Staredit Network

thats not racism... its his word for n00b since he was told he was not allowed to say n00b.

CHEEZE, AGAIN

THE PROOF IS OUT SIDE YOUR DOOR STEP

Ok, remember the shoe bombers? They were caught by airport security....

America Hasn't been attacked again, that is the FULL evidence. What your asking me parallels to why gravity exists. It just does, we haven't been attacked becuase of the measures of Bush, its just that simple.

Proof is not always from wikipedia

Maybe you don't see the problem.

I'll give an example.

-What is happening: I am using a computer.

-Observed outcome: No terrorist attacks.

So, by your logic, because I used a computer, there have been no terrorist attacks. The problem is you're missing the link. What proof do you have that shows these powers are really stopping the attacks?


No, I don't remember. Perhaps give me a link? I'll check through Google to verify. Then I'll see if it's valid.

I go through Google News everyday, multiple times. If the Patriot Act has actually stopped an attack, I'm sure it would have made frontpage of the News section. I have yet to see an article relating to Patriot Act's power effectively stopping any terrorists.

Request: Don't use caps. It makes it look like shouting, which leads to anger problems or something. At least to me, it does. I guess you can, but it's just degrading yourself from other people's point of view.

I was about to say the same about the caps.

Actually from what I heard, a passenger caught sight of what he was about to do and they tackled him, While he was on the plane... So your saying that he managed to get ONTO the plane and nearly had the chance to detonate... great security in action chris.. >_> bad example...

Yup, I was right.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1783237.stm

thanks for telling me what the first amendment says
it still doesn't cover hate speech



how do you know that your car is actually working, and there aren't millions of magic, invisible mice pushing it forward whenever you put your foot on the gas?
the problem you're giving us is the burden of proof:

instead of 'well, nothing bad has happened - how is it not working?'
you're changing the burden of proof, into 'well, nothing bad has happened - HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT'S FROM THE PATRIOT ACT AND IT'S ACTUALLY WORKING?'

not our job to prove that it's working/not working

Ok titus, your post made absolutely no sense and seems as if it was written by a 6th grader. Not because of spelling or anything but by the argument (or supposed argument) presented. He can prove his car is working, but can you prove the PA is working? Nope you can't. He can check for the 'imaginary mice' but you still can't tell us if the PA is working. How do we know if its not the new patch microsoft put out for windows thats not stopping the terrorists! Its not probable but you can't say its not stopping them. As cheeze stated, they can simply be biding their time and letting us have our false sense of security.

BTW It doesn't state anywhere that it doesn't cover it!

Heres a nice little read for you: 1984, by George Orwell.

P.S. It is your job to prove its working as thats the argument your presenting. Don't states something and then say its not your job to get proof. I can easily say that aliens landed in my backyard. Your obvious argument would be that I should get proof or pictures... Then I would respond with "Not my job to get proof."

thanks bud, your post sounded like one written by a sixth grader because of its horrible syntax.

oh, and i've read 1984. no, our gov't isn't anything like that of that orwellian nightmare

forgive my silly analogy in the previous post (but your current one is just as frivolous)

ok
so
we havn't had any terror attacks since the patriot act was instated

i say 'well, clearly, the gov't hasn't infringed on your rights, and there havn't been any terror attacks - the patriot act hasn't done anything wrong'

you say 'IT DOESN'T HELP AND MY CIVIL LIBERTIES ARE BEING TAKEN AWAY WHAT IS HAPPENING OH GOD THERE IS A PROBE IN MY ANUS AND GEORGE BUSH IS WEILDING IT'



regardless: until you can prove (as you like to say) that the patriot act is taking away your rights, and that it hasn't ever helped with the gov't protecting us from terrorism, you have no argument

as for my stand: i believe it is permissable as long as the gov't doesn't abuse it.

ouch, and noooo I am incorrect about air port.... that one goes deep

And Euro, Titus does have a pretty concrete point

Obviously you missed G Dubyah admitting to spying on Americans WITHOUT warrents, which is unconstitutional and illegal. So clearly.... he has. Nice try, no luck.

