General Discussion

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)

56. You are misrepresenting our conversation in your headlines to elicit a response.

Tue Jul 15, 2014, 09:09 PM

Jul 2014

Last edited Wed Jul 16, 2014, 06:42 AM - Edit history (3)

I invite everyone to read my posts and edits. My comments were very clear, and both of your claims here - (1) that I claimed to know for certain whether you are an attorney or not, and (2) that I "backed down" from any claims in that regard...are shamelessly false. I did write a slightly longer version of the above post, but edited it because it boiled down to my saying what I am saying now: that I have made my argument, and I believe it is well supported and stands clearly on its own merits.

I don't blame you for wanting to distract from the observations I did make, in order to pretend that deciding whether you are an attorney or not was the focus of my posts.

I frankly have nothing else to say here to you here, except that your behavior right now in deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote in order to elicit a response from me (or perhaps to try to mislead casual readers about the contents of this conversation) is a very good further example of the tactics and behaviors from you that I have already described:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5242407

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5242664

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

88 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why does the Government continue to fight the requirement to obtain Warrants? [View all] n2doc Jul 2014 OP

Any evidence is subject to being gathered when building a case in court. Why would an interest Thinkingabout Jul 2014 #1

Really easy answers to easy questions. Pholus Jul 2014 #2

Yep, I can volunteer to help the police, in fact I have at different times, I just happen to be Thinkingabout Jul 2014 #3

Good for you. Me? Glad they're there, but I do have rights and I reserve them all. Pholus Jul 2014 #6

Naive? It is naive to expect my space to be protected and criminals to just walk away any time they Thinkingabout Jul 2014 #10

Uh huh. Pholus Jul 2014 #20

Look, a post cheering blind totalitarianism! woo me with science Jul 2014 #4

You know, I'm thinking the first option. Pholus Jul 2014 #7

We can only hope... woo me with science Jul 2014 #8

So you think we should live in a world where criminals has open season on victims? Hell no, the Thinkingabout Jul 2014 #9

Part of being secure in your papers is not having the government read all your correspondence just.. JVS Jul 2014 #13

The post you are responding to is utter distraction. woo me with science Jul 2014 #17

Where is everyone being wiretapped? Thinkingabout Jul 2014 #19

You are aware, are you not... ljm2002 Jul 2014 #25

Do you think you are wiretapping when you look at your phone bill? Thinkingabout Jul 2014 #51

Apparently we are talking past on another... ljm2002 Jul 2014 #54

Maybe, the truth hurts sometimes. Thinkingabout Jul 2014 #59

More than *eighty percent* of phone calls, the audio content, not just metadata, is being stored. woo me with science Jul 2014 #63

You know, if this is true then I can retrieve the voice information and use this to prove I said or Thinkingabout Jul 2014 #64

No, unless you are NSA, you can't retrieve it. That's part of the point. woo me with science Jul 2014 #75

I am thinking this is going to be normal in the future, we could subpoena the files when there is a Thinkingabout Jul 2014 #78

Third Way defense of outright corruption: Attempt to normalize woo me with science Jul 2014 #81

Now you know there is mass spying and surveillance. I am thinking if this guy is correct then Thinkingabout Jul 2014 #84

There are no "both sides" to this issue. woo me with science Jul 2014 #86

Yes there is lying on both sides of this, and until I can hear the conversations word for word then Thinkingabout Jul 2014 #87

Excellent posts here woo me with science Jul 2014 #65

Thanks... ljm2002 Jul 2014 #74

+1 The more it's all publicized, the better. woo me with science Jul 2014 #77

You bring up an important point--"being secure in your papers" has evolved over two centuries of msanthrope Jul 2014 #47

... woo me with science Jul 2014 #14

"a world where criminals has (sic) open season on victims"... ljm2002 Jul 2014 #22

You may not entirely understand 50 years ago people was getting convicted by having the same Thinkingabout Jul 2014 #52

Too funny... ljm2002 Jul 2014 #55

Yea, thought you would think this was funny, unless you happened to be the one convicted with just Thinkingabout Jul 2014 #58

Well--he's technically correct that any evidence is subject to being gathered, but he's forgotten an msanthrope Jul 2014 #16

And here you are, with the very same tactic as always: woo me with science Jul 2014 #23

Woo, on this particular point you and are in agreement, yet you respond with invective. msanthrope Jul 2014 #28

