Constitutional Scholars, please reply

What is wrong with this statement.

Published on January 9, 2006 By Dr Guy In Politics

In another example of extreme inebriation, our dislustrious Senator from Taxachusettes, said the following:

Ultimately, the courts will make the final judgment whether the White House has gone too far. Independent and impartial judges must assess the proper balance between protecting our liberties and protecting our national security.

Now this is one of the most senior senators, so one would assume (incorrectly) that he understandst he constitution.

That being a given (he is senior but not a scholar), can anyone tell me how many ways that statement is wrong? Actually, since that is a snippet of this {hic} speech, and not the entire rambling inanities, there are but a few.

But they are MAJOR ones. Not only against an amendment, but against the very basis of the document itself.

Comments (Page 2)

davad70

on Jan 10, 2006

I deleted the rest of your response because it was insulting and off point, as I explained. I quoted the only printable part. Clean up you act, or honor your promise your choice.

What exactly did I lie about? If I had done anything inflammatory or more insulting than the part you quoted you certainly would not have deleted it. You would have happliy left it there for all to see. The part you deleted was in direct response to the question that you posed in this post. There was nothing that needed cleaned up or anything off topic whatsoever. The part you quoted was the only part that was NOT completely on topic. Don't tell me I need to clean up my act, I have done nothing but call a spade a spade. As was described above, you have a long history of this behavior, not I.

davad70

on Jan 10, 2006

Why not let us see the comments of the person you are slamming here and accusing of being a liar, DrG?

That's not gonna happen.

Dr Guy

on Jan 10, 2006

Then why dont you repost it so that Little whip can see? As the others? You dont remember do you? That is ok. And if you are going to beleive everything you read (vis a vis long history) then why do you doubt anything I write?

The truth is I delete very few. But when someone comes on my blog and starts insulting me, I have 2 choices. Black list or delete. Since I do want people to see what you write so they can decide for themself, I deleted, and did not black list you. Let all others see and decide that you cannot tell the truth, and must constantly belittle the author and the work, without sources other than you opinion, or mis understanding for both.

Dr Guy

on Jan 10, 2006

That's not gonna happen.

Because you are afraid to show it? After all, I already admitted I did not save it.

davad70

on Jan 10, 2006

Then why dont you repost it so that Little whip can see? As the others? You dont remember do you? That is ok.

I do remember very well what I posted. I did post it after all. You're MO tells me that you would just claim that's not what I wrote originally anyways, so why bother?

Since I do want people to see what you write so they can decide for themself, I deleted, and did not black list you.

That makes a lot of sense there. How are others to decide for themselves if you deleted the comment??

Let all others see and decide that you cannot tell the truth, and must constantly belittle the author and the work, without sources other than you opinion, or mis understanding for both.

That's the best example of the pot calling the kettle black I've ever heard. Everyone knows that you post sources for most of your articles. That is, afterall what most of your posts are...links to stories. As far as me belittling people, that's just outlandish coming from you. The only people on this site that have ever come close to being insulted by me are yourself and the other doc. How many people around here have you belittled or insulted? I gladly admit to belittling your "work" because it is filled with misinformation most of the time. And I challenge you to show me one of your posts where I belittle it, without citing a source which indicates as much. I'll even clip a little into here for you.

Apparently, 4 weeks before 9-11-01, Zacarias Moussaoui was detained and questioned by the FBI based upon a tip from this flight school. The FBI, being good law abiding citizens they are, went to the FISA to obtain a search warrant for Zacarias Moussaoui's laptop. The court not only rejected the request, they even reprimanded Michael Resnick, the FBI officer in charge!

After you posted that I showed that it was false by linking showing no warrant requests were denied;Link

As well as a statement from someone involved in the case;

Consider the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the French Moroccan who came to the FBI's attention before Sept. 11 because he had asked a Minnesota flight school for lessons on how to steer an airliner, but not on how to take off or land. Even with this report, and with information from French intelligence that Moussaoui had been associating with Chechen rebels, the Justice Department decided there was not sufficient evidence to get a FISA warrant to allow the inspection of his computer files.Link

The disciplining of the FBI agent had nothing to do with this specific case.

So why is it that you are blaming this on the FISA court? And why would you speculate that the Judge may have resigned in shame when his court was never even asked by DOJ for a warrant?

Dr Guy

on Jan 10, 2006

That is, afterall what most of your posts are...links to stories.

No, the stories are the start of my opinions. Then I opine based upon reputable (some would say less than) sources. You never do. That is your short coming. Not mine. So lets see what you have said now......

Dr Guy

on Jan 10, 2006

Apparently, 4 weeks before 9-11-01, Zacarias Moussaoui was detained and questioned by the FBI based upon a tip from this flight school. The FBI, being good law abiding citizens they are, went to the FISA to obtain a search warrant for Zacarias Moussaoui's laptop. The court not only rejected the request, they even reprimanded Michael Resnick, the FBI officer in charge!

After you posted that I showed that it was false by linking showing no warrant requests were denied;Link

Now why dont you post that over there? That has nothing to do with this topic, AS I STATED!

And you used a global qualifier and not a local one. As I POINTED out.

And then you called me a liar. Which you did not back up. Again showing that you do not know how to debate and dragging your falsehoods over to this issue (which I really wanted to keep on topic, but you do insist).

So let Little WHip read this and understand her folly in supporting a liberal. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Except I am not her enemy except in her own mind. And yours apparently.

Now, do you see why I deleted the original? I refuted you on that link and did not care to transfer it over. So why do you perisist in your fantasy that it was on topic?

davad70

on Jan 10, 2006

Now why dont you post that over there?

I did post that over there.

And then you called me a liar. Which you did not back up. Again showing that you do not know how to debate and dragging your falsehoods over to this issue (which I really wanted to keep on topic, but you do insist).

Actually if you read, it is "backed up". You said the FISA court rejected the case. They never heard a case regarding Zacarias Moussaoui because neither the FBI or DOJ brought it to them.

Now, do you see why I deleted the original? I refuted you on that link and did not care to transfer it over. So why do you perisist in your fantasy that it was on topic?

On the contrary, I do see why you deleted it. Because you have issues with the truth.
I still contend that if it was off topic or inappropriate you would have definitely left it...to "back up" your ramblings.

Dr Guy

on Jan 11, 2006

You never will, and you never refuted me. instead, like most liberals you merely changed the parameters of the debate to frame your point, when, since I wrote the original, you never addressed. And you still have not.

I am closing this one since no one else wants to comment, and you STILL cannot keep it on topic. I would call you a slow learner, but then my nephew is DS and he is smarter than you.

Dr Guy

on Jan 20, 2006

Reply By: little_whipPosted: Tuesday, January 10, 2006
It's pretty distasteful to delete my reply, but then quote part of it. In effect, you've edited my own post.

Don't feel bad, davad, this is a common practice of his, and he's done it to me too, simply deletes anything that doesn't prop up his own self-inflated ego or anything that proves him wrong.

As a matter of fact, I'll bet he deletes this too.

Why not let us see the comments of the person you are slamming here and accusing of being a liar, DrG? Making such accusations and then deleting the responses of the accused is just as bad as flaming someone and preventing them from defending themselves by blacklisting them.

I'm not telling you what to do, of course, just "offering some alternatives," as you so love to do for everybody else.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!