I don't need to prove anything as Bush already stated it. He can defend it for as long as he likes, but he has taken our liberty and our right to privacy. There I have a plausible argument, you have none. As for that last sentence... a little quote that me and Kellimus have stated many times from our good pal Benny Franklin:

What its saying is that since you would trade the liberty that the patriots fought and died for, for security, you deserve neither and are the scum of the earth. (Added the last part myself.)

About 1984, I never said our government is just like that, I was implying that this world is heading in that direction with the exception of the thought police. Also actually mines not as "frivolis" because you also can't prove aliens don't exist as it is more probable that they do then don't. You don't need proper syntax on the net nub. Spelling isn't required but its better to have then to have not. (Also your little comeback about that was quite gay.) BTW I'm not your bud, obviously thats Chris.

Chris he does not as its already been expressed that it violates our rights and you two have expressed that you would obviously trade them for security.

Little chart for you.

===========================
= LIBERTY ---------== SECURITY
===========================
1. Lives free ------------1. Lives secure.
2. Possible chance of ---2. Terrorist attack
a terrorist attack. -------not probable.
3. Will Defend their -----3. Will defend all
rights no matter what. ---acts making them
4. Leads to a free --------secure but taking rights.
society in the future. -----4. As shown in past, one
-----------------------------right taken leads to two
-----------------------------taken, and so on.
----------------------------5. Could lead to a totalarian
----------------------------society/Facism/Dictatorship.
============================

Excuse the graph's messiness.

[quote=Euro,Jan 3 2006, 09:10 PM]
Obviously you missed G Dubyah admitting to spying on Americans WITHOUT warrents, which is unconstitutional and illegal. So clearly.... he has. Nice try, no luck.

I don't need to prove anything as Bush already stated it. He can defend it for as long as he likes, but he has taken our liberty and our right to privacy. There I have a plausible argument, you have none. As for that last sentence... a little quote that me and Kellimus have stated many times from our good pal Benny Franklin:
quote=ben]Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security.[/quote]
What its saying is that since you would trade the liberty that the patriots fought and died for, for security, you deserve neither and are the scum of the earth. (Added the last part myself.)

About 1984, I never said our government is just like that, I was implying that this world is heading in that direction with the exception of the thought police. Also actually mines not as "frivolis" because you also can't prove aliens don't exist as it is more probable that they do then don't. You don't need proper syntax on the net nub. Spelling isn't required but its better to have then to have not. (Also your little comeback about that was quite gay.) BTW I'm not your bud, obviously thats Chris.

Chris he does not as its already been expressed that it violates our rights and you two have expressed that you would obviously trade them for security.

Little chart for you.

===========================
= LIBERTY ---------== SECURITY
===========================
1. Lives free ------------1. Lives secure.
2. Possible chance of ---2. Terrorist attack
a terrorist attack. -------not probable.
3. Will Defend their -----3. Will defend all
rights no matter what. ---acts making them
4. Leads to a free --------secure but taking rights.
society in the future. -----4. As shown in past, one
-----------------------------right taken leads to two
-----------------------------taken, and so on.
----------------------------5. Could lead to a totalarian
----------------------------society/Facism/Dictatorship.
============================

Excuse the graph's messiness.
[right][snapback]398004[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

which americans was dubya spying upon? was he 'spying' upon suspected terrorists?
oh wait

even the suspected terrorists turned out to be innocent - as i've stated before, it's better to have 1 innocent man investigated and 10 guilty ones caught than to have no one investigated at all. we charge innocents with crimes in our justice system all the time, and then they're proven innocent - doesn't mean the system is faulty

as i've said, a million times: a quote doesn't constitute a logical proof of anything. it's just a quote. a blurb. a concept.

re 1984: no it really isn't, but i suppose if you want to argue that way you can (the reason the book is caleld 1984 is because orwell believed that, in 1984, the world would be like it is in the book - however, nothing even close to the sort has occured yet)

syntax is word choice, not spelling. i declined in mentioning your slightly lacklustre spelling and grammar for exactly the above reason

and your graph is a hilariously biased concept map with no real backing

Euro, Benji (as I like to call him) didn't live in our world today. he didn't live with sleeper cells and suicide bombers, he has no influence on this subject/debate.

