Main > Everything Else
Land of the free?
quarterback:
--- Quote from: DrewKaree on March 05, 2005, 11:23:50 pm ---You missed the gist of the transcript, and in the process, accused O'Reilly of manipulating the truth, which wasn't done. One could say the same of your words.
--- End quote ---
Really?
daywane:
This is not the case I am talking about. But it will do. My point is made with this case also.
Parents do not have the right to keep a eye on there children anymore but we are held accountable
my children are 18 yrs old , 17 yrs old, 16 yrs old and a 9 yr old ( we took a break
daywane:
--- Quote from: quarterback on March 05, 2005, 11:49:18 pm ---
--- Quote from: DrewKaree on March 05, 2005, 11:23:50 pm ---You missed the gist of the transcript, and in the process, accused O'Reilly of manipulating the truth, which wasn't done. One could say the same of your words.
--- End quote ---
Really?
--- End quote ---
DrewKaree:
--- Quote from: quarterback on March 05, 2005, 11:49:18 pm ---Then maybe you can show me where I DID manipulate the truth.
--- End quote ---
Certainly. I'll use the same standard you seem to be operating under.
--- Quote ---You're making my case for me. You read that transcript and you are under the impression that there was some law passed that makes it illegal for a mom to listen to a conversation of her daughter.
--- End quote ---
I'm not under the impression that there was "some" law passed, the lawyer made it clear that there IS such a law, and it refers to ANY person, including mom, intercepting a private conversation. This would include mom picking up the phone and listening to what she's hearing. A most primitive wiretap, but it falls under the law. You defined it as such yourself.
The law is idiotic in reference to listening to your children's telephone conversations. I've pointed out that I don't agree with the way the information was gathered. I've pointed out that the police work is shoddy and have AGREED with the steps normally required to do such a thing.
Stating it's a good law and intimating that I might find it idiotic without addressing my comments to the contrary - your standard views O'Reilly to be distorting the truth; using that same standard, I'd say your statement falls in that same category.
The law as it is written IS idiotic, making listening to your children on the phone a CRIME. I'm saying NO SUCH THING about the circumstances under which this conviction has been overturned.
I've addressed the point of the criminal admitting to the crime, yet still being convicted of it. Your issue might hold water if the kid's lawyer's comments were left out. O'Reilly was corrected. Thus far, that's the only point remotely close to "distorting the truth". IF that is your standard for "distorting the truth", it is irrational and picayunish.
I demand points for being, if not the first, one of less than a handful of people to use the word "picayune" on this board LOL!
--- Quote from: daywane on March 06, 2005, 12:08:42 am ---she pissed me off so bad once i took the door of the hinges for a week just to prove that until she gets her own house she has no privacy.
--- End quote ---
I've done that too, but for different reasons. Good for you....I know you probably don't hear it enough! I also have a keylogger so if I wish to know what they talk to their friends about on my computer, I can. Saved my children from a nice little underage-drinking ticket. My kids THANKED me for that one, and we had a nice conversation about the methods used to find that out and why we did what we did. I have confidence that my kids will turn out fine, and will look to my wife and I for advice when raising their own children.
daywane:
--- Quote from: DrewKaree on March 06, 2005, 12:59:00 am ---
--- Quote from: quarterback on March 05, 2005, 11:49:18 pm ---Then maybe you can show me where I DID manipulate the truth.
--- End quote ---
Certainly.
--- End quote ---