Left Turn: Is the GOP conservative?

National Review ^ | July 23, 2003 issue | National Review Editorial Board

[ApesForEvolution]

You would make a fine Republican nominee to the USSC.

I'm sure you can find no gain in commenting, because semantics and parsing of the Constitution are just part of your game.

You aren't a Constitutionist, you just like to argue like one.

You either, out of intellectual dishonesty, avoid the issues presented by the "Patriot" Act's practical treatment as enforced by the Guidance written to correspond with it or you aren't aware of how this law can 'legally' be carried out and enforced, which is equally dangerous.

Have a good night. (Here's your opportunity to hurl a condescending post my way or beat your chest - that's your style, isn't it?)

[tpaine]

Whatever.

I have no real interest in 'continuing', seeing that you declared yourself the winner at #513.

I'll leave you to your delusuions. Thanks.

[Southack]

"You either, out of intellectual dishonesty, avoid the issues presented by the "Patriot" Act's practical treatment as enforced by the Guidance written to correspond with it or you aren't aware of how this law can 'legally' be carried out and enforced, which is equally dangerous."

No, I've actually read the actual legal text, and unlike you, I don't have to invent false critiques.

You are welcome to post the **ACTUAL LEGAL TEXT** with which you claim you can show is unConstitutional.

But running around without posting such text, claiming that some as yet unposted text is unconstitutional, and that anyone who doesn't take your word for all of this alleged "unconstitutionality" is intellectually dishonest - simply won't cut it.

Where's your text? Where's the unconstitutional legal text of the Patriot Act? Why can't you post that specific text?

[Southack]

"I'll leave you to your delusuions. Thanks."

Of the many differences between us, one that stands out is that I've actually posted the legal text of Section 213 of the Patriot Act, while you've posted not a word from it.

I've quoted the actual words in the legal text of the Patriot Act, while in stark contrast you've posted words such as "sneak-a-peak" which you thought were in the Patriot Act, yet in reality were not in it at all.

Face it, you've been busted. Your little bluff has been called, and because it has been called you've been exposed as not being able to support your wild-eyed claim against the Patriot Act.

And you are welcome to run off. You won't be the first to have fled an intellectual drubbing.

You are also welcome to stick around, especially if you want to post and debate the actual legal text of the Patriot Act.

Either way.

I leave it up to you.

[Southack]

Ouch. My mistake. I didn't realize that I was posting to you rather than to apesforevolution.

Please disregard the references to "sneak-a-peak".

[tpaine]

Sure, I'll be glad to disregard the references to "sneak-a-peak".


But that still leaves a lot of other delusions..
Good luck kid, enjoy your fantasies.

[Southack]

Delusions? Fantasies?

Yet I'm the only one posting the actual legal text.

While those who bash the Patriot Act post nothing of the kind.

Hmmm...

Makes one wonder just how fast the Big lie can be debunked if all it takes is asking for people to post the actual legal text rather than wild-eyed urban myths.

[tpaine]

The constitutional repugnancy of the 'patriot act' is not an urban myth.

[Southack]

Show me the actual text with which you have a Constitutional problem.

[tpaine]

Alaska Passes Anti-Patriot Act Resolution; Second State to Oppose Feds
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/917218/posts


An urban myth?

[Ken H]

the Patriot Act, which still requires a Court to approve a warrant, even if said warrant is only produced **after** the search.

Allowing authorities to act as if they have a warrant before they actually have a warrant seems like a pretty big change from current procedure.

Isn't a court supposed to approve a warrant first?

[deport]

As I've said, the O'Connor/Gonzales theory comes from one of Novak's columns.

---

And you believe 'The Prince of Darkness" unnamed sources? LOL. When's the last time Novak has been given a leak?

I take you've not read any of the opinions Justice Gonzales issued regarding the Parential Notification cases. It maybe enlighting if you haven't.....

[Catalonia]

Holy s***! That's the Mother of All Government-Spending-Too-Much Lists! Great post!

[Catalonia]

Your brand of so-called conservatism is exactly what the DU would love to see.

Your brand of intolerance is exactly what the DU fears, and is exactly the stereotype they portray. The man is bringing up some legitimate points. You need to answer his questions or shut the EFF up. If you can't adequately answer his points or anybody else's than you are required either to pipe down or to change your position. We're not liberals here. I expect more intelligence out of conservatives, whatever their stripes.

Thanks for listening.

[Catalonia]

You are welcome to continue this debate in my email. My intention was to keep the clutter on this thread to a minimum, as such clutter is frequently used by those losing intellectual arguments as an excuse for changing the subject.

Too bad. I was learning a thing or two about the Patriot Act.

[Southack]

"Isn't a court supposed to approve a warrant first?"

That hasn't changed. Only when it is displayed in some rare instances.

[Southack]

"An urban myth?"

Precisely. That's why those attacking it as unConstitutional can't or don't cite the actual legal text of the Patriot Act. The myth surrounding the Act has become bigger than the Act itself.

[tpaine]

You are in denial.

Legislators in two states, and in dozens of local governments, plus arguably hundreds of thousands of your peers, perhaps millions, express serious constitutional reservations about the entire thrust of the 'Act'.

Yet you insist its repugnancy is urban myth.

Dream on.

[balrog666]

Four years of Jimmuh moved the entire country towards the GOP.

I agree - even more so than 8 years of disgusting Klintoon behavior. We may have been outraged and riled up in the 90's but most people didn't even pay attention. In fact, most people don't pay attention, ever, unless you hit them in the wallet (like Jimmuh did).

[ApesForEvolution]

Sorry, you defaulted and I won when you admitted that the "Patriot" Act, (certainly not the most aggregious, nonetheless) -

"Certainly not at the point to which we're taken by the Patriot Act, which still requires a Court to approve a warrant, even if said warrant is only produced **after** the search."

If in your living Constitution world, where Justices like O'Connor, Souter, Kennedy, etc. rewrite the document every day, producing warrants after searching is un-Constitutional. And I don't care what bogus USSC decisions you cite. The USSC has been in dereliction of their Constitutional duties for a long, long time.

If JBTs can slip into anyone's house they want, whenever they want, and THEN justify it later for a judge to rubber stamp, that's not Constitutional America Southack.