I believe his opinion would change very much once a suicide bomber blew up his house with all his ladies friends in it.

Its been proven in the past that taking one right away in the name of security leads to two then three then nazi germany. Don't tell me no real backing.

Also do you mean the terrorists that the patriot act allows bush to declare? Find spelling mistakes, and 1 or 2 is fine as that was a long post. More then 5 and I will be amazed.

Uh just so you know, all justice systems are faulty. Unless you have a 'minority report' justice system its not perfect. In fact even that system was faulty. We have hundreds if not more innocent men in prison at the moment. Everyone knows there are innocent men in prison, sent there on false information. Everyone knows we have "suspected terrorists" flown from their current residences around the world to secret terrorist holding pens.

Yes he did believe the world would be like that.... why? because that was the direction we were turning. The US locking up japanese in camps, Nazi's persecuting based on race/religion, Japans death march, etc. Turns out his year was wrong, but the idea of what was happening in the book, that big brother is watching you still lives on and is the direction that this world, or at least the US is heading if we keep following this path.

BTW I doubt it would change. He would still defend liberty. Its actually proven he lost a family member during the revolutionary war to the british when they took one of the colonial cities. I'll look for the members name while you read...

Did that family member die after his quote was stated?

I highly doubt it being as he said that quote before the war.

Does it matter when the family member passed on? No. So why try to argue that?

Why do you throw the quote out just because it was from the 1700s? Most of Benjamin's (And various other Founding fathers and presidents) quotes, talk of what is to be, not at the time. Mr. Franklin knew that eventually the government would become corrupt (He saw it with the Roman's. And as you put it, History repeats itself) and so he said these things (Along with other founding fathers, and presidents) in hope that the people may read them, and realize their significance.

Why, just because of the age of the quotes, do you throw it out as "Implausible evidence"? If you wasn't so arrogent, and prideful towards the government, you would see that our great fathers and retro-presidents, had great minds.

To bad there aren't any of them anymore.

Yes it does matter, the sub debate Euro and I were/are having is that I believe he would not feel the same way if a family member of his was killed after his quote was said.




Kellimus, my arguement is that things have changed, times are different. You wouldn't listen to an old lady and her old fashion ways of cleaning clothes by river and press, hell no you would throw your crap in a washing machine/dryer.

Benji does not live in our time, Benji's time was different, wars were more respectable and gentlemen like, none of this sleeper cell crapola. Now if he was alive today and said that quote, then your arguement would be different and be valid. (including you two Euro, mostly you actually)


Abe Lincoln, did the same thing Bush is doing. If you wish I will elaborate tomorrow, too tired now.

[quote=Kellimus]To bad there aren't any of them anymore.[/quote]
Abe Lincoln, did the same thing Bush is doing. If you wish I will elaborate tomorrow, too tired now.
[right][snapback]398126[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Uhh no he isn't. Lincoln had a brain and knew what he was doing. Bush is exactly the opposite. He doesn't know what to do and he's a moron. You can look at anything he's done in the past and see that he doesn't know what to do. Jib Jab even made a song bout his failures and moronic decisions. I'll give the citing tomorrow...me tired.

Lol marine, Im going to bed, I will show you guys tomorrow with wikipedia support.

What he means is that lincoln suspended habeas corpus. People hated him for it. The south (abe became prez RIGHT before the war)did not vote for him yet he still won. People in that time hated what he did and people in this time hate what he did too. Notice all these people who have problems with it? So if I shot and killed your mother and got away with it, does that make it alright for another guy to do the same? Didn't think so.

