Where were you?

[o_general levy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

How very ironic.

Actually I just gave you some hard facts and figures on Congress voting records re the Patriot Act to back up my point that the Democratic Process can and will lead to change in this area.

but you just like to come back with (not very) witty repostes.

Touche! On Guard, ekim's about! What Not!

[o_general levy]

Originally Posted by RobG

Also, the fact is that although the US government may be doing some things that we really can't understand, at least we know about it, to the extent that individual statements from prisoners that damn the actions of that government were declassified and released. If they weren't at all trustworthy, we wouldn't even know about it. As it is, they will have to reveal a very good reason as to why they are doing what they're doing, or be tried as criminals.

I think that reason would be called interrogation of terrorists Rob

I don't think its any coincidence that the guys in Guantanamo right now were picked up in Afghanistan fighting for the Taleban, while they were harbouring OBL. Even Richard Reed went over there to train - its was Terrorist Central for most of the 1990s at any rate.

And I don't think its another coincidence that the British guys they released from there haven't given any interviews, or revealed themselves to the media at all. On the contrary, they're under 24 hour surveillance by MI5. Obviously the Gov knows something we don't here about these people and we have to trust them.

[o_ekim]

Originally Posted by General Levy

Actually I just gave you some hard facts and figures on Congress voting records re the Patriot Act to back up my point that the Democratic Process can and will lead to change in this area.!

Originally Posted by General Levy

The final vote was 257-171 this summer. The bill makes permanent 14 of 16 provisions in the act set to expire next year and extends two others for another 10 years.

Please. You can quote stuff you read on the bbc website all you like but if you don't understand it and can't draw sensible conclusions, don't bother. The July vote overthrew most of the December2005 sunsets, with a large majority. That indicates they are more likely to become a permenant part of law, not less.

but you just like to come back with (not very) witty repostes.

Touche! On Guard, ekim's about! What Not!

See my previous post..

[o_robg]

Originally Posted by In his previous post, ekiM

Obviously Travis is joking. I mean, everyone knows we can trust the government, right?

[o_ekim]

That is, indeed, an example of one of my previous posts. Now try and use context to figure out which specific post I was actually refering to.

It's hard to take a smartass seriously when he doesn't understand the difference between "previous" and "last".

[o_travis dane]

Originally Posted by RobG

I don't call people who with demonstrable good reason distrust their government paranoid.

Well I already gave away one reason: Guantanamo Bay. They didn't just build a prison there because they liked the Cuban landscape. Also: The Patriot Act and not to mention the war in Iraq that was (knowingly) based on false evidence. Things that aren't exactly encouraging me to trust the government. These examples happen to involve the US government, but I can just as easy point out things more closer to home. After all, corruption is universal.

Also, the fact is that although the US government may be doing some things that we really can't understand, at least we know about it, to the extent that individual statements from prisoners that damn the actions of that government were declassified and released. If they weren't at all trustworthy, we wouldn't even know about it.

Not good enough I'm affraid, for a nation that claims to be the most democratic and free country in the world.

As it is, they will have to reveal a very good reason as to why they are doing what they're doing, or be tried as criminals.

Who? The politicians or the pronounced 'terrorists'? Of course, those aren't exactly mutually exclusive . Though if you end up in Guantanamo Bay, it doesn't really matter anymore wether you've actually done something or not, you've already been punished.

[o_robg]

Originally Posted by Travis Dane

Who? The politicians or the pronounced 'terrorists'?

The politicians. And heh yes, not mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by ekiM

It's hard to take a smartass seriously when he doesn't understand the difference between "previous" and "last".

Luckily for me, they can both mean " immediately preceding". So "the previous owner of my house" means exactly what it says.

[o_ekim]

"The previous owner of my house" means "the owner of my house whose ownership of said house immediately preceeded my ownership of it"; this is because of the presence of the definite article. On the other hand, "a previous owner of my house" could be anyone who has at some point owned my house but currently does not. Similarly "my previous post" is not equivalent to "my last post", it could refer to any one of my past posts, determined by context. Unlucky.

[o_3xternal]

I just read this topic today, and was entertained by:

Frenchtoast :
THESIS STATEMENT:

I'm quite respectful to authority figures, and definitely not your stereotypical skateboarding 14 year old.

FrenchToast:
SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS:

Wow. Fuck you all. I can't believe that you can post that and honestly believe that in response to my last post. You are a fucking moron, and deserve to be fucked hard up the ass while being beheaded. Even an asshole like you can see that he's being a dick about what I post.
Burn in fucking hell, asshole.

FrenchToast:
CONCLUSION (anti-thesis)

I'm sure that if I didn't have to deal with assholes such as yourself I'd be acting much more maturely.

Typical 14 year old (skate boarder title not necessary)
"It's everyone's fault except mine, especially when it comes to my own actions"
I'd like a side order of +b for my buddy FT along with my whopper.



I was in my junior year of high school, and myt teacher's showed it on TV for about 3 minutes, before going back to thier lessons. It would seem that while some in this thread treat the event as nearly non-existant, others are offended by that treatment of an event that would effect this country for the next 4 years, if not possibly longer. In my case, my authority figures treated it as inconsequential. For that I am saddened, bc it sends the completly wrong message. We bitch about gas prices today, when really on 09/11/01 we should have turned the TV on and said, " look here younger generations, this is most likely one of the biggest events that will shape the world u will live in tomorrow." Instead we opened our trig books to page 168. Bullshit. Fuck you Mrs. Henry, and your 11th grade trig class.

[o_general levy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

Please. You can quote stuff you read on the bbc website all you like but if you don't understand it and can't draw sensible conclusions, don't bother. The July vote overthrew most of the December2005 sunsets, with a large majority. That indicates they are more likely to become a permenant part of law, not less.

See my previous post..

Sorry that I read ekim. I'll remember not to do that in future cos it pisses you off being confronted with facts as opposed to RHETORIC.

My point was, which you completely glossed over, that the vast majority of Democrats voted against the bill whereas the vast majority of Republicans voted in favour of the Bill. The Republicans, holding a majority at present won the vote, but when things swing back towards the Democrats as they surely must at some point - I daresay we'll see some changes.

And I came back with more than a not very witty response last time. I came back with some hard facts and figures and gave you my analysis of them, which you simply glossed over by concentrating on the overall vote.

nub

[o_ekim]

I didn't say don't read, I said don't wank over posting HARD FACTS if you don't understand their implications. I'm pretty sure blatantly misrepresenting what I'm saying counts as RHETORIC, but it's pretty low grade.

The Patriot act is going to be renewed. The Democrats won't be getting a significant majority any time soon. Even when they do, the Patriot act will have been on the books for the best part of a decade, at the least. If you think it's likely that every illiberal measure in it will be revoked as soon as a Democrat majority is attained and everything will be back just how it was before 2001 then I don't know what to tell you apart from that you're deluded.

[o_storm]

You guys have been having the same argument for months now

I was in Majorca walking on the beach front in the early evening. I noticed a big queue of people looking into a shop and I went to investigate. By then the towers had both fallen

[o_general levy]

How do you know the Democrats won't be getting a majority? How do you know it will have been ten years before they get in? And who is saying every measure in the Patriot Act is stupid? Not me. Are the Republicans going to have a majority for 20 years? Ich don't think so. All i'm saying is, when the Dems get back in, as they assuredly must as is proven by history, then they will repeal the act as evidenced by their voting records this time round. That seems to me a logical implication (another 9/11 aside of course) from the facts, and a wholeheartedly justified inference. Compare the voting records from when the Patriot Act was first introduced 4 years ago to now. Support is dwindling for it, and I can only conclude that it will continue to dwindle.

[o_ekim]

How do you know the Democrats won't be getting a majority?

By the same kind of highly technical statistical analysis you're using. Remember, all trends continue, forever.

How do you know it will have been ten years before they get in?

I didn't say it would. The Patriot act was introduced in 2001, the best part of a decade is five years or more. Do the maths, really.

And who is saying every measure in the Patriot Act is stupid? Not me.

Me neither. Where are you going with this?

Are the Republicans going to have a majority for 20 years? Ich don't think so.

Me neither... again.

All i'm saying is, when the Dems get back in, as they assuredly must as is proven by history, then they will repeal the act as evidenced by their voting records this time round.

So because they voted against extending the entire thing, they will repeal the entire thing? Riiiight.

[o_general levy]

Yes, because voting against extending it, would have meant it would have fallen off the statute books - they voted that way to get rid of it. How clear do you want me to make this to you?

And I think my trend of alternating parties in Government is more likely than yours of vague "long periods of time". Define long. All I am saying is that at some point the Dems will get back in and they will repeal it, or let it slip off the statutes.

Anyway enough, I have an important paper to write on the ECB...

[o_ekim]

They voted against a bill to extend the entire Patriot act. If you don't understand that this doesn't mean they want every provision of it gone, I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you 'cause you obviously don't have a clue.

And I think my trend of alternating parties in Government is more likely than yours of vague "long periods of time". Define long. All I am saying is that at some point the Dems will get back in and they will repeal it, or let it slip off the statutes.

What are you talking about? Seriously. The Democrats will get back in, I am not denying this. My claim is that they will not repeal the entire act.

Do you even understand what they were voting against in July? Explain it briefly just so I can check...

Anyway enough, I have an important paper to write on the ECB...

lol. I guess you must be right then, writing such an important paper like a big boy an' all!

[o_general levy]

Even I don't want to repeal the entire act - it has some good points for security like increased communication between the FBI and CIA.

And having something to do is not my way of boasting that i'm a big boy. I just have something important to do.

[Circuitous]

More likely than the Democrats getting a majority and repealing it any time soon, would be someone getting charged for something under the Patriot Act and appealing it all the way to the Supreme Court, where much of it is likely to be voted Unconstitutional and be henceforth ignored.

And could you guys take it to IM or something? The constant back-and-forth bickering with neither of you making a decent point gets really old.

[o_ekim]

Originally Posted by General Levy

Even I don't want to repeal the entire act - it has some good points for security like increased communication between the FBI and CIA.

That's exactly what you're claiming the Democrats want to do..?

Originally Posted by General Levy

And having something to do is not my way of boasting that i'm a big boy. I just have something important to do.

Great. Why do we need to know?

[o_robg]

/me gets Bush to send the super soldiers round to ekiM and Travis' houses to shut them up for knowing the truth...