Republicans Pass Mandatory Child Strip Search Bill

[enserio]

Its basically giving the school administration authority to interpet what is "intrusive".. u have to understand that when something is passed, it needs to clarify what the key words are such as "resonable,permissable,intrusive"..

You're still not reading well. It's not giving the school admin the authority to interpret "intrusive, reasonable, and permissable", it's mandating that districts (in the actual bill it states "agencies", which equates district) set forth policies that teachers/administration must follow. There going to have to, because violating students rights will lead to lawsuits.
vvvv

Similar justification allowed police officers to storm a high school in Goose Creek, SC, in 2003, forcing dozens of students to the ground and pointing loaded guns directly at their faces during a widely-criticized raid in which no drugs were found.
http://www.youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=2554

This quote says little to nothing about our subject at hand. One is a raid by police officers, yet we are talking about searches by teachers and administrators. Police enforce laws put into place and this bill is not even law yet, so how on earth can it be "similar justification".

or how about...

The bill does not address whether body cavity searches are included, whether training will be provided to staffers performing them, whether background checks on staffers would be necessary, whether students who have been sexually abused in the past would be subject or whether parental notification would be required. Without those specifics, the judgment of local school administrators will be the litmus test.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1707337/posts

We have already gone over this. You are saying it will open up the possibilty of strip searches and I am saying that districts will be required to interpret "reasonable, permissable, and not intrusive". When it comes time for each district to set their policies it would be our job to make sure the parents are there to be part of the process. And LMAO @ cavity searches. While the bill doesn't specifically address this, language like this is simply a scare tactic. Any district that interprets "not intrusive, reasonable" as covering cavity searches will be all over the national news and come under a shitload of criticism. Give me a break with this one.

did we have the opportunity to have a say in the patriot act? or how about the NSA taps? but hey, im just a tinfoil hat so dont take it from me...

The Patriot Act and the NSA Taps are not comparable to this bill, other than you believe your rights will be taken away. The reasons why they are happening are not comparable at all.

Homie, I neither stated, nor implied that you are a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist, so don't lump me in with most cats. A lot of times you post information and opinions that are valuable. Even with this post, you are exposing that students are losing rights, yet I am arguing as to the extent of that loss and how you are painting it. Take for instance the fact that the actual language of the bill says nothing about strip searches, yet you titled this thread "Republicans Pass Mandatory Child Strip Search Bill".

Originally Posted by National PTA
"If we are serious about protecting students and teachers, we must provide ways for schools to address the foundation of these problems, not simply allow teachers the relatively unbridled authority to search a student under the veil of school safety."

riginally Posted by National School Boards Association:
“…this legislation does not do anything to create a more positive learning environment. Worse, H.R. 5295 could mislead school personnel into violating the constitutional rights of students in the errant belief that, as long as their actions conform with the Congress’s general description of “reasonableness,” they must be permissible.”

:dead:

You post that little dead image as if you dropped some quotes that ended the argument. I'll bet you've never quoted the National PTA in your life and if you're going that to support you're argument, then you should also be knowledgeable of opinions they've had on other important issues. At any rate, The first quote speaks to providing schools the support to address the foundation of these problems, yet they don't even hint as to what that could be. Also, they have the nerve to place school safety squarely on the shoulders of schools, yet don't speak at all to THEIR RESPONSIBLITY in all of this. "Gee, my child runs around with a bunch of buddies that call themselves the Trenchcoat Mafia, maybe I should take an interest!"

As for the second quote. I agree with that this legislation does not do anything to create a more positive environment, OTHER THAN POSSIBLY KEEPING STUDENTS ALIVE. And, I wholeheartedly disagree with the rest of the statement, because these are more people who just refuse to read the actual text of the bill. School personnel are not going to have to conform with Congress' description of "reasonable and permissable", they will have to follow the policies set forth by their districts. School personnel will not be interpreting anything.

I dunno where your from but where i went to school we always had armed guards and at least a couple cops always on campus.. the repore you speak of with teachers is in no way jepordized by having guards so i dont see your point of refuting the idea of guards...

I was not saying that guards would jeopardize student/teacher repore, I was fascetiously asking if your guards would be trained or able to achieve the same kind of repore.

its a mixed bag of both saftey measures and rights being taken away..

This I agree with, yet you speak nothing of the safety measures and instead choose to harp in the miniscule possibility that you think your kid could get strip searched. Tell me, do you intepret "reasonable, permissable, and not intrusive" as strip search?

when i was going to school i always knew that if a teacher or staff member wanted to search me they had to have a reason too.. with this bill, if one student is searched the entire classroom is.. should my children be put under the magnifying glass because of what her class mates did??

They still have to have a reason. The bill itself states, "...acting on any reasonable suspicion based on professional experience and judgment", and, "The measures used to conduct any search must be reasonably related to the search's objectives." Again you are misreading and/or taking an extreme interpretation to support your slant.