Also, Benny believed in freedom and liberty over opression and slavery until his death. All the fore fathers/signers of the declaration were more then willing to sacrifice everything for it. Hence why they signed it knowing it was their death warrents.Sleeper cells or not, suspending a persons rights is uncalled for. In ANY case it is uncalled for.
Right there about ends this argument. (Just so you know the first 10 amendments are the Bill of rights... Also if it wasn't for "benji" the French probably wouldn't of helped us, as he was the ambassador to France)

Yes, basically right on Euro.

Abe did the things he did, even though wrong and hated at the time, becuase it was the right thing to do. (Making the Union survive, freeing slaves, etc)

Bush is locking terrorists up, locking up American terrorist supporters (funding, housing etc), but it is the right thing to do becuase it:

Protects Americans
Protects America

I believe in the constitution the text for Habeas corpus is something like:



So I geuss both Presidents suspended habeas corpus rightfully becuase they both want/wanted to protect the public and preserve the Union/United States.

Now Im not saying Bush is comparable to Abe Lincoln. Abe was a great man and President, Bush is no where near his stature. I just wanted to show you a past President who took similar actions Bush has taken.

Since you think you're so perfect with logic, I'll answer this plain and simple. Occam's Razor.


Of course it's your job to prove it's working. If it isn't, then it's a waste of money, not to mention false sense of security, time waster and information overload problems. I'm giving you the burden of proof for a reason. You made the assertion that the Patriot Act is working. Now I would like to see proof. Proof is not an observation; proof is direct evidence showing the use of the Patriot Act's power that have stopped terrorists.


The Patriot Act:
-Completely destroys the 4th amendment; judges legally required to issue warrents.
-Completely destroys the 1st amendment via gag orders.

These are problems simply within the text of the Patriot Act. As Euro argues, Bush has openly admitted to even searching without warrents. This violates the Patriot Act itself. How can you still support someone who openly admits to breaking of the law?


Ah, but you're tipping the scales. Unfortuantly, it's more like 200 million innocent people searched, and if they get lucky, they might find one person who had a very little chance of succeeding an attack anyway. Not only that, but the search powers that were granted by the Patriot Act doesn't actually "expand" any powers. Rather, it destroys probable cause and allows, literally, racial profiling. Need I say this is illegal?


You're right, he lived in a time where British troops were hostile to just about everyone in the world. He lived in a time of a literal global war. Where Native Americans may suddenly attack without warning. Where people would hang. Where the guillotine is still legal in many countries.

In my view, what difference is there? Does his philosophy not apply? Do we not still use the same foundation of math as that of Leibniz? Or the general theory of relativity of Einstien? Should we deny these facts simply because they are from another generation? No. The concept, the reality of the situation is still the same. Their ideas revolutionized modern thinking. We should continue that path, not go the opposite.


I disagree completely. Look at Benjamin Franklin. His son supported the British. Look at Abraham Lincoln. He had a son (maybe more, don't remember completely) fighting for the Confederates. Did each hold their own beliefs? Yes.

They realized this belief is far more important than life. Quite obviously, this idea came from another founding father. Patrick Henry's famous quote:



The Treaty of Versaille didn't exist back then. How can you say wars are more "respectable"? "Sleeper cells" existed in the form of "loyalists". They would fight for the British but they may look like the average Patriot. The concept is still the same.


Well then, we are not arguing on the validity of the quote. We are arguing as to whether or not we should follow the Constitution. Their ideas live in the Constitution. Should we follow the foundation?


Wrong. Abraham Lincoln suspended it to make sure the states that had seceeded would quickly be changed back. By making sure that people can get a quick arrest, he was strengthening the chances of unity.

What we have now is not secession. We have innocent people being forced into detainment centers (like jails) who are not given a trial. Not given a lawyer. Not given any type of communication to anyone. Perhaps this is a crazy claim so here's some evidence.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/652/652p14.htm
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10348907/

Wrong Cheeze

Abe lincoln:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Linco..._the_war_effort

Abe arrested New Paper publishers, which destroys the first amendment. (just one example)
Abe arrested many other officials whos only crime was having a different opinion on wether the south should secede or not. He also arrested many other people who disagreed with him/his policies.

