Originally Posted By planodisney I get just as tired of an out of control poster as anyone else, but get serious guys, while Beau might annoy some of you guys on the left by his tactics, it isnt even remotely fair to constantly be labeling him as Ed's counterpart. He is nothing like Ed, who constantly tells us we are all liars and cheats and war mongers and the list could go on and on. Plus, Beau actually is trying to express his opinion, like it or hate it, while Ed is simply trying to be provocatove and get attention.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Nope, sorry, they're the same in their own ways. One's an ass and the other is well, an ass.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy But STPH, you and Ed have many of the same views. He just says things a bit differnt than you. Be proud of that.
Originally Posted By jonvn "He is nothing like Ed, who constantly tells us we are all liars and cheats and war mongers and the list could go on and on." Of course he is. He simply uses different insults. "Pansies" comes to mind, for example. He's really got nothing of interest to say.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd Ed = honest man. Honesty over politcal, or religious affiliation. I answer to all life, not negative enemy creators, who have little understanding about how short, and precious life really is.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd And i think i do my job pretty well as the fool. I hope everyone here has gotten at least one or two laughs from somehting i've written. How many other people, many of your friends, gotten you laugh as hard? So, sad, i am really just a mirror, those who are serious, and are truthful with their questions, get the correct answers.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy When the libs call me racist I know they have lost...again. If you can get the left to call you their mindless manes like bigot, racist, homophobe, hate monger and all that you know they are once again out of things to say. Anyone who actually tells the truth gets called a racist by these shallow people. It's how they try and stop the debate once they get their butts kicked. It's also why they are not verey smart and why they lose. If you are going to call people names you better have more to bring to the table.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "If you are going to call people names you better have more to bring to the table." Finally, you admit you have nothing. And it only took a few years.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy STPH, when I call you names I will explain why. You just don't have the game to keep up. When you say you and 80% of your lawyer buddies agree with the judge who banned the NSA program I can say you are not a good lawyer and neither are your peeps. But nice job on that law degree.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Ed is more outrageous than Beau, but probably more often correct. You don't need a weather man To know which way the wind blows
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "When you say you and 80% of your lawyer buddies agree with the judge who banned the NSA program I can say you are not a good lawyer and neither are your peeps." And yet not one legal analysis from you to explain why. Not even one you plagiarized. You're completely irrelevant.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < Why are you in favor of terrorists talking without us listenting to their claling patterns? > No one's in favor of that. Everyone wants us to listen to terrorists. We just want a warrant first, so that the executive branch (which won't always be in GOP hands) has some oversight.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy From Powerline.. "In the NSA case the government raised issues that would and possibly should have precluded a decision on the merits of the case. One of these, for example, is the issue of standing -- a requirement based on Article III of the Constitution limiting the federal judicial power to "cases or controversies." If the plaintiffs in a given case lack standing to bring it, a federal court is powerless to hear the case regardless of the importance of the claims plaintiffs seek to litigate. Judge Taylor blows through the issue of standing more or less as she does the other issues in the case." --- SRPH,You and 80% of all your lawyer friends must have never studied the issue of "standing". You might want to go check up on this before you give any more opinions. Your group of clueless lawyer buds also ignore the fact that a half-dozen federal appellate decisions already supported the legality of the NSA program. So what do you do?? What does jon on here do? You guys go along with the far left moonbat judge who should have taken herself off the case to begin with since she is in bed with the ACLU. Then you guys want to come on here and tell us how smart you are and how conservatives just can't keep up? Give us all a break. I feel sorry for whoever you are doing legal work for.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Okay Dabob. You tell the NSA who all the terrorists are in the US, and then they can get warrants to monitor those terrorists phone calls.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<SRPH,You and 80% of all your lawyer friends must have never studied the issue of "standing".>> Beau, I must admit to being less well informed than you are because I have no idea what this "standing" issue is. Could you please explain it to me?? Thanks.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<No one's in favor of that. Everyone wants us to listen to terrorists. We just want a warrant first, so that the executive branch (which won't always be in GOP hands) has some oversight.>> You can't get a warrant to listen to millions of calls for patterns. But hey, as long as you libs are going to be confused about this you might as well keep pushing for warrants that would totally wreck the program. How are you going to get a warrant to listen to millions of calls Dabob? Jon, you tell us you are smart and nobody from my side can keep up. Well, how would getting warrants work to track these calls?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Beau, I must admit to being less well informed than you are because I have no idea what this "standing" issue is. Could you please explain it to me??>> My last post explained it. It has to do with prior cases setting a precedent. You need to ask jon, he claims he is smarter than everyone. Or ask STPH a real live lawyer. Well, don't ask him, he is a bit confused.
Originally Posted By jonvn "You need to ask jon, he claims he is smarter than everyone." I never made any such claim.