 

[TROLL]

You're still not reading well. It's not giving the school admin the authority to interpret "intrusive, reasonable, and permissable", it's mandating that districts (in the actual bill it states "agencies", which equates district) set forth policies that teachers/administration must follow. There going to have to, because violating students rights will lead to lawsuits.

ok i stand corrected, but should an entire "district/agency" still be able to interpet what they believe as "intrusive, reasonable and permissable"?? that doesnt really make it anybetter because if a parent disagrees with what only a school "admin" is doing they can send there child to a diffrent school but its harder to find a whole other school district...

This quote says little to nothing about our subject at hand. One is a raid by police officers, yet we are talking about searches by teachers and administrators. Police enforce laws put into place and this bill is not even law yet, so how on earth can it be "similar justification".

i used it as an example to show that even without this law passing that schools have done things extreme..

We have already gone over this. You are saying it will open up the possibilty of strip searches and I am saying that districts will be required to interpret "reasonable, permissable, and not intrusive". When it comes time for each district to set their policies it would be our job to make sure the parents are there to be part of the process. And LMAO @ cavity searches. While the bill doesn't specifically address this, language like this is simply a scare tactic. Any district that interprets "not intrusive, reasonable" as covering cavity searches will be all over the national news and come under a shitload of criticism. Give me a break with this one.

Your posting here so you can only give yourself a break.. i already said i stated an extreme example but if being worried about a possibility of the extreme happening is something you choose not to be a part of your more then welcome to wait until something happens to have a say about it.. but im not that type..

The Patriot Act and the NSA Taps are not comparable to this bill, other than you believe your rights will be taken away. The reasons why they are happening are not comparable at all.

i used those as an example of rushed legislation.. not as a point of comparison of the bills ethics or morality..

Homie, I neither stated, nor implied that you are a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist, so don't lump me in with most cats. A lot of times you post information and opinions that are valuable.

I didnt mean for that comment to be aimed at u specifically folx.. but right on..

Even with this post, you are exposing that students are losing rights, yet I am arguing as to the extent of that loss and how you are painting it.

I understand your arguement.. and i dont neccisarily think your wrong for not being worried at this point.. i was upfront about this being a pre-text to something that is going to be worried about at a later date..

Take for instance the fact that the actual language of the bill says nothing about strip searches, yet you titled this thread "Republicans Pass Mandatory Child Strip Search Bill".

I see where your coming from.. i took the title of the thread from an article i read and wasnt something i thought up of on my own..
vvvv
http://www.libertyforum.org/showfla...mber=294969081&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=21&part=

...maybe the person who wrote it did jump the gun a tad but i still beleive there are people out there that are so detatched from moral values that will use this loosely stated bill too enact such things as pat-downs, strip searches etc.. to sum it up, the bill doesnt have to be specific, which it isnt.. and leads to manipulated interpetation..

You post that little dead image as if you dropped some quotes that ended the argument. I'll bet you've never quoted the National PTA in your life and if you're going that to support you're argument, then you should also be knowledgeable of opinions they've had on other important issues.

I am unsure if your trying to say i made up that quote from the PTA or not.. but if so heres where i quoted it from..

http://www.youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=2554

but heres some others for you to check out if u dont believe me about the PTA being against this legislation
.......
PTA Voices Concern Over School Safety Legislation:: (third paragraph down)
http://www.pta.org/ia_newsletters_issue_1158681127343.html

The legislation, wrote Weselak, “fails to create constructive policy that will actually improve the safety of students and school personnel.” Rather, the bill will only “help to insulate teachers and school officials who conduct student searches from lawsuits.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House approves school searches, but the fight continues::
http://daregeneration.blogspot.com/2006_09_17_daregeneration_archive.html

In addition to support from these courageous members of Congress, the National PTA, the American Federation of Teachers, the American Association of School Administrators, and the National School Boards Association all issued statements opposing this legislation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At any rate, The first quote speaks to providing schools the support to address the foundation of these problems, yet they don't even hint as to what that could be. Also, they have the nerve to place school safety squarely on the shoulders of schools, yet don't speak at all to THEIR RESPONSIBLITY in all of this. "Gee, my child runs around with a bunch of buddies that call themselves the Trenchcoat Mafia, maybe I should take an interest!"

LOL i agree 100%

As for the second quote. I agree with that this legislation does not do anything to create a more positive environment, OTHER THAN POSSIBLY KEEPING STUDENTS ALIVE. And, I wholeheartedly disagree with the rest of the statement, because these are more people who just refuse to read the actual text of the bill. School personnel are not going to have to conform with Congress' description of "reasonable and permissable", they will have to follow the policies set forth by their districts. School personnel will not be interpreting anything.

Yes, u clarified my mistake twice already, but as i pointed out, that makes it harder for a parent to move there child to another school if they disagree with the policy that is set forth..

I was not saying that guards would jeopardize student/teacher repore, I was fascetiously asking if your guards would be trained or able to achieve the same kind of repore.

couldnt hurt to train them in that also.. i can personally say all the guards at my school, with the exception of one, were complete jackasses.

This I agree with, yet you speak nothing of the safety measures and instead choose to harp in the miniscule possibility that you think your kid could get strip searched. Tell me, do you intepret "reasonable, permissable, and not intrusive" as strip search?