All his actions, in principle, were wrong. But in reality those actions were rightfully taken to preserve the union. It was the right thing to do at the time.



Statement cannot be valid until we have a terrorist attack on United state's soil.


Wrong, almost all scientific evidence was created from tests and observations



Show me evidence that all 200 million people in the US are being illegally spyed upon/searched.



Like I said, different times
Irrelevant



Do you even know what a sleeper cell is?



Prove there are more innocent people going to jail then valid terrorist/terrorist supporters(Helpers, shelter, planning, food, etc)

Edit: Gram. mistakes

True. But you did not mention what the News Reporters were publishing. This was a no time where we had fun. The country was literally split in half and at war. Would you want your own side to, once again, split up and have a three way battle?

Guess what the "Copperheads" were doing? Promoting peace in everyway possible. Need I quote wikipedia, they "violently" attacked the president via words.

These are two very different time issues. Terrorism is outside of this country. We are not at a economic nor political collapse. This is literally the revolution, all over again. Rights are not maintained until balance is insured. You cannot have balance with chaos.

Chaos, anarchy, the very antithesis of a democracy. Tell me, how would you run the government when the country is literally "no man's land"? Give everyone rights and hopefully, the seceeded states beg for return (ironically, this was a possibility)?


Then you must prove to me that the Patriot Act is working. Which allows me to bring up the fact that you completely ignored my arguement on that. Burden of Proof?


The two observations you have are not related. With your logic, I can observe a water bottle and my lights flickering. If I move my water bottle, and my lights flicker, surely, the two must be connected!

No. The two observations are unrelated. They are not proof. Scientific proof comes from links. They link things together to make sure it is valid. Ah, a good example since you seem to understand "observable science". Evolution. Chimpanzees and humans have very similar DNA (98% if I'm not mistaken). Fossil records (observed) shown a slow change between the two back 2 million years ago. The link is the DNA.


200 million is an exaggeration. Nevertheless, the idea is the same. 30,000 NSL (the "equivalent" of warrents on government level) are issued per year. This is hundreds of times more than what is needed. What does this mean? Abuse.

Bush admits to searching without warrents. What does this mean? Potentially, anyone could have been searched beyond the 30,000 per year. This comes to at lesat 170,000 individuals searched. Are you going to tell me there are 170,000 terrorists in the United States?

If you are, I'm getting out of here. If not, then what we have here is the classic case of being overloaded with too much information.

Meaning? The government is blinded by the overwhelming information that they can not use their force correctly. For example, say you have a lot of processes running. Obviously, your computer won't work as fast as if you had fewer processes.

These processes are the same as government officials searching. They are looking at the wrong data and not focusing on problems where there is actually a probable cause. How does this relate to Bush? He wants to support this; he's destroying your 4th amendment rights.


Do you know what the Treaty of Versaille is? I debated the Patriot Act all semester. Anyone who took debate probably did also. I'm pretty sure we know a little bit more about terrorism than you do.

As for your question, sleeper cells are people who look like American people (or maybe not). They live normal lives, might even have perfectly clean records. Yet, their loyalty is with the terrorists and they could attack almost anywhere.


Seeing as how you couldn't come up with any terrorists who have been jailed via the Patriot Act, and I have 2 (with about 50+ more in a box) examples, I'd say I'm winning.

Bush isn't the greatest president, but you have to look at this situation with an open mind. The reasons I might give may make people hate me.

There has been "2000 casualties" and rising among our troops. Does this mean the U.S. stopped it's birth rate? No, those 2000 are quickly replaced population-wise.

The consequences of taking our troops out of there may be worse than keeping them there. There would be a good chance that extremests would look at the moment as an opportunity to commit another act of terrorism. Also, civil war would be likely.

Would our troops even choose to leave? There's a possibility. Many of them feel though if they left now, the deaths that taken place would be in vain.

With those few points in mind, is Bush 99% moronic and 1% evil? Most of you will probably argue that I'm wrong, which is most likely. I believe that the 99% can be lowered to 98%.