Originally Posted By RoadTrip By the way Beau... I'm STILL waiting for the explanation. If you have too tough a time check with STPH; he might help you if you asked nicely. <<No Beau, your last post DIDN'T explain it. Your last post quoted some mumbo jumbo which I don't understand. I want YOU to explain if for me using terms a layman like me would understand. Thank You.>>
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <And even if I don't win on that, my Johnson is a lot bigger so I STILL win. ;-) still using a Johnson ? I've got twin Evirude's on my boat....( I know that is what you meant right ? ;-)
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Well, I can't argue with you on this. I surrender. To bring up W-2s was stupid and not really my point. Thanks for taking me to the Woodshed. < np -- I learned long ago, there's always someone richer / smarter / better looking - has a better golf game, can fight better whatever....got to be careful when you call someone out, it might be that person...and when you call out an entire group.. the odds are more against you then they are when you are at a casino.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Now you are acting like your bud STPH" He is not my bud, and I think he rather dislikes me, actually.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Standing This is, arguably, the most crucial portion of the opinion, even if it isn't the sexiest: Judge Taylor's discussion of whether the plaintiffs even had the constitutionally requisite standing to sue in federal court. At the outset, a quick (and necessarily over-simplified) backgrounder on standing. Under Article III of the United States Constitution, the federal courts can only entertain actual cases and controversies, and are thus barred from hearing a wide range of disputes, from non-legal conflicts to rendering abstract advisory opinions on the state of the law. In practice, this has induced the Supreme Court to articulate a test for whether a plaintiff has standing under the Constitution to sue -- or, more accurately, whether a federal court has the power under the Constitution to decide a particular dispute. <a href="http://greatwhitesnark.typepad.com/great_white_snark/2006/08/to_avoid_an_arb.html" target="_blank">http://greatwhitesnark.typepad .com/great_white_snark/2006/08/to_avoid_an_arb.html</a>
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<"Now you are acting like your bud STPH" He is not my bud, and I think he rather dislikes me, actually.>> LOL, he might have used to feel that way but ever since I came along anybody that is even kinda against me is his new partner in crime. Even Ed.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Standing This is, arguably, the most crucial portion of the opinion, even if it isn't the sexiest: Judge Taylor's discussion of whether the plaintiffs even had the constitutionally requisite standing to sue in federal court. >> Beau... I DID NOT WANT copy/paste. I wanted you to explain it to me in your own words. Do you know what the hell you are talking about or don't you??
Originally Posted By Beaumandy RT, "standing" means that a Federal judge can only hear the case if cases like it have been tried before. The prson bringing the case must also show that they have been harmed. Neither of these conditions were met when the Jimmy Carter, ACLU judge decided to go activist anti Bush and ban the NSA program... for starters. Besides, do you want to learn or do you want to play little games? You might want to ask STPH and 80% of his lawyer buds to explain why standing isn't important in a Federal coutroom anymore.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Besides, do you want to learn or do you want to play little games? >> I want to learn. You based your entire argument upon a concept that I had never heard of. I just wanted to know what the heck you were talking about. I'm still not sure I know, but at lease you’ve given me enough information I can research it further. P.S. Tell your wife thanks for explaining the concept in a way that was understandable. I really appreciate it. ;-)
Originally Posted By Beaumandy How did you know my wife bailed me out again? ha! My favorite radio people are at the Minn. state fair this week. You might should show up and listen for a few hours. Prager and Medved are there boadcasting for some reason.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<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.>> <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.> What a lame thing to say. Warrants work the way warrants work; the government goes to FISA and says we want a warrant to listen to these people who were think are terrorists, or have terrorist ties. FISA says yes (all but 4 times in nearly 30 years).
Originally Posted By Beaumandy dabob, you either don't understand the NSA program or you are trying to mislead. You can't get a warrant to monitor millions of calling patterns. Tehy are looking for words, patterns, red flags. THEN they focus in on people like those who were going to blow up the Brooklyn bridge until the NSA progream stopped them.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Beau, on the contrary, it seems to be you who does not understand the difference between monitoring calling patterns and monitoring actual phone calls. They are two separate things. What people object to with the NSA program (me, anyway), is not logging patterns, but monitoring (i.e. listening in on) specific calls without a warrant.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Dabob, if you understood the NSA program you wouldn't be insisting on warrants. But hey, a judge from your side cancelled the program in an attempt to let the terrorsts kill all of us. You guys celebrate her decision. We must be a nation of morons if we have people who celebrate a win for the terrorsits who this judge is trying to help.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Dabob, if you understood the NSA program you wouldn't be insisting on warrants.> I think if you understood how warrants work and why they are necessary, theoretically and practically, you wouldn't object to them, even if you radio told you otherwise.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy My radio told me? How does my radio explain you insisting we get warrants for millions of phone calls that track calling patterns?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I've addressed that before. I'm not talking about the pattern monitoring. I'm talking about the listening in on specific phone calls - because that's going on without warrants also.