No.. but one can easily argue the points

"yes this strip search was REASONABLE.. because the teacher thought he smelled gun powder, and wasnt INTRUSIVE giving the severity of the concern"

similar to the current "what is really torture" debate thats going on recently..

They still have to have a reason. The bill itself states, "...acting on any reasonable suspicion based on professional experience and judgment", and, "The measures used to conduct any search must be reasonably related to the search's objectives." Again you are misreading and/or taking an extreme interpretation to support your slant.

what other objectives can a search have other then finding/seeking something.. but since the teacher is suspicious of one student in particular the entire class be subject to the same scruitiny? i understand about 95% of your arguement, but as a parent, you can tell me that this extreme example is ridculous, but until the district clarify's what there idea of resonable and intrusive is, i have the responability to remain vigilant.. and i have served my purpose in passing along the info.. albeit extreme.. but a worse case scenario is something every parent worries about..

 

[Dirty Shoez]

Because these are current events being caused by who?? --->republicans
and a "liberman democrat" are republicans in disguise, wasnt it karl rove who got caught funneling money to liberman?? :ermm:


lol.. i really dont give 2 shits about what you choose to pass off as assumption harold.. Your having a hard time trying to comprhend the concept of an inner workings that masquerades itself as a 2 party system...

HAHA

wow.. did your feelings get hurt?? did i cause a bit of emotional distress talking bad about the fascism thats setting itself in position?? dam if you luv your republican party so much go check out the page program im sure they have openings and you can do all the loving u can HAHAH but anyway..

if you want to be spoken to like an adult the be responsible enough to face the truth of the matters at hand..


no.. your in denial.. seriously...

vvvv
http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/092006search.cfm

so basically what i hear is..

:dead:

Ok then....if you insist on being daft , them let's have a look at the vote. Shall we?

First of all, here are the search results for the bill, HR 5295.

There are 3 versions of Bill Number H.R.5295 for the 109th Congress
1 . Student and Teacher Safety Act of 2006 (Introduced in House)[H.R.5295.IH]
2 . Student and Teacher Safety Act of 2006 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)[H.R.5295.EH]
3 . Student and Teacher Safety Act of 2006 (Referred to Senate Committee after being Received from House)[H.R.5295.RFS]


You quoted someone who said this bill was "rushed" to the floor, which seems to imply that it was recently written. Incorrect. This bill came into being on May 4, 2006. Simply go on the Thomas site, which you mentioned earlier, look up the bill, and see for yourself.

Or...wait...you never mentioned it. Hmmm. I wonder why not?

You know, it always amazes me when people copy/paste links from newspapers or magazines or blogs, and aim to try to scare people about what legislation does or doesn't contain.....and then don't even bother to tell people about http://thomas.loc.gov , where people can go look up the exact bills, and read them word for word for themselves.



You want to talk about who is in denial, and who isn't? Let's compare:



"Congress Considering Strip Searching Students --Congress to vote on HR 5295 Tuesday or Wednesday 18 Sep 2006 (drugpolicy.org) The Student Teacher Safety Act of 2006 (HR 5295) is a sloppily written bill that would require any school receiving federal funding (essentially every public school) to adopt policies allowing teachers and school officials to conduct random, warrantless searches of every student, at any time, for essentially any reason they want. These searches could be pat-downs, bag searches, or strip searches depending on how far school administrators wanted to go."



From the bill itself:

(a) In General- Each local educational agency shall have in effect throughout the jurisdiction of the agency policies that ensure that a search described in subsection (b) is deemed reasonable and permissible.

(b) Searches Covered- A search referred to in subsection (a) is a search by a full-time teacher or school official, acting on any reasonable suspicion based on professional experience and judgment, of any minor student on the grounds of any public school, if the search is conducted to ensure that classrooms, school buildings, school property and students remain free from the threat of all weapons, dangerous materials, or illegal narcotics. The measures used to conduct any search must be reasonably related to the search's objectives, without being excessively intrusive in light of the student's age, sex, and the nature of the offense.



"Mandatory Child Strip Search"......wow. That's some spin. That would be like me calling a proposal to pull out of Iraq the "Support Insurgents Who Kill and Rape Iraqi Women and Children Act", and then blasting any Democrat who voted in favor of a time-tabled withdrawal.

As far as who passed this bill.....this bill is not law yet. It is not even close to being law yet. Why you act like it is is beyond me. And why you seem to imply that Democrats couldn't have stopped it if they wanted to--and they could have--is even further beyond me.

The only explanation is that you are a disinformation agent who has but one goal: to smear the Republican party (specifically) for your own political reasons, while inflicting minimal damage to their Democratic counterparts. It is plain to see why you refuse to admit this. Verily, you are afraid. But hey, if it makes you feel good to spin and tell half-truths because you feel like it serves the overall good....then by all means. I'll continue to be on the side of real truth, and hope that, some day, you'll have the courage to join me.

