NSA data-mining program under attack

[Burnsys]

Your claim was that the Bush admin has turned the US into a police state, not that the Bush admin isn't ""nice"". And I'm not sure why you put it in quotes and made that statement about proof - no one in here claimed that bush is "nice". But if that's all you wanted to argue, you can have it - but the claims that we continue to get in here that the US is a police state will continue to be laughable, self-defeating hyperbole.

People have already been dragged from their homes and have been held without charges and without access to legal counsel under this administration. You could be, as well as I. This is a police state, whether you wish to acknowledge the fact or not. If the Bush administration decides that you are a threat, you are automatically a terrorist, with no rights and no recourse to the US justice system. Are you ignorant of the facts, or are you just complacent?

You can't change your argument after the flaws have been pointed out and you can't put words in people's mouths they didn't say - we can still see the original argument. Heck, you probably still even believe it despite its self-contradictory nature.

You can't reply to half of others people posts.. That is somenthing common in you russ, you only quote one argument of the entire post and delete the rest you can't argue and make you look as if you have the final word in the entire thread. You even change the context of the posts by quoting only the things you can argue. But i found you are not only trying to trick others but you are trying to trick yourself by suppresing the information that is not consistent with you mindset.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not trying to trick anyone, Burnsys - none of that other stuff was relevant to my point and the statement I quoted had no additional context connected to it. If I didn't make an argument about any of it, I couldn't have been deceptive. Anyone (even you) can decide for themself which part of an argument they wish to respond to and there isn't anything wrong with that.

And "suppressing the information"? C'mon. That's as absurd and self-defeating as the claim Turbo-1 made. I didn't delete any of Turbo-1's posts, so I can't be suppressing the information. Once again, words have meanings - you (and Turbo-1) can't just throw around emotionally charged words and expect them to stick wherever you feel like it.

As for getting the last word - sure. I'm a thread killer. When I see something absurd going on, I like to slam the door on it. Deal with it.

edit: Wait, I may have missed your point. Are you saying that that quote from Turbo-1 that you posted proves that the US is a police state? Sorry, that just doesn't cut it. It isn't enough. Again, word have definitions and you can't just throw them around for emotional impact when they don't fit.

Hey, but speaking of context, there is context behind that quote of Turbo-1's, that matters. Those people who were "dragged from their homes" were not dragged from their homes for the purpose of suppression of dissent (part of the definition of a "police state"). There was another reason (and a pretty good one) that has been conveniently left out. Leaving it out doesn't make it go away any more than not quoting it suppresses it.

So let's be explicit: detaining suspected terrorists without a trial (what, I think, Turbo-1 was alluding to) is not "exercis[ing] rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people" (the definition of a police state). It isn't even clear-cut as to how the Padilla case would have turned-out: the USSC ruled it moot. http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/03/padilla.scotus/index.html