chastized me before on that. Point made. No need to spike the ball.
Yes. Yes there is an obvious need to spike the ball.
Quote: Wise and profound words but cold confort to the loved ones of people that died in an act that might have been prevented
if you didn't want to be 'inconvienced.'
What a load of shit with a side order of chips. As I pointed out in the drunk driving
analogy before, your overreaching trite statement can be achingly applied to any preventable tragedy; with the same Constituion raping results.