 

[TRAJIK1]

THERES GONNA BE MAD DRAMA IF SOMTHIN LIKE THIS EVER HAPPENS. I AINT GOT KIDS BUT A LIL BROTHER AND LOTS OF COUSINS, NEPHEWS, NEICES SO I FEEL YA'LL

 

[Dirty Shoez]

It already has happened. And will continue to happen. And should it be put up for a vote before the election, Democrats will not attempt to stop it. No logical person, other than for political purposes and to appease far-left zealots (or even far-right ones) would stop it. It is a bill that should have been written up and signed into law a long time ago.

The only issue here is those who choose to frame it as a "strip search" bill, and claim that our "rights" are being taken away. The fact that the word "warrantless" would even be mentioned in ANY article about this topic shows how dishonest these people are, and that they just want to use false arguments to scare you.

 

[TROLL]

Ok then....if you insist on being daft , them let's have a look at the vote. Shall we?

First of all, here are the search results for the bill, HR 5295.

There are 3 versions of Bill Number H.R.5295 for the 109th Congress
1 . Student and Teacher Safety Act of 2006 (Introduced in House)[H.R.5295.IH]
2 . Student and Teacher Safety Act of 2006 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)[H.R.5295.EH]
3 . Student and Teacher Safety Act of 2006 (Referred to Senate Committee after being Received from House)[H.R.5295.RFS]

ok...

You quoted someone who said this bill was "rushed" to the floor, which seems to imply that it was recently written. Incorrect. This bill came into being on May 4, 2006. Simply go on the Thomas site, which you mentioned earlier, look up the bill, and see for yourself.

sorry, wrong harold.. it doesnt neccisarily mean it was written at the time it was presented but that the regular process was circumvented and got a quick vote... go ahead... read on..

DPA supporters and others who opposed this outrageous bill called their members of Congress this week to express their disapproval.However, House leaders circumvented the usual legislative procedure to bring the bill to a quick vote. It did not pass through the committee process, but went straight to the House floor. There, it was passed bya simple voice vote, so constituents cannot even find out how their Representative voted.

You know, it always amazes me when people copy/paste links from newspapers or magazines or blogs, and aim to try to scare people about what legislation does or doesn't contain.....and then don't even bother to tell people about http://thomas.loc.gov , where people can go look up the exact bills, and read them word for word for themselves.

i never knew that site existed.. good find!.. however, i already stated im taking the extreme example because it doesnt neccisarily mean that its not possible..

You want to talk about who is in denial, and who isn't? Let's compare:

"Congress Considering Strip Searching Students --Congress to vote on HR 5295 Tuesday or Wednesday 18 Sep 2006 (drugpolicy.org) The Student Teacher Safety Act of 2006 (HR 5295) is a sloppily written bill that would require any school receiving federal funding (essentially every public school) to adopt policies allowing teachers and school officials to conduct random, warrantless searches of every student, at any time, for essentially any reason they want. These searches could be pat-downs, bag searches, or strip searches depending on how far school administrators wanted to go."

From the bill itself:

(a) In General- Each local educational agency shall have in effect throughout the jurisdiction of the agency policies that ensure that a search described in subsection (b) is deemed reasonable and permissible.

(b) Searches Covered- A search referred to in subsection (a) is a search by a full-time teacher or school official, acting on any reasonable suspicion based on professional experience and judgment, of any minor student on the grounds of any public school, if the search is conducted to ensure that classrooms, school buildings, school property and students remain free from the threat of all weapons, dangerous materials, or illegal narcotics. The measures used to conduct any search must be reasonably related to the search's objectives, without being excessively intrusive in light of the student's age, sex, and the nature of the offense.

I dont know where you have been but its been already stated that a disctrict is essentially allowed to interpet those key words... i dont feel i have to repeat myself for someone refusing to read for themself.

"Mandatory Child Strip Search"......wow. That's some spin. That would be like me calling a proposal to pull out of Iraq the "Support Insurgents Who Kill and Rape Iraqi Women and Children Act", and then blasting any Democrat who voted in favor of a time-tabled withdrawal"

Kind of like claiming one party wants to "cut and run" or are "defeatist's" huh?? but as i already said i copied the title from an article and admited whoever thought of it had jumped the gun.. but apparently you missed that..

As far as who passed this bill..this bill is not law yet. It is not even close to being law yet. Why you act like it is is beyond me.

Ive stated already it has yet to pass the senate so i dunno where you pulled this "your acting like its law already blah blah".... (your ass maybe??)... like i told enserio.. im not the type to wait till something is already set into place to express my concern and discontent with it... why wait for cancer to stop smoking?

And why you seem to imply that Democrats couldn't have stopped it if they wanted to--and they could have--is even further beyond me.

im sorry, but, who are the majority in the house again??

The only explanation is that you are a disinformation agent who has but one goal: to smear the Republican party (specifically) for your own political reasons, while inflicting minimal damage to their Democratic counterparts.

Ive said over and over again that both parties play for the same team.. ive learned about all this following the events of 9/11.. i wasnt intrested in politics before that and so i took it upon myself to do the research and found flaws on BOTH sides... however, maybe the republicans are doing a worse job of keeping it undercover...

for me to be a disinfo agent would be to imply i have lied... you have yet to show me anywhere that i have lied or havent accepted a flaw in my stance on a subject.. please, do so..

