reddogblitz

I never offered any opinion other than I think it's good Bernie voted against it and I still do. I just asked you to clarify yours which obviously you can't or won't do. If you have to read the whole Patriot Act to discuss it, then you and a few others can discuss it in a telephone booth. Good for you for reading. Would be nice if you could share some of your magnificent insights, but alas, for some reason won't. More name calling. Nice.

I can offer an opinion on whatever I want as can you. It's a free country. Just because I haven't read the whole thing doesn't mean I don't know anything about it. All I did was ask you to explain how 90% of it was on the books already. You couldn't do that. I never said I was an expert on it. I just asked because I was genuinely curious. If you read it and are such an expert it should be easy to answer.

Congrats on reading the whole thing. You're a better man than me. Name calling is always an effective way to make one's point.

You have no idea what I read and what I don't. I read the first page of the link you (or somebody) sent. No, I did not read the whole Patriot Act, did you?

Yes. Show me. No it doesn't.

Maybe if Obama does put a cork in it for good, Hillary can tell us what she thinks about it?

iT'S AN OPINION, NOT A FACT FOR CRYIN' OUT LOUD. The fact that you can't see that shows what's wrong with the educational systems wherever YOU came from. The fact that you think your opinion is right and obvious except for people too stupid to agree with it is what makes it all but impossible to rationally discuss anything on PPP. I've heard Bernie talk a lot and I have not once heard him say he wants to hand "the reins to an unaccountable centralized bureaucracy". Where does that come from? I dare you to show me a quote where he says that or anything similar. If it's so obvious and should be common knowledge help me out and explain it. I know I'm stupid, but work with me.

How would it lead to less innovation, efficiency, and jobs?

What exactly would it do to the economy?

In your beady little mind perhaps, but you haven't explained $hit. And you have no idea on what I have read and what I haven't as I've already demonstrated. Heading page proved my point that new investigative powers have been established. But yeah, trust 'em that they didn't. You deserve Donald Duck as your POTUS.

Stating opinions that you can't even bother to explain is the essence of being a blow hard. If you believe this so strongly I would think putting together a paragraph or two explaining it wouldn't be hard instead of pointing me to read the law. The people who passed it didn't even read it. And you're lieing because I did read the cliff notes version and stated: It's your point. You do it. I'm not your research assistant.

In other words you can't back up your point or choose not to. I'll just go with it's hogwash. Again, its not my job to prove your points. Over and out.

Thanks. Pointing me to the Government site selling the Patriot Act doesn't prove your point. You said 90% of Patriot Act was already legal. I didn't find any info like that. Just reading the firstpage however did highlight new investigative powers. I'm not going to read the whole thing and see if "90%" of it was already on the books. You made the assertion, back it up. So far you've given me a lot of excuses and buried me in virtual paper.

You can run, but you can't hide! No comments on the rest of my post?

You made the point. It's up to you to produce the backup info. I'm not your research assistant. Don't make comments if you can't back 'em up. Besides, in keeping with the spirit of the thread, Google is not my friend. They record everything you do and sell the info to others and turn it over to the Fed when they're subpenaed for it.

I'm not going to do homework to prove your point. If it's such a great point you're making, prove it. Until I see otherwise I'll take it as hogwash.

I know socialism is a dirty word around here. And I'm not a socialism supporter per se. However if you listen to what the man says and his reasoning with an open mind, it doesn't sound that bad. Besides, this is my 11th presidential election I'll be voting in. ALL candidates make claims for what they will do as if they are running for KIng instead of President. Most of it they couldn't do even if they wanted to. (500.000.000 solar panels OR read my lips, no new taxes for example). I prefer to look at their record. What in Bernie's record indicates he has done "socialist" things that have hurt the country? I've pointed out some things in his record that I think are good. What IN HIS RECORD has be done that has been harmful to the country.

I don't know. I just know that he didn't vote for the Patriot Act and his reasons as he tells it unlike Clinton, McCain, Santorum, and Lieberman among many others. And, I'm not so sure I agree with your assessment. Do you have any proof of this?

Why? Tell me why. I told you why I don't think he is. Get over the "Socialism" thing. He can't get rid of the banks or make college free. He might want to, but he can't. But the decisions he does have control to make, he makes decent choices. Was the Patriot Act a good idea? How's the war in Iraq going? Outsourcing jobs to countries that pay workers pennies an hour working out good for us too?

In Bernies's career he has voted on many things. 4 of the most important ones, history has shown him to be right IMHO. 1. Voted against NAFTA. 2. Voted against CAFTA. 3. Voted against the Patriot Act. 4. Voted against Iraq War. Yes, he's the nut?

Bernie voted against the Patriot Act because he doesn't think its necessary to violate citizens privacy and freedom to protect us from terrorism. Something to think about ...

No, this opinion is the lamest thing. Sure we'd all rather have TDs, but points is points. We beat the Packers last year in large part due to FGs. We won 21 - 13 with the help of 4FGs. We would have lost the game without them. Not worth the Shout song? And if they did do away with Shout after FGs would you prefer to listen to commercials? That's what they do in Seattle where they don't have a song. It ain't broke

Maybe because it's not football season yet?

I don't know, Merriam Webster dictionary defines viable as "capable of existence and development as an independent unit". A person on life support cannot exist as an independent unit. Perhaps it's a similar deal since Jahi's parents will decide. But then again, maybe they won't.

I was just making an observation, not setting up a "strawman". And, how exactly does "right-to-die" tie into "viablility"? Please be specific.