PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Ghettomath on January 18, 2006, 08:32:53 AM
-
Hope all you Bush lovers picked up a copy of The New York Times on Jan. 17th. Oh wait, you don\'t read the news, it\'s biased. Here you go anyway:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/politics/17spy.html
The gist of it is the National Security Agency flooded the F.B.I with thousands of "links" to terrorists suspects after 9/11. Turns out virtually all led to dead ends or to innocent Americans.
Supporters of the NSA and president Bush\'s actions point to the wiretapping as thwarting plans to destroy the Brooklyn Bride and one to detonate fertiziler bombs in London. But officials in Washington and Britain disputed the connection.
Even the F.B.I. took following leads as a joke referring to the calls they had to make as calling employees at Pizza Hut.
I don\'t know about you, but I\'m not so scared of terrorists that I\'d like to compromise my right to privacy as an American citizen. Haven\'t we seen this spying fail in the past? Can you say Alien and Sedition Acts?
Let\'s get Nov. 2008 around here as soon as possible please.
-
i got nothing to hide, do you?
it\'s not "1984" ya know
:rolleyes:
-
I got nothing in my closet besides Richard Simmons.
-
I turned a blind eye to the spying when I thought it was founded, but this article suggests that they\'re tracking innocent Americans with no connection to terrorism.
Maybe the government should stop it.
Do I have something to hide? Sure. And that\'s my right.
-Dan
-
Originally posted by Eiksirf
I turned a blind eye to the spying when I thought it was founded, but this article suggests that they\'re tracking innocent Americans with no connection to terrorism.
Maybe the government should stop it.
Do I have something to hide? Sure. And that\'s my right.
-Dan
I\'m keeping an eye on you. I don\'t like the way you do your hair. You non patriotic pinko commie.
-
Originally posted by Eiksirf
I turned a blind eye to the spying when I thought it was founded, but this article suggests that they\'re tracking innocent Americans with no connection to terrorism.
Maybe the government should stop it.
Do I have something to hide? Sure. And that\'s my right.
-Dan
Well put. I first discarded all the Orwellian scenarios as paranoia. But with this, the black sites in Eastern Europe, Cheney\'s request for the CIA to be exempt from torture regulation, Abu Gharib and Guantanamno, this administration\'s disregard for civil rights is getting on my nerves.
-
No forced confession, eh? I mean....the US soldiers are in a fierce fire fight...they capture several terrorists....they want to get answers from them about their leader\'s plans....a back rub will get the answers out or a pistol whip?
I\'m gonna go with the pistol whip.
-
Or how about alternating back rubs and pistol-whippings? That\'s some good psyche-warfare right there....
-
Be careful Ghetto the white man is out to get you!!!! I understand rights, but if they catch one person that was going to blow something up then its worth it.
-
Originally posted by mm
i got nothing to hide, do you?
Nope, but I got me some civil liberties!
Trials start next month...
-
what do you need civil liberties if you have nothing to hide?
stop being such a pussy
-
That\'s got to rank among the most moronic statements ever made.
-
k, keep standing in the "poor little me" line
that crutch looks good on you
-
this is the stupidest fucking arguement. Do you want to live your life normally and not be wiretapped and let terrorists have an easy way to communicate, or live your life normally and have the FBI know that your fucking the milkman and help deter terrorist from quickly and easily communicating.
Just ANOTHER way to bitch at the government..and im not just saying the bush administration, people always need to bitch MY FREEDOM IS BEING..shuttup
-
OR how about the u.s. change their policies in tha middle east?..that\'s where all of this stems from y\'know?...even before 911 we have all heard how unfair the u.s policies are in that area of the world....BUT that does not justify 911 on any level...i\'m just sayin all those years of unfair policies in that area of the world just built up over time....now on the subject of wiretappin\' or eavesdroppin\'?...i personally have no problem with it. just don\'t steal my social security number!...:mad:..on second thought just switch my soc sec number with Vid\'s, as i\'m sure he has good credit!..;)
-
I don\'t know Clips even with his SSN, you are black so they automatically knock a few hundred points off your credit ;). The Middle East may be a problem but because of who we are they would still be doing the same crap regardless if we were there or not, they\'d find some other way to get mad at us and fly two planes in to the buildings.