It is plain to see why you refuse to admit this. Verily, you are afraid. But hey, if it makes you feel good to spin and tell half-truths because you feel like it serves the overall good....then by all means. I'll continue to be on the side of real truth, and hope that, some day, you'll have the courage to join me.

then please tell me what is the "real truth".. you have already admitted your a republican so how can you be truthful and not biased?? answer these questions for me

True or False... we went to iraq on lies...
True or False... The bush admin recieved plenty of "warnings" about 9/11
True or False... Our president has gone against the constitution and bill of rights..
True or False..The conservatives are feeling the republicans have abandoned them
True or False..the gap between rich and poor has grown
True or False..Government power has grown the largest ever..
True or False..George H. W Bush preached about a NEW WORLD ORDER
True or False.. Bush made it legal for someone to torture another human being.
True or False.. Donald Rumsfeld sold weapons to Sadam AAANNND Nuclear reactors to north korea..

so if you want to come and whine like a toddler about me not exposing democrats as much as republicans i want to see you admit to the fact that there is at least a justified concern about the direction our country is headed THAT is perpetuated by those currently in power.. if not, then you arent on the adult level of debate and your perception of truth is dwarfed by bias.. i truely pity someone who has had there brain so racked with propaganda that they are blind or apathetic to whats really going on... and if the truth is something they'd purposefully deny for there own benefit then i could careless if they became euthanized in there own kennel of false saftey..

 

[ASCE]

I see there is a political debate, but I also see it as a pointless one.

You guys are getting caught up in this politics thing,

DirtyShoes, you seem to be a republican for attention. I mean your going "Im a conservative, Im a rebel, I be about it" instead of stating your beliefs.

I mean, this isnt about whose fault it is, it is about how it affects you and your family. Dont get so caught up blaming someone for something all the time. Jus try to get things straight for you and your own, thats all any of us peeps with no real power can do anyways.

I find politics to be a game for old men. Reguardless of who you support, until voting time, it dont matter at all. We put people in charge of us, and they make the decisions. Thats the flaw of our society, we LET people control our lives. and cant do a damn thing bout it.

 

[Dark Shadow]

You would be singing a different tune if your child almost got shot at school, yet a teacher who suspected students of bringing guns to school couldn't search their backpacks/lockers because they had to wait for a law enforcement officer due to legalities.

they been doing backpack/locker searches for a long time about 10-15 years now and thats when they were doing it since i was in grade school. so that part aint nothing new. but they always had a cops doing that, but we always had real cops not no fake wannabe 1 at the school. teachers shouldnt be giving the right of doing any kind of searches. y should they take the job of the school cop? then teachers be saying they would want more money.

 

[Dirty Shoez]

@Troll

I am not interested in full scale quote wars with you. As is clear by your rushed responses and preponderance of ambiguous statements and numerous typos, you are not worth the great amount of effort I would need to put in to make myself clear and easily understood. I will instead break this into large chunks.

ok...

sorry, wrong harold.. it doesnt neccisarily mean it was written at the time it was presented but that the regular process was circumvented and got a quick vote... go ahead... read on..

i never knew that site existed.. good find!.. however, i already stated im taking the extreme example because it doesnt neccisarily mean that its not possible..

I dont know where you have been but its been already stated that a disctrict is essentially allowed to interpet those key words... i dont feel i have to repeat myself for someone refusing to read for themself.

Kind of like claiming one party wants to "cut and run" or are "defeatist's" huh?? but as i already said i copied the title from an article and admited whoever thought of it had jumped the gun.. but apparently you missed that..

Ive stated already it has yet to pass the senate so i dunno where you pulled this "your acting like its law already blah blah".... (your ass maybe??)... like i told enserio.. im not the type to wait till something is already set into place to express my concern and discontent with it... why wait for cancer to stop smoking?

Again....this bill was not written recently, as your articles and as your interpretation of them seems to imply. This bill was written and introduced a LONG ass time ago. Being "rushed" for a vote has nothing to do with it; and on top of that, Democrats DID NOT ATTEMPT to block it, so it must have been a bill that passed beyond simple partisan politics, and went right into the realm of common sense and logical progression.

I say that you are acting like this bill was already signed into law, because people are saying things like "this is fuckin bullshit to say the least. no kid is gonna allow that to happen. its embarassing and demoralizing and pointless. i swear to god, this fucking government focuses too much on the wrong things." -- and you go right along with them. You say nothing about e-mailing "Democrat" Senators and making sure they don't support it. You simply go along with this naive crowd that believes that this is already on the books.

im sorry, but, who are the majority in the house again??

Ive said over and over again that both parties play for the same team.. ive learned about all this following the events of 9/11.. i wasnt intrested in politics before that and so i took it upon myself to do the research and found flaws on BOTH sides... however, maybe the republicans are doing a worse job of keeping it undercover...

for me to be a disinfo agent would be to imply i have lied... you have yet to show me anywhere that i have lied or havent accepted a flaw in my stance on a subject.. please, do so..

This last paragraph is another reason why I will not quote war with you. Your vocabulary knowledge--ergo, your ability to debate semantics--is severely lacking.

See above for why I call you what you act like. You are discussing legislation and the legislative process, as if you are someone with a vast amount of knowledge on the subject.....and you didn't even know where to point people to to get the full text of the bill. It's almost as if you either didn't want them to or didn't bother finding out how they might read the bill for themselves. That is what makes you either of a disinformation agent, or a de facto disinformation agent.

then please tell me what is the "real truth".. you have already admitted your a republican so how can you be truthful and not biased?? answer these questions for me

True or False... we went to iraq on lies...
True or False... The bush admin recieved plenty of "warnings" about 9/11
True or False... Our president has gone against the constitution and bill of rights..
True or False..The conservatives are feeling the republicans have abandoned them
True or False..the gap between rich and poor has grown
True or False..Government power has grown the largest ever..
True or False..George H. W Bush preached about a NEW WORLD ORDER
True or False.. Bush made it legal for someone to torture another human being.
True or False.. Donald Rumsfeld sold weapons to Sadam AAANNND Nuclear reactors to north korea..

so if you want to come and whine like a toddler about me not exposing democrats as much as republicans i want to see you admit to the fact that there is at least a justified concern about the direction our country is headed THAT is perpetuated by those currently in power.. if not, then you arent on the adult level of debate and your perception of truth is dwarfed by bias.. i truely pity someone who has had there brain so racked with propaganda that they are blind or apathetic to whats really going on... and if the truth is something they'd purposefully deny for there own benefit then i could careless if they became euthanized in there own kennel of false saftey..

Every last one of your questions was loaded, and your last paragraph here is beyond saddening. That you would sit here and try to lecture me, like some kind of 2006 Demosthenes, should have me giggling and chortling, but I am not.

You are here to smear Republicans and inflict minimal damage to Democrats. This argument is not hard for me to prove at all, and it doesn't require me labeling you a Democrat. You don't need to be a Democrat. You could (claim to) vote straight Libertarian or Green for all I care. Your goal is to lessen the power of Republicans, and increase that of Democrats. The more you talk, the more you make that clear.

Regardless of my own affiliations, I am the one using THE BILL ITSELF and MY OWN WORDS to argue.....and you are using left-leaning websites and pre-packaged diatribes. It should be clear to all who is on the side of truth, and who is on the side of propaganda and brain-washing.

To put it another way: How I could be "dwarfed by bias", and yet, give the link to the FULL TEXT of the bill and not simply an article from a right-wing website.....but you could be the righteous messenger of truth, speaking about this bad, evil, horrible bill, and yet, providing no way for the people to read the ACTUAL BILL itself--only left-wing articles.....is fucking incredible to me.

But hey, you've probably got more friends on this site than me. If you say I'm the brainwashed one, people will probably believe you, regardless of what the truth is or what the facts point to.

 

[Dirty Shoez]

I see there is a political debate, but I also see it as a pointless one.

You guys are getting caught up in this politics thing,

DirtyShoes, you seem to be a republican for attention. I mean your going "Im a conservative, Im a rebel, I be about it" instead of stating your beliefs.

I mean, this isnt about whose fault it is, it is about how it affects you and your family. Dont get so caught up blaming someone for something all the time. Jus try to get things straight for you and your own, thats all any of us peeps with no real power can do anyways.

I find politics to be a game for old men. Reguardless of who you support, until voting time, it dont matter at all. We put people in charge of us, and they make the decisions. Thats the flaw of our society, we LET people control our lives. and cant do a damn thing bout it.

I was some manner of rebel long before I hit these boards. If people don't like my views--which last I checked, were more in line with the mainstream than theories about the US Gov't planning 9/11...which perhaps 2% of the population believes--then they should look at themselves, instead of rushing to label me the outsider and attention whore.

You speak about "this isnt about whose fault it is". Talk to Troll with that mess. I see "Republicans" in the subject line...do you not see it? Or do you not care? -- Then you speak about "it is about how it affects you and your family".....last I checked, left-wing propaganda and scare tactics doesn't affect me and my family. The ACTUAL LEGISLATION is what affects me and my family. If I may quote Bill O'Reilly....Am I wrong here?

I am on the side of truth. That is the bottom line. My primary source, what my arguments are based on, and what I am quoting from, is THE BILL ITSELF. For other people, their primary sources are articles on websites. -- Labels don't matter. Parties don't matter. The issue at hand is scaring you with interpretations of laws but hiding the original texts. It would be like Christians showing up to Church and listening to the sermons, but not being allowed to own or read the Bible. It is ridiculous.

If its a Conservative lying, they're doing it to make money and trick people. But if its a Liberal lying, it must be for the good of the people; the ends justify the means. Thats how it works these days, especially on boards like these...does it not?

 

[TROLL]

@Troll

I am not interested in full scale quote wars with you. As is clear by your rushed responses and preponderance of ambiguous statements and numerous typos, you are not worth the great amount of effort I would need to put in to make myself clear and easily understood. I will instead break this into large chunks.

Does it suprise me that you can make a plethora of typos, blanket statements and ill see past them to get to the topic at hand, yet you use any typos i make as a justification to not answer me fully?? no. not really.. thats text book harold..

