Running Gator Posted January 29, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.65 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted January 29, 2017 34 minutes ago, Churchmouse said: That sounds like an issue of interpretation. Now that you have verified you did not bother to read the document I see no reason to continue this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Churchmouse Posted January 29, 2017 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 2,216 Content Per Day: 0.79 Reputation: 1,014 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/29/2016 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/02/1958 Share Posted January 29, 2017 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Out of the Shadows said: Now that you have verified you did not bother to read the document I see no reason to continue this discussion. Nice move. You cast doubt on me and removed you from commenting further. I responded to your post as you posted it because it was the only answer I could give when commenting about what another person took from an article, which includes you!. I have no reason to believe that you would have any greater understanding of the implications and the nuances of a legal text than that of a federal judge. Retired or otherwise. That's what I meant by the interpretation comment. Edited January 29, 2017 by Churchmouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted January 29, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.65 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted January 29, 2017 21 minutes ago, Churchmouse said: Nice move. You cast doubt on me and removed you from commenting further. I responded to your post as you posted it because it was the only answer I could give when commenting about what another person took from an article, which includes you!. I have no reason to believe that you would have any greater understanding of the implications and the nuances of a legal text than that of a federal judge. Retired or otherwise. That's what I meant by the interpretation comment. If you had chosen to read the document that I provided you would find that the data is limited to the Intelligence Community and that the Intelligence community is defined specifically in Executive Order 12333. And had you bothered to read the document and the EO you would know that there is no possible way that the NJ State Police or the Bergen County Prosecutor. or MI6 and MI5 are included in that definition. But instead you choose to just rely on what other told you the document said. This is a big problem in our country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted January 29, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.65 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted January 29, 2017 1 hour ago, The_Patriot2017 said: not true. While I will admit, I liked Bush, I honestly do, I think his heart was in the right place, I hold the Patriot Acts to be a horrible piece of legislature-on par with, if not worse then, Obamacare. And I would hate to see us to continue to make such mistakes, and would love to see those acts torn apart and removed. While I get what you are saying, this has been going on for more than a decade and the party that now has the keys to the kingdom were the party pushing it to the most. The current President and his CIA chief and AG have all said they support it with the latter two saying it needs to be expanded. Outside of the Patriot Act and the NSA spying there is also the little fact that the same party that now controls the government gave the executive branch the power of indefinite detention without hearing or lawyer to anyone that deem worthy. So, you will hopefully forgive me for remaining skeptical that this is going to get better under the current Admin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Churchmouse Posted January 29, 2017 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 2,216 Content Per Day: 0.79 Reputation: 1,014 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/29/2016 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/02/1958 Share Posted January 29, 2017 1 minute ago, Out of the Shadows said: If you had chosen to read the document that I provided you would find that the data is limited to the Intelligence Community and that the Intelligence community is defined specifically in Executive Order 12333. And had you bothered to read the document and the EO you would know that there is no possible way that the NJ State Police or the Bergen County Prosecutor. or MI6 and MI5 are included in that definition. But instead you choose to just rely on what other told you the document said. This is a big problem in our country. And what makes you think that I would be any better than you at interpreting legal text? What the problem in the U.S. is that too many people hold ideology as the ultimate authority for interrupting reality. That which you have brought up is only a symptom of that. What you have done here is simply put your understanding of the nuances of a legal text against that of a experienced federal judge and there is a credibility gap here that I won't even attempt to breach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted January 29, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.65 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted January 29, 2017 Just now, Churchmouse said: And what makes you think that I would be any better than you at interpreting legal text? What the problem in the U.S. is that too many people hold ideology as the ultimate authority for interrupting reality. That which you have brought up is only a symptom of that. What you have done here is simply put your understanding of the nuances of a legal text against that of a experienced federal judge and there is a credibility gap here that I won't even attempt to breach. When a list of things are given there is no need for interpretation, just the ability to be able to read. But you are right that too many people hold ideology as the ultimate authority for interrupting reality. If only you would quit doing it that would be a step in the right direction. But I will not hold my breath for that to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Churchmouse Posted January 29, 2017 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 2,216 Content Per Day: 0.79 Reputation: 1,014 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/29/2016 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/02/1958 Share Posted January 29, 2017 1 minute ago, Out of the Shadows said: When a list of things are given there is no need for interpretation, just the ability to be able to read. But you are right that too many people hold ideology as the ultimate authority for interrupting reality. If only you would quit doing it that would be a step in the right direction. But I will not hold my breath for that to happen. Yes it does, especially when dealing with security and there is a need for that all the way down to the state and federal police. once a door is open, it can't be closed. As far as your attempts to color me as something I am not I will refer you to my previous post where I put out a detailed description of my thoughts of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted January 29, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.65 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted January 29, 2017 Have you read the document or the EO yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Churchmouse Posted January 29, 2017 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 2,216 Content Per Day: 0.79 Reputation: 1,014 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/29/2016 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/02/1958 Share Posted January 29, 2017 2 minutes ago, Out of the Shadows said: Have you read the document or the EO yet? What part of the following don't you understand. 17 minutes ago, Churchmouse said: And what makes you think that I would be any better than you at interpreting legal text? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted January 29, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.65 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted January 29, 2017 2 minutes ago, Churchmouse said: What part of the following don't you understand. So, your entire discussion is coming from a position of ignorance of what the documents actually say. How is that not a partisan act? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts