Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

host · 07-11-2007, 11:18 AM

Yeah, you did ask that, ace....in post #29....quite a bit after you had attempted to counter the supported points in my post that "Bush does not say what he means and means what he sez"....and, just as you had in post #20, instead of admitting that the evidence....Bush quotes from the white house web site between 2001 and 2006, on the narrow subject of the need to "modernize" 1978 laws to "keep with the terrorists" use of communications technology, showed that Bush said in 2001 that the 1978 law had been modernized to his satisfaction. Instead of admitting that Bush and Gonzales, in 2004, 2005, and in 2006, were on record, saying the opposite of Bush's October 2001...twice repeated and twice documented assertions that the surveillance laws had been modernized to his satisfaction, you chose to post a 1940 Churchill quote about the threat Britain confronted on Churchill's first day as Prime Minister.

That's what you do, ace....that's how you attempt to deflect damning specifics to your arguments, instead of meeting them head on. I was the other party in our exchange. You chose not to engage me. You made no attempt to deal with the impact of proff that Bush and Gonzales used the same excuses to justify breaking the law, four years after Bush ahs used the same excuses to change the law that they went on to break....beginning just months after Bush claimed the law had been modernized to a point where Bush could legally conduct surveillance activities within it's restrictions.

The points discussed are not a game, ace. Why should the tactics of the discussion be reduce to a game? You get what you give here, ace. I'mm too skeptical of IBD editorials to learn much from them, but that is about all you've offered here, that is germane to discussions that you've engaged in.

You get what you give, ace. The potenital was there, in my example discussion, for you to post information to show me that I'd overlooked something, that...indeed....other instances had emerged where terrorists had used new technology to thwart provisions of the FISA laws that were not modernized in the 2001 revisions.....you chose instead to quote a 67 year old Churchill speech and then ask if other leaders hadn't embellished their rhetoric in the past.....

Do you think that you planted doubt in my mind as to whether or not Bush and Gonzales had made deliberately deceptive comments to justify breaking the law against unwarranted domestic surveillance?

07-11-2007, 11:18 AM	#88 (permalink)
host Banned	Yeah, you did ask that, ace....in post #29....quite a bit after you had attempted to counter the supported points in my post that "Bush does not say what he means and means what he sez"....and, just as you had in post #20, instead of admitting that the evidence....Bush quotes from the white house web site between 2001 and 2006, on the narrow subject of the need to "modernize" 1978 laws to "keep with the terrorists" use of communications technology, showed that Bush said in 2001 that the 1978 law had been modernized to his satisfaction. Instead of admitting that Bush and Gonzales, in 2004, 2005, and in 2006, were on record, saying the opposite of Bush's October 2001...twice repeated and twice documented assertions that the surveillance laws had been modernized to his satisfaction, you chose to post a 1940 Churchill quote about the threat Britain confronted on Churchill's first day as Prime Minister. That's what you do, ace....that's how you attempt to deflect damning specifics to your arguments, instead of meeting them head on. I was the other party in our exchange. You chose not to engage me. You made no attempt to deal with the impact of proff that Bush and Gonzales used the same excuses to justify breaking the law, four years after Bush ahs used the same excuses to change the law that they went on to break....beginning just months after Bush claimed the law had been modernized to a point where Bush could legally conduct surveillance activities within it's restrictions. The points discussed are not a game, ace. Why should the tactics of the discussion be reduce to a game? You get what you give here, ace. I'mm too skeptical of IBD editorials to learn much from them, but that is about all you've offered here, that is germane to discussions that you've engaged in. You get what you give, ace. The potenital was there, in my example discussion, for you to post information to show me that I'd overlooked something, that...indeed....other instances had emerged where terrorists had used new technology to thwart provisions of the FISA laws that were not modernized in the 2001 revisions.....you chose instead to quote a 67 year old Churchill speech and then ask if other leaders hadn't embellished their rhetoric in the past..... Do you think that you planted doubt in my mind as to whether or not Bush and Gonzales had made deliberately deceptive comments to justify breaking the law against unwarranted domestic surveillance?