Again....this bill was not written recently, as your articles and as your interpretation of them seems to imply.

As ive stated once before ALREADY.. i never implied it was written recently..

This bill was written and introduced a LONG ass time ago. Being "rushed" for a vote has nothing to do with it; and on top of that, Democrats DID NOT ATTEMPT to block it, so it must have been a bill that passed beyond simple partisan politics, and went right into the realm of common sense and logical progression.

Complacency is the reason the crats didnt do anything..

I say that you are acting like this bill was already signed into law, because people are saying things like "this is fuckin bullshit to say the least. no kid is gonna allow that to happen.

how does what someone else say apply to me?? are you thinking before you type or typing then trying to make sense of it?

its embarassing and demoralizing and pointless. i swear to god, this fucking government focuses too much on the wrong things." -- and you go right along with them. You say nothing about e-mailing "Democrat" Senators and making sure they don't support it. You simply go along with this naive crowd that believes that this is already on the books.

Im not gonna waste my time composing an email for a politician who is gonna do nothing..

This last paragraph is another reason why I will not quote war with you. Your vocabulary knowledge--ergo, your ability to debate semantics--is severely lacking.

If you feel comfort in making yourself believe that im not worth debating then why are you here??? why are we having this convo?? shouldnt u be somewhere in a corner patting yourself on the back? oh BTW knowledge of vocabulary doesnt neccisarily imply that one is better at debating important issues..

See above for why I call you what you act like. You are discussing legislation and the legislative process, as if you are someone with a vast amount of knowledge on the subject.....

Nah, i jus pass along the info and its apparent that you have a problem with me doing that.. go ahead cover your eyes and ears then because im going to continue doing what i do, and if nobody wants to listen there will be no skin off my nose..

and you didn't even know where to point people to to get the full text of the bill. It's almost as if you either didn't want them to or didn't bother finding out how they might read the bill for themselves. That is what makes you either of a disinformation agent, or a de facto disinformation agent.

an assumption by a right wing panty waste doesnt bother me one bit..

Every last one of your questions was loaded, and your last paragraph here is beyond saddening. That you would sit here and try to lecture me, like some kind of 2006 Demosthenes, should have me giggling and chortling, but I am not.

Nor will you answer the questions because its now apparent to whoever reads this how you will bitch moan and whine about someone talking bad about your beloved republicans and want them to bash democrats..but yet, you have yet to admit the issues are something to be concerned about..

You are here to smear Republicans and inflict minimal damage to Democrats. This argument is not hard for me to prove at all, and it doesn't require me labeling you a Democrat. You don't need to be a Democrat. You could (claim to) vote straight Libertarian or Green for all I care. Your goal is to lessen the power of Republicans, and increase that of Democrats. The more you talk, the more you make that clear.

oh but of course, ill be the first to admit that the republicans shouldnt be in power.. but niether should many democrats.. having a two party system is pointless when they are both owned by the banks..period.. you on the other hand would rather have me talk more about a party that IS NOT in power and leave the one that is alone.. sorry.. thats backwards thinking..

Regardless of my own affiliations, I am the one using THE BILL ITSELF and MY OWN WORDS to argue.....and you are using left-leaning websites and pre-packaged diatribes. It should be clear to all who is on the side of truth, and who is on the side of propaganda and brain-washing.

You claim im pushing propaganda yet cant admit any faults in your own party.. pfffff

To put it another way: How I could be "dwarfed by bias", and yet, give the link to the FULL TEXT of the bill and not simply an article from a right-wing website.....but you could be the righteous messenger of truth, speaking about this bad, evil, horrible bill, and yet, providing no way for the people to read the ACTUAL BILL itself--only left-wing articles.....is fucking incredible to me.

Enserio brought the actual article up before your cock trap came flapping.. and i re-thought my stance, publicly... have you? no.. your sticking true to your stripes by not admiting fault, which only leads to perpetual ignorance for the sake of ego..

But hey, you've probably got more friends on this site than me. If you say I'm the brainwashed one, people will probably believe you, regardless of what the truth is or what the facts point to.

Harold, lets be real... you dont have friends because your egotistical, pompous and refuse to look at anybody in your party in anything but a good light.. you like to use words that make it appear that your smart, which you may very well be, but even the smartest of person is IGNORANT when there biased is blinding them.. when someone disagrees with you your tirade takes on that of the crusader fighting on a sinking ship.. your devotion is respectable but your short-sightedness is cause for pity..

 

[Dirty Shoez]

No new info, but I am bored and trying to avoid studying. So, here it goes.....take notes, people. I hope you enjoy me Umaga'ing the forum, one by one.

Now, if i broke down every paragraph, this would take too long, so I will just say something whenever, 1) we have some new information on the topic (from the looks of it, there is none in this man Troll's last post), or 2) when something worthy of clarification is said.

Does it suprise me that you can make a plethora of typos, blanket statements and ill see past them to get to the topic at hand, yet you use any typos i make as a justification to not answer me fully?? no. not really.. thats text book harold..

There is no text book about it. You are not worthy of a full scale, one-for-one exchange. HERESY is. Sick Wid It is. WHITE DEVIL is. Many more are. WHY? Because they will actually go out and do real research, then back it up with real analysis. They don't just mouth-dribble, speak in half sentences and ask rhetorical and otherwise stupid questions, and then say "there". They will put in large amounts of time, and make sure what they are saying is what they mean and what they are willing to back up.....and it shows. You are out of your league here, and always have been. Point blank. It is not even close.

As ive stated once before ALREADY.. i never implied it was written recently..

Complacency is the reason the crats didnt do anything..

how does what someone else say apply to me?? are you thinking before you type or typing then trying to make sense of it?

Im not gonna waste my time composing an email for a politician who is gonna do nothing..

If you feel comfort in making yourself believe that im not worth debating then why are you here??? why are we having this convo?? shouldnt u be somewhere in a corner patting yourself on the back? oh BTW knowledge of vocabulary doesnt neccisarily imply that one is better at debating important issues..

Surely it does.

If you look at a tree, and your vocabulary is limited to: green, tall, short, brown, yellow......and thats it...then you're going to sound like a stupid fuck trying to describe it. But if your vocabulary includes words like evergreen, deciduous, coniferous, and so on, you will be able to say a lot more things with a lot fewer words.

Imagine seeing a girl in a nice dress, and saying she looks "captivating". Unless you're one slick motherfucker, you're just going to sound like an idiot. The situation calls for using a word like "hot", "smokin!", or even a simple "beautiful". Id est, Important issues call for important words. That is, topics with lots of grea area call for words and phrases with lots of gray area. That you cannot demonstrate command of such words, shows a lot about your understanding itself of politics, journalism, the media, law, culture, religion and many other topics.

Nah, i jus pass along the info and its apparent that you have a problem with me doing that.. go ahead cover your eyes and ears then because im going to continue doing what i do, and if nobody wants to listen there will be no skin off my nose..

Of course there won't be. The media says one thing, and your answer to that is to provide alternate media sources. Nevermind REAL FACTS, FIGURES, REPORTS and LEGISLATION.....that doesn't concern you. Your domain is countering what you might call "government propaganda" with your own left-wing propaganda.

And thats what separates me from your kind. You like people to have "INFORMATION", in the abstract sense of the word....I like people to have "THE" Information, as in, PRIMARY SOURCES.

an assumption by a right wing panty waste doesnt bother me one bit..

Nor will you answer the questions because its now apparent to whoever reads this how you will bitch moan and whine about someone talking bad about your beloved republicans and want them to bash democrats..but yet, you have yet to admit the issues are something to be concerned about..

oh but of course, ill be the first to admit that the republicans shouldnt be in power.. but niether should many democrats.. having a two party system is pointless when they are both owned by the banks..period.. you on the other hand would rather have me talk more about a party that IS NOT in power and leave the one that is alone.. sorry.. thats backwards thinking..

You claim im pushing propaganda yet cant admit any faults in your own party.. pfffff

Enserio brought the actual article up before your cock trap came flapping.. and i re-thought my stance, publicly... have you? no.. your sticking true to your stripes by not admiting fault, which only leads to perpetual ignorance for the sake of ego..

Just jumping in.....LOL. For anyone following along.....can you not see the difference?

This man breaks out the big words when it comes time to slander, demean and insult......I break out the big words ALL THE TIME, and save most of my artillery for when I am describing a metaphor or other such device (like the Tree example above).

This man claims I only use big words to sound smarter......and here he is, using big words to make his insults have more force and effect. Once again, hypocrisy in its purest form.

Harold, lets be real... you dont have friends because your egotistical, pompous and refuse to look at anybody in your party in anything but a good light.. you like to use words that make it appear that your smart, which you may very well be, but even the smartest of person is IGNORANT when there biased is blinding them.. when someone disagrees with you your tirade takes on that of the crusader fighting on a sinking ship.. your devotion is respectable but your short-sightedness is cause for pity..

Ehh...see above. This is great stuff here.

It's clear the only reason you post these articles, and argue the way you do, is because you're trolling for support--no pun intended. You SEEK political friends, because you are not a natural friend-magnet. You have to act like someone you're not to get people to notice, while me.....I just have to be myself, and I let everyone else sort things out.

You speak in a composite sense--more or less, what you think people want to hear, and what (if you were speaking to a crowd) would get you the greatest amount of applause. -- I speak my mind, break things down and provide REAL information (Legislation, Census, etc...not just blogs and newspapers)--more or less, what people NEED to have access to.

I don't consider myself to be smarter than most people on this board...but I DO consider myself to be someone that takes the persuit of truth more serious than most of the people who I end up butting heads with.


Let's review:

You post an article.
I post language from the actual legislation.
An argument about Me vs You follows.

Why?

Because the legislation speaks for itself. You have nothing left to argue. You say one thing, and the legislation contradicts you. You post a link to a blog or newspaper, and the legislation refutes them. So of course you'd resort to this slop.

You seem to be the one with a strong agenda, my good friend. I just want you to be CLEAR, CONCISE and CORRECT, and its becoming more and more clear that you don't really care about any of those things. You just want to run your mouth and have people cosign you.