Your rights have been taken away as of today

[Full-Auto]

ask a lawyer you fact adverse clown whos idea of a coegent argument is a silly faced icon

Let me put this out there.


FUCK YOU..

 

[Truthmatters]

Thank you for helping me prove my point

 

[Truthmatters]

Your team constructedd a bill and voted in lock step on it to give Bush extraconstitutional powers.

The hue and cry from the left was there.

They said it was unconstititional.

You passed it anyway and Bush used it as long as he could until the courts caught up with him.

YOU are the party of unconstitutionality

 

[Full-Auto]

The hue and cry from the left was there.

As they voted for it.

 

[Contumacious]

.YOU are the party of unconstitutionality

You are partially correct.

The DEMOPUBLICANS are the party of unconstitutionality.

Republicans and Democrats have been eagerly striving to deprive us of useless freedoms......just so you know.

.

 

[Si modo]

ask a lawyer you fact adverse clown whos idea of a coegent argument is a silly faced icon

It's scary to know that I can decipher that post.

The icon indicates that I have no idea what you said. I can't even decipher what you said.

Get back to us when you can articulate something in English.

Or just post a wiki article and call everyone a liar when you do.

In the meantime, I laugh AT you; and I thank you for that.






Now to my question you dodged: Who lied in the OP and about what did they lie?

 

[RadiomanATL]

ask a lawyer you fact adverse clown whos idea of a coegent argument is a silly faced icon

Yellow polka dotted banana engine cloud!

 

[Synthaholic]

The 7 Senators who voted against this bill:


Sen. Ron Wyden [D, OR] Nay
Sen. Bernard Sanders [I, VT] Nay
Sen. Rand Paul [R, KY] Nay
Sen. Jeff Merkley [D, OR] Nay
Sen. Mike Lee [R, UT] Nay
Sen. Thomas Harkin [D, IA] Nay
Sen. Thomas Coburn [R, OK] Nay


3 Democrats, 3 Republicans, 1 Independent.

 

[Truthmatters]

I cant help that you are just so stupid you cant understand legal documents even with an explaination that makes them clear to any third grader.

 

[Truthmatters]

The 7 Senators who voted against this bill:


Sen. Ron Wyden [D, OR] NaySen. Bernard Sanders [I, VT] NaySen. Rand Paul [R, KY] NaySen. Jeff Merkley [D, OR] NaySen. Mike Lee [R, UT] NaySen. Thomas Harkin [D, IA] NaySen. Thomas Coburn [R, OK] Nay


3 Democrats, 3 Republicans, 1 Independent.

seems pretty clear the objections to the bill were bipartisan huh?

 

[Full-Auto]

ask a lawyer you fact adverse clown whos idea of a coegent argument is a silly faced icon

Yellow polka dotted banana engine cloud!

 

[Si modo]

Does TM have a point?

I'm trying to figure it out. Football hasn't started yet, so this is as good a Sunday morning activity as any.

 

[Si modo]

I cant help that you are just so stupid you cant understand legal documents even with an explaination that makes them clear to any third grader.

Who are you addressing? What legal documents are you talking about? What is your point? Who lied in the OP? About what did they lie?

 

[The T]

The 7 Senators who voted against this bill:


Sen. Ron Wyden [D, OR] NaySen. Bernard Sanders [I, VT] NaySen. Rand Paul [R, KY] NaySen. Jeff Merkley [D, OR] NaySen. Mike Lee [R, UT] NaySen. Thomas Harkin [D, IA] NaySen. Thomas Coburn [R, OK] Nay


3 Democrats, 3 Republicans, 1 Independent.

seems pretty clear the objections to the bill were bipartisan huh?

Your problem.

 

[georgephillip]

.YOU are the party of unconstitutionality

You are partially correct.

The DEMOPUBLICANS are the party of unconstitutionality.

Republicans and Democrats have been eagerly striving to deprive us of useless freedoms......just so you know.

.

At the behest of the richest 1% of Americans who fund their election campaigns.

For thousands of years the richest 1% have consolidated state power and used it for their own selfish ends. The problem didn't start with the US Constitution; however the US Constitution could put an end to it.

Probably NOT by "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat in the voting booth.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Who said you "said" you supported the bill you stupid moron. You have been adamently defending the bill through this entire thread. Such defense makes it apparent that you support the bill or is it just your hatred of other Americans that has caused you to defend it so adamently?

Immie

YOU did.


Are you insane,

saying that the bill does NOT say what the OP claimed it says and then proving it with an actual quote from the bill is NOT supporting it.

You people are just insane.

Oh, so now you are saying that you don't support a bill that you have been defending adamently in a thread of more than 200 posts?

I'm glad to hear that you don't support the illegal detainment of Americans as terrorists. Does that also apply to conservative Americans?

What you fail to understand is that obscure phrases in bills such as this CAN lead to different interpretations of the law in the future which would open up the door to the possibility of the next conservative President declaring members of the Occupy movement to be terrorists and picking out key individuals in the group for illegal detainment.

Those are the same problems that I had in regards to the Patriot Act.

It is not what the current politicians say that concerns me. It is how future politicians interpret what was said that worries me.

Immie

I have reped you to many times, I must wait

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And by the way, TDM, this bills predecessor was the Patriot Act. The acceptance of the Patriot Act is what opened the door for a bill such as this. In ten years, who is to say that Congress won't take this another step along the way to removing our Constitutional protections.

That is why we must raise a stink about anything that even smells of such an attempt.

Immie

And again you are going way over her head.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

clarifing what it says is not supporting it or being against it.

IT IS CLARIFING IT!

Now why are you SOOOO desperate to change the subject?

You haven't even done that yet.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

1031
3

(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States

WHY WON'T YOU ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS?
1. What about those other words like anyone or any person that has been written in this bill?
2. Why did Dianne Feinstein try to get exception to the provision for U.S. citizens?
3. Why did obama say he would veto the bill?
4. Why are there words in the bill that do not clearly state that American citizens are exempt when it uses words such as any one or any person?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I cant help that you are just so stupid you cant understand legal documents even with an explaination that makes them clear to any third grader.

WHY WON'T YOU ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS?
1. What about those other words like anyone or any person that has been written in this bill?
2. Why did Dianne Feinstein try to get exception to the provision for U.S. citizens?
3. Why did obama say he would veto the bill?
4. Why are there words in the bill that do not clearly state that American citizens are exempt when it uses words such as any one or any person?