Re: Not like the Nazis ...

On 29 Jan 2006 16:06:09 -0600, Jim Blansett
<jim_blansett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 14:34:08 -0700, Phil Earnhardt <pae@xxxxxxx>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 19:22:45 GMT, Wage Peace <whatif@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 1/28/06 18:54, in article 2h0ot1hant6jq6n1q9o4nrjtcpah6pigfv@xxxxxxx,
>>>"Phil Earnhardt" <pae@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 22:20:49 GMT, Wage Peace <whatif@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Like the "president" saying, "when you talk about wiretapping, it requires a
>>>>> court order" when he knew he was ordering such wiretaps in contravention of
>>>>> the law - the law that require a court order and warrant for such wiretaps
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> That just ain't right.
>>>>
>>>> It isn't right. Those words you put together don't google, Shawn. And
>>>> you failed to provide a reference.
>>>
>>>LOL. And Phil lies right out of the box ...
>>>
>>>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=when+you+talk+about+wiretapping%2C+it+r
>>>equires+a&btnG=Google+Search
>>
>>You appear to be ignorant of the way that google works. If you're
>>searching for a quotation that someone provides, you should put quote
>>marks around the entire search string.
>
>You meant ignorant of A way Google works.
>
>>Doing that with the string you provided above currently yields ZERO
>>hits.
>>
>>Shawn: this is exactly what I'm talking about when I say you have
>>degenerated to off-topic and ad hominem attacks. My claim was correct;
>>there are NO references to the wrong quotation that you provided in
>>your posting.
>>
>>>I typed in "when you talk about wiretapping, it requires a court order"
>>>(without quotation marks) and got 559,000 hits.
>>
>>Exactly. Why should anyone have to guess?
>>
>>Why not provide with a correct quotation? You do have cut-and-paste on
>>your computer, right?
>>
>>Why not provide an explicit reference to what you're quoting?
>>
>>>Phil apparently got none. Hmmm.
>>
>>There's no mystery at all. Google behaves differently if you enclose
>>some number of words within quote marks.
>
>That's the POWER of the search mechanism they employ - great, ain't
>it?

Not in this case. There should be no need to reference a search engine
at all. If a poster provides a quote, he should provide a reference to
the quote.

Simple.


--phil


>
>>
>>>> After some slicing and dicing the "quotation" above, it appears that
>>>> you are talking about the Patriot Act:
>>>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html
>>>
>>>I am talking about George W. Bush going out of his way to mention that
>>>wiretaps required court orders.
>>>
>>>Here is the quote (taken from the link you provided) in more context:
>>>
>>>" Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any
>>>time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it
>>>requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the
>>>way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about
>>>getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow
>>>citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional
>>>guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect
>>>our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
>>>
>>>Either he spoke those words, or he did not ...
>>>Are you suggesting that he did NOT?
>>
>>Since you had failed to provide a reference to your misquote, I had to
>>guess what you're talking about. Apparently, I guessed correctly.
>>
>>If whitehouse.gov provides a quote of GW Bush, it's safe to presume
>>that he actually said it. ;-)
>>
>>>> Did I guess correctly what you were talking about?
>>
>>[Silence.]
>>
>>Apparently so.
>>
>>Shawn: rather than force people to guess, please provide references.
>>Thanks.
>>
>>>>> But he didn't LIE. He just "mis-spoke"
>>>>
>>>> Or perhaps you're just confused. The Patriot Act is about the rules
>>>> for monitoring US citizens in the US. The Constitution explicitly
>>>> grants the Executive branch broad powers to protect us from foreign
>>>> enemies.
>>>
>>>The controversy is not about him wiretapping foreigners or "enemies" ... It
>>>is about him wiretapping Americans.
>>
>>It is about international calls to foreign enemies.
>>
>>Are you implying that the Patriot Act should apply to such calls? If
>>so, you should make your case.
>>
>>>True, the Constitution grants the Executive Branch broad powers to protect
>>>"us" from foreign enemies. That is why the president was required to get a
>>>warrant to allow wiretapping American citizens.
>>
>>That is pure conjecture.
>>
>>FISA did NOTHING to undermine the constitutional powers of the
>>Executive Branch to protect us from foreign enemies. Carter's AG was
>>emphatically clear on that when the law was proposed.
>>
>>Did you bother to read the OP in the "Thank you for wiretapping"
>>thread? You can read it at
>>http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007703
>>
>>>FISA required him to get such a court order
>>
>>FISA does NOTHING to undermine the powers of the Executive Branch.
>>
>>>, and also allowed him to get
>>>such a court order retroactively. He failed to do so.
>>
>>Only if FISA somehow magically superseded the constitution.
>>
>>Shawn: you failed to ever point out a single flaw in the WSJ editorial
>>that covered this ground in detail. Why don't you do that now?
>>
>>>The warrants were easy to get (out of more than 10,000 asked for in the past
>>>20 years, only 5 were denied),
>>
>>This talking point is a complete red herring. It was clear what
>>warrants the judges would issue and which they wouldn't.
>>
>>http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110007783 describes
>>why warrants were not always possible. I already posted this URL in
>>the earlier discussion, did you bother to read it?
>>
>>Any comments?
>>
>>> and they were available under the law AFTER
>>>the wiretapping had commenced, so the argument that there was no time to get
>>>warrants is false.
>>
>>Another red herring. It would only be valid if someone in the
>>administration had actually claimed they had insufficient time. Do you
>>have any references?
>>
>>>>> ... I'm sure SOMEONE will bring us his clarification of that statement ...
>>>>
>>>> ...or clarify your misunderstanding.
>>>
>>>And to think I grew up with English as my first language.
>>>
>>>> Just because you say it twice does not make it true. ;-(
>>>
>>>Ha ha. The same rule holds true for Dubya.
>>
>>Which is exactly why I provided URLs showing facts and reasoning. Go
>>read 'em.
>>
>>--phil

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Another of Richards Strawman "Lists"
    ... famous for doing this - listing off dozens of reference with nothing ... pointless and unhelpful as quote mining. ... that deals with the evolution of novel systems that require at least ... And I have posted evidence that this is the case. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Sweating
    ... quote in your PDF as originating from SAP. ... a reference is like pulling teeth. ... Ape Theory (AAT). ... I and the other readers of SAP would like to know: ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Is Elsberry on-the-run?
    ... quoted Scripture in _Natural Theology_? ... Paley 1802, which all ID science is based on, ... does not contain a single reference to scripture. ... [end Hemi quote] ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: 2 + 2 = 4
    ... > I have no idea why you snipped the reference... ... The quote has never been in question, your lie was to suggest that my ... involvement over it was due to my defense of Elizabot, ... because I actually said that the context wrt your statement ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)