Poindexter?

[Nic Name]

That's a handy feature to get through a period of adjustment to a new community.

Been there ... done that.

I think of the ignore feature as training wheels. If it keeps you going, great, but you'll soon want to ride no hands, no feet, like the rest of us.

I don't think anyone is to thank for pushing anyone else from a thread. I don't think that was Cairo's intent nor her effect. So, it's probably not fair to thank someone for something they didn't intend as it sort of puts your reaction onto them.

Anyway, it's probably just that Jag has forgotten his medication.

[slang]

Well now that we got that solved, I have to look into unconfirmed reports that Bill Gates is on the missing OKC sealed footage.

[Griff]

I don't know Jag, letting these two temporary characters get under your skin doesn't make much sense. I've pretty much stopped reading their stuff. Slang occasionally showed some potential early on, but Cairo is obviously posting from a middle school somewhere.

[Nic Name]

Originally posted by Jag

If you can't see the link between patriotism and McCarthy and how it relates to this i'm clearly wasting my time here.

:p

[Griff]

See what you miss when you give up on a thread?

Originally posted by Cairo
Seems you are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing!...Does that mean you are "full of shit" as well? Give some proof.

It seems to me as though you were the one with the ridiculous accusation. And as far as I recall, in general debate (and in courts), the burden of proof is on the accuser. Nic has provided links and evidence to show that Lana Padilla is of no relation to Jose Padilla. You have yet to provide <b>anything</b>. I'm not going to do your homework for you. I've already wasted enough time reading about how Lana Padilla and Jose Padilla are not related. The only evidence you can provide are a few webpages from some nutjob publications that, conveniently, are pay only. And, conveniently, you don't feel like paying. You come in, drop something like a Terry Nichols/Jose Padilla connection, offer no proof whatsoever and expect everyone to believe it? You'll pardon me if I ask you to put up first.

Nic earlier provided a link to the Wall Street Journal. Show me an equally respected publication (maybe U.S. News & World Report? New York Times? Washington Times? Newsweek?) that makes the link between the two. Until then, your argument looks exactly how it did before: bogus.

[hermit22]

Originally posted by Cairo
Confining ones research to a major newspaper is, I think, what the Communists do...am I right?

Confining one's research to what they saw posted on an anonymous board somewhere is, I think, what people in tin foil hats do...am I right?

[hermit22]

It's a sad state of affairs that we've lost two members of the community recently. Unfortunately, it happened to be 2 members that I often agree with in this topic, and who back me up (and I in turn). So I'm sad.

It's ridiculous that they were driven out by someone who can't even formulate a cohesive argument. I understand that they were insulted, and wasting their time, but at some point, but it is always good for intellectual growth to see the arguments of the other side - even if those arguments are provided by a generally incoherent insulter that doesn't seem to have any memory for history or talent for critical analysis.

So anyway, Jag, don't get so upset. They know not what they do. Or anything else, it seems.

[wolf]

Originally posted by slang


<h3> And another thing, where in the hell is the ACLU in defense of 2a issues? </h3>

I've wondered that for years ... the aclu seems to pick and choose the bits of the constitution and bill of rights it defends. (The majority of their focus is first amendment issues)

Frankly, I think that if they DID get behind 2a issues, they'd alienate a lot of their paying supporters (sad as that may sound).

[Hubris Boy]

Of courues, haveing Jag bak yooi upon anyythng arguemtn ina mthread is liike haveng Al Gore endrose yopur canddidacy fro prsdenit, isnt it?

I suspect young Jag's outburst is due more to fatigue and the stress of taking his final exams than anything else. He'll be back by and by, after he's had a couple of good nights sleep. After all, he's put up with far worse abuse than anything these two mouthbreathers are capable of dishing out.

[wolf]

Originally posted by jaguar
If you can't see the link between patriotism and McCarthy and how it relates to this i'm clearly wasting my time here.

Perhaps if you'd have elaborated on this statement, rather than just repeating it a couple of time, you might have generated some discussion on this aspect pf the topic ... speaking english louder and more slowly does NOT make the foreigner understand you better ... it just gets everybody more confused!