-
Originally posted by mm
what do you need civil liberties if you have nothing to hide?
stop being such a pussy
And why do you need the freedom of speech when you never have anything good to say?
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhandiklap.home.comcast.net%2Fkelso_burn.gif&hash=fff2969775d7483a4035a999814e53cf7a3765ee)
Do you want to live your life normally and not be wiretapped and let terrorists have an easy way to communicate, or live your life normally and have the FBI know that your fucking the milkman and help deter terrorist from quickly and easily communicating.
If they suspect someone is a terrorist, they can get a warrant with all the proof they have that the guy is a terrorist.
Spying on innocent civilians is a waste of time, tax dollars and a blatant disregard for our personal freedoms. You know, that shit we\'re spreading around the world. That stuff our soldiers supposedly fight to protect.
-Dan
-
Originally posted by mm
k, keep standing in the "poor little me" line
that crutch looks good on you
Hey, how about you move to China? No civil liberties there, but the government GUARANTEES swift and sure protection from terrorism and subversion. After all, that seems to be golden advice conservative bigots like you love to hand out: "If you don\'t like it here, get the hell out."
-
Originally posted by GmanJoe
No forced confession, eh? I mean....the US soldiers are in a fierce fire fight...they capture several terrorists....they want to get answers from them about their leader\'s plans....a back rub will get the answers out or a pistol whip?
I\'m gonna go with the pistol whip.
As Dan said, why are we in Iraq, Gman? It had something to do with democracy, individual liberty, and humanitarian violations. Of course, I guess you could take the stance that the ends justify the means. So I ask you: should the very precepts of democracy be trampled upon so that a democracy can be established and maintained?
In the real world, however, a balance needs to be struck between ideology and practicality. In that sense, I was willing to turn a blind eye to the gratuitous conduct in Guantanamo and Abu Gharib, even when reports surfaced that innocent people were held for years before being released without being charged for a single crime. Selfishly, I wanted to protect my security. But wiretapping innocent people to make sure that they are in line with the government really brings closer the world Orwell feared so much.
-
Originally posted by Eiksirf
If they suspect someone is a terrorist, they can get a warrant with all the proof they have that the guy is a terrorist.
Spying on innocent civilians is a waste of time, tax dollars and a blatant disregard for our personal freedoms. You know, that shit we\'re spreading around the world. That stuff our soldiers supposedly fight to protect.
-Dan
I agree that its tough to find the few terrorists out of a bizillion calls they probably tap. But im honestly fine with giving up privacy for it. If it wasnt this, it would be some other "thing we waste our tax dollars on."
I have a little more complex/complacent view of the war that would probably piss off both sides so im not going to get into that, but i do support the troops obviously. I think the problem with some peoples views is they think we live in a 100% democracy..theres no such thing and it would probably crumble/have some huge drawbacks like communism (not the same problems, but u get the idea) so people get defensive when they think their 100% democracy is not taking their opinion into account
-
I wasn\'t defensive until I saw it might be misguided and pointless, aside from the standard abuse of power.
If it makes u feel better, I support nude pyramid building in our prison system.
-Dan
-
Originally posted by Eiksirf
If it makes u feel better, I support nude pyramid building in our prison system.
-Dan
as do i..being on the top feels awesome
-
Originally posted by Eiksirf
And why do you need the freedom of speech when you never have anything good to say?
:bow:
-
oh, i forgot you guys neded to use your "civil liberties" last week
errm it was the week before that
wait, no....it was last month
damn...
and what does "freedom of speech" have anything to do with the internet for a PS2 forum?
i say what i think will rile the scamps, it\'s my duty
:)
-
No, you just feel obligated to sound like a clueless toolbag.
-
Al Gore: (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/16/131254/468)
Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction. Justice Brandeis once wrote: "Men feared witches and burnt women."
The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk.
Yet, in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the Bill of Rights.
Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of missiles poised to be launched against us and annihilate our country at a moment\'s notice? Is America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march-when our fathers fought and won two World Wars?
It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it is up to us to do the same.
Protecting US citizens\' right to privacy is a simple responsibility that every conservative should understand and support. Republicans shouldn\'t automatically support their president\'s illegal wiretapping simply because he is the figurehead of their ideology. Use your brain and think for yourselves.
-
toolbag?
:rofl:
-
Yes, you! :laughing:
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
Al Gore: (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/16/131254/468)
Protecting US citizens\' right to privacy is a simple responsibility that every conservative should understand and support. Republicans shouldn\'t automatically support their president\'s illegal wiretapping simply because he is the figurehead of their ideology. Use your brain and think for yourselves.
Al Gore - :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: is this guy even relevant anymore or is he still pouting about losing the 2000 election?
Core are you just another idiotic KOSkiddy who wears a Che t-shirt out on dates? Right to privacy? So you are willing to have people die here in the US just so you can have peace of mind that no one is being listened to. Handcuff our government so it can\'t protect us? Secondly, no one listens to these conversations unless key phrases are used and then an actual human being listens to them. Clinton did the same thing as have other Presidents, but because this is GWB and the left\'s raving hatred for the man it has become an issue.
Since we are on the topic, the NSA "whistleblower" should be arrested as well. If Scooter Libby can be indicted for outing a pseudo CIA agent - then this POS can be arrested as well. We DO NOT NEED TO KNOW everything our government does. If you believe we do, you are a fool.
Oh and Ghetto - the trials will never happen. Those who filed the charges that the US has "spied" on them have no proof of this and only suspect they are being spied on and furthermore they have to prove it caused them "harm" in some way. If you are talking to bad people, the government has every right to be spying on your sorry ass.
If somehow these wiretapings get stopped and another attack happens I hope every ACLU lawyer and their supporters are rounded up first for sedition. The downfall of the country will be from within and the ACLU will be leading the way.
-
You soap box jockeys need to go hug a tree.
-
Thank god you are on the extreme fringe of ideological beliefs in this country, Giga. Some of us still believe in observing The Law.
Fuck it I\'ve said all I care to say.
-
Hey! Come back! I got some marshmellows to go with our kumbaya-singing-by-the-fire! :p
-
Originally posted by GmanJoe
Hey! Come back! I got some marshmellows to go with our kumbaya-singing-by-the-fire! :p
God, you\'re obnoxious.
-
Originally posted by Ghettomath
God, you\'re obnoxious.
Don\'t get mad. It\'s only the internet.
-
Originally posted by GmanJoe
Hey! Come back! I got some marshmellows to go with our kumbaya-singing-by-the-fire! :p
You soap box jockeys need to go hug a tree.
Contribute something useful, or post with the rest of the bullshit in Off-Topic.
-
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/bullying/cyber_bullying.html
-Dan
-
now you know you can\'t trust anything those damn canadians say
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Al Gore - :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: is this guy even relevant anymore or is he still pouting about losing the 2000 election?
Core are you just another idiotic KOSkiddy who wears a Che t-shirt out on dates? Right to privacy? So you are willing to have people die here in the US just so you can have peace of mind that no one is being listened to. Handcuff our government so it can\'t protect us? Secondly, no one listens to these conversations unless key phrases are used and then an actual human being listens to them. Clinton did the same thing as have other Presidents, but because this is GWB and the left\'s raving hatred for the man it has become an issue.
Gore seemed very relevant to me when he spoke at our campus a few weeks ago. No, old man, just because you sanctify the memories of 2000 doesn\'t mean others refuse to move on.
Clinton did the same thing so GWB has every right to as well?? :laughing: The rabid right, instead of distancing itself from whom they called a failure of a president, cites Clinton as an example when justifying the actions of one of their own. :laughing: How ironic! Clinton has become the president on which every conservative must be modeled after.
Granted, previous administrations have suspended civil liberties. FDR and Lincoln come to mind. The difference between their war and ours is that the war on terrorism will never end. When, then, will our rights be restored?
Agreed. Security is a vital issue, and it is unfortunate that some of it will be sacrificed by banning wiretapping. But it is a sacrifice I am willing to make to protect basic rights.
