18 Oct 21
@AverageJoe1. I am waiting for a response from Maruaider, who has changed the thread to SCOTUS
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
18 Oct 21
@mott-the-hoople saidLessthan AverageJoe----You should really do some
it also clearly states a warrant is needed.
You dont seem to understand it is two different laws, (no warrant needed in the second one) or you do but wont to admit it….anyway you are appearing foolish.
research before you run your pie hole...
They are FISA warrants and, so far, FISA
has approved every warrant put before it~
Some people only look foolish while others actually are the fools~!
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
18 Oct 21
@averagejoe1 said....Lessthan AverageJoe, I'm trying hard to like you,
Case? What case? I am of the opinion that this is a debate site, where people say What They Think.... Not what the Justices think. After all, half of American think they were 'thinking' incorrectly with Roe v Wade. So, to that end, they are 50% wrong. So trash that idea. How about asking people if they think it is OK for the govt to snoop into their personal busines ...[text shortened]... little humor, might be good for the soul. You people are so so pent up, so angry. Relax, Marauder.
but your 'alternate facts', ring hollow...When maurader
outguns you with real facts you say, lighten up, relax,
let's have some humor. Humor?...You A LAWYER?
Now that is funny, in fact it is ridiculous...If you were once
a lawyer, you would be much better versed on case law.
AND MORE NEWS, esteemed counselor, you would also
be aware that much more than 50% of the population
support ROE vs WADE...Course I could be wrong, after all
SYDNEY POWELL and RUDY GIULIANI passed the bar and
that says it all....You may really be another lawyer joke--ALL BY YOURSELF~!
18 Oct 21
@suzianne said"then don't realize you are proposing worse with "ending anonymous shell companies and trusts"
Fantastic. I see you've graduated from not understanding anything you read to not understanding what you write, either.
You complain about "causing less people (to) interact with the banking system", and then don't realize you are proposing worse with "ending anonymous shell companies and trusts".
The banks can all fail, as far as I see, and then replace them with a banking system re-regulated from the ground up.
How could that possibly be worse? Rich people are allowed privacy while poor people have none? Are you insane or rich?
18 Oct 21
@metal-brain saidContinuing your inability to understand anything you read, I see.
"then don't realize you are proposing worse with "ending anonymous shell companies and trusts"
How could that possibly be worse? Rich people are allowed privacy while poor people have none? Are you insane or rich?
18 Oct 21
@Mott-The-Hoople
Well considering she is a real human and you are just another bottom feeding troll, she is MILES ahead of you and always will be.
@jimm619 saidWhy did Marauder change the thread to SCOTUS, though. Biden is violating the Constitution in many areas, this is just one of them. If SCOTUS say that he is not, AverageJoe would say that SCOTUS is wrong, and That, my friendly debater, is an opinion.
....Lessthan AverageJoe, I'm trying hard to like you,
but your 'alternate facts', ring hollow...When maurader
outguns you with real facts you say, lighten up, relax,
let's have some humor. Humor?...You A LAWYER?
Now that is funny, in fact it is ridiculous...If you were once
a lawyer, you would be much better versed on case law.
AND MORE NEWS, esteemed counselor, you wou ...[text shortened]... ANI passed the bar and
that says it all....You may really be another lawyer joke--ALL BY YOURSELF~!
I give my opinion, back it up with logic and common sense and the written law of the land. Uhhh, you dont exactly do that, you are busy with acerbity.
As to abortion, 48% of Americans say abortion should be legal under certain circumstances. Here is a link for you. I win. And not even having to be acerbic to do it!
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
@averagejoe1 saidWhat I think is that the SCOTUS would uphold these laws as constitutional. Therefore, all the uneducated bleating that it is "unconstitutional" can be disregarded.
Case? What case? I am of the opinion that this is a debate site, where people say What They Think.... Not what the Justices think. After all, half of American think they were 'thinking' incorrectly with Roe v Wade. So, to that end, they are 50% wrong. So trash that idea. How about asking people if they think it is OK for the govt to snoop into their personal busines ...[text shortened]... little humor, might be good for the soul. You people are so so pent up, so angry. Relax, Marauder.
It's pretty clear that right wingers are for upholding the non-existent "right" of the wealthy to cheat on their taxes.
95% of workers have their income automatically reported to the IRS and their taxes withheld paycheck to paycheck. Is that "snooping"?
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 142514
@no1marauder said"95% of workers have their income automatically reported to the IRS and their taxes withheld paycheck to paycheck. Is that "snooping"?"
What I think is that the SCOTUS would uphold these laws as constitutional. Therefore, all the uneducated bleating that it is "unconstitutional" can be disregarded.
It's pretty clear that right wingers are for upholding the non-existent "right" of the wealthy to cheat on their taxes.
95% of workers have their income automatically reported to the IRS and their taxes withheld paycheck to paycheck. Is that "snooping"?
What world do you live in that $600 is "wealthy"?
@Mott-The-Hoople
Refusal to actually answer the question is noted.
No big deal since we know you would not be able to come up with a rebuttal anyway.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 142514
18 Oct 21
@sonhouse saidlets see if you will answer then...do you consider $600 as being wealthy?
@Mott-The-Hoople
Refusal to actually answer the question is noted.
No big deal since we know you would not be able to come up with a rebuttal anyway.
@mott-the-hoople saidI don't consider having $600 in a bank account as being proof of being "wealthy".
"95% of workers have their income automatically reported to the IRS and their taxes withheld paycheck to paycheck. Is that "snooping"?"
What world do you live in that $600 is "wealthy"?
Since you don't understand what the proposal actually is and refuse to learn, it's rather difficult to have a rational discussion with you about it.
To repeat my question: is the fact that 95% of workers have their income reported to the IRS by their employers amount to unconstitutional "snooping"?