[hermit22]

Originally posted by Hubris Boy
Of courues, haveing Jag bak yooi upon anyythng arguemtn ina mthread is liike haveng Al Gore endrose yopur canddidacy fro prsdenit, isnt it?

Maybe, but he's not the only one. Plus, I actually kind of like Al Gore. So there. :P

btw, I love your sig. I've been hearing that whooshing sound a lot lately.

[elSicomoro]

Jag, stop acting normal...get back here!

What's up with all the bullheadedness lately? I'm all for people standing up for what they believe, but sheesh...

[Cairo]

dave,
To me, the ridiculous accusation is that they are definately NOT related. One person's word, does not make something fact or truth. As past experience has shown, we were told to believe,"I did not have sexual relations with that woman..." as well. It was a crock!
Marriage certificates and birth certificates do cost money to obtain, so if you need proof, I'm not going to finance your homework for you.
I am simply contending that while no one has bothered to prove it, no one has been able to disprove it either...so, I keep an open mind, and accept all information. Instead of just thinking inside the convienence box.

How about MSNBC? Are they worthy of your nice, neat little box?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/769535.asp

Oh, and the ACLU is akin to the KGB when it comes to brainwashing and scare tactics. Foreign Intelligence is the key word here...if it doesn't have to do with CIA Foreign Intelligence, the F.I.S.C. can not hear the matter.
Read the official decision, not the Socialist spin.

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fisc051702.html

[slang]

Originally posted by Cairo Oh, and the ACLU is akin to the KGB when it comes to brainwashing and scare tactics. Foreign Intelligence is the key word here...if it doesn't have to do with CIA Foreign Intelligence, the F.I.S.C. can not hear the matter.

First off I'd like to say that having some supporting documents makes your argument that much easier to follow. That doesnt mean that if someone posts a link it automatically supports their position, but it's very helpful to understand how someone formed an opinion. You did that, and I appreciate it.

Since you are one of the very few here that doesnt think I'm some dumb ass mouth breather, I really hate to disagree with you on this. This is what I found though, and it supports my original opinion that this whole mess is the wrong way to go.

The original article I posted that mentioned the FISC was from the ACLU homepage and is on page 4 of this thread. The ACLU claims that:

"Ruling for the first time in its history, the ultra-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review today gave the green light to a Justice Department bid to broadly expand its powers to spy on U.S. citizens."

I agree with that statement. Not just from my gut feeling that government is out to screw us all, but from the decision of the Appeals Court. The ACLU column is dated Nov. 18 '02 and says ""As of today," she said, "the Attorney General can suspend......blah, blah ,blah. The Appeals Court ruling was handed down Nov. 18 '02

The article you posted for review was relevant, but the verbage specifically addressing FBI, DOJ, and FISA was detailing the changes in FISA from the Patriot Act (HR 3162) which was passes on Oct. 25, '01 The heading on your reference document also says "MEMORANDUM OPINION (AS CORRECTED AND AMENDED)" and is dated May 17, 02. This is the case that the FISA rejected the changes in the law regarding suspected US terrorists. The DOJ appealed the decision you cited, which was in favor of keeping the laws in question as they have been. The Nov 18. 02 decision overturned the May 17 , 02, the lower court's ruling.

Last May, in a historic first, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court (FISA) made public a unanimous decision rejecting the government’s bid for expanded spying powers.

<a href="http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/newsroom/02-001.pdf ">So this brings us to the ruling of Nov. 18, 02.</a> that has set the new rules for the FISA's dealings with "United States Persons"

This is the key sentence:

After careful reviews of the briefs filed by the government and amici, we conclude that FISA, as amended by the Patriot Act, supports the government's postition and the restrictions imposed by the FISA court are not required by FISA or the Constitution.

So what the hell does all this mean? You can use FISA to spy on a "US person" per a DOJ request, if you have "detailed information" (which shouldnt be too hard to arrange with the new system) that implicates them in international terror. Now lets look at the legal definition of the phrase "detailed information" (NOT)

Take a look over my information. I might have come to the wrong conclusion here, but I think I got it nailed

Does it really matter? I dont know. BUT, the DOJ now does have access to FISA. Wonderful, the world is now a better place.