Remember the admonition to watch a fictional teevee show as a rebuttal? riderinthestorm Jul 2014 #29

Omar's coming. Remember, the cheese stands alone. msanthrope Jul 2014 #40

I had forgotten about that one. woo me with science Jul 2014 #46

Woo, I am going to repeat to you the challenge I repeat to every poster who thinks I am not an msanthrope Jul 2014 #48

I have stated my case very clearly already. woo me with science Jul 2014 #50

Woo, I appreciate you backing down from your claim that I am not an attorney. And in the msanthrope Jul 2014 #53

You are misrepresenting our conversation in your headlines to elicit a response. woo me with science Jul 2014 #56

So take a stand, woo? Do you think I am an attorney, or not? nt msanthrope Jul 2014 #57

The cases are there treestar Jul 2014 #36

I am reminded of those who quote the 2nd amendment in a similar fashion, and think that msanthrope Jul 2014 #38

You are correct that any evidence is subject to being gathered, but the rub is HOW. msanthrope Jul 2014 #11

So you are against law enforcement being required to abide by the law, iow, the US Constitution sabrina 1 Jul 2014 #33

Change every use of "criminal" to "accused." Better yet, morningfog Jul 2014 #66

Indeed. woo me with science Jul 2014 #82

K & R !!! WillyT Jul 2014 #5

After crapping on the Fifth, they went for the Fourth. Eleanors38 Jul 2014 #12

Oh, we can line up all the amendments they are crapping on. woo me with science Jul 2014 #15

They are a busy-boweled lot. Eleanors38 Jul 2014 #21

No--this issue was settled in the 70s. 3rd party has been around for 40 years. And that's the msanthrope Jul 2014 #18

No, it wasn't "settled" in the 70's. woo me with science Jul 2014 #26

Woo, as I noted to you above, you and I are in agreement on this point, yet you are being rude. Why? msanthrope Jul 2014 #30

Thank you Woo ... these misleading statements need to be corrected constantly here, sadly. sabrina 1 Jul 2014 #34

Dealing with incessant diversion, distortion, and disinformation campaigns woo me with science Jul 2014 #45

The Administration can argue any legal point it chooses to treestar Jul 2014 #37

Well, here, it's demanded they roll over even when they are in agreement!!! nt msanthrope Jul 2014 #39

Here is it asked that they defend the US Constitution as they took an oath to do. Quaint sabrina 1 Jul 2014 #44

So the Constitution is no longer the 'rule of law' in America? When did THAT happen? sabrina 1 Jul 2014 #41

Er, yes it is and the courts decide the issues under the constitution treestar Jul 2014 #60

So show me when the 4th Amendment to the Constitution was abolished. Thanks in advance. sabrina 1 Jul 2014 #61

Why wouldn't this fall under business records? Michigander_Life Jul 2014 #24

It does. nt msanthrope Jul 2014 #31

Important OP. K&R woo me with science Jul 2014 #27

Hoover...he made it clear that all US citizens are possible enemies of the state. Rex Jul 2014 #32

He's getting plenty of help from all sides sadly, these days. Used to be just one side, but as we sabrina 1 Jul 2014 #42

Yes the 8 years with the BFEE and the 8 years with Obama taught/teaching us some valuable lessons. Rex Jul 2014 #43

Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Jul 2014 #35

If issuing warrants were a For-Profit business, we'd see warrants up the wazoo. WinkyDink Jul 2014 #49

Don't give them any ideas. They'll want to privatize the judiciary. JEB Jul 2014 #88

Your question isn't really a for real question is it? lonestarnot Jul 2014 #62

So, criminal rule #1: Calista241 Jul 2014 #67

Constitution, schmonstitution, am I right?. woo me with science Jul 2014 #68

That information will always be available to them Calista241 Jul 2014 #70

If the cops take their time and do their jobs properly, woo me with science Jul 2014 #71

Sorry, I thought saying "do their jobs properly" Calista241 Jul 2014 #72

I think the whole point of this thread is that warrants are being resisted, woo me with science Jul 2014 #73

Because when you basically have to suck up most EVERY CALL & EMAIL to do what you want librechik Jul 2014 #69

Warrants don't matter.. gerogie2 Jul 2014 #76

Yeah, better to just give up our rights. Constitution, schmonstitution. woo me with science Jul 2014 #79

kick woo me with science Jul 2014 #80

kick woo me with science Jul 2014 #83

Government support be the Leaders rwkj57 Jul 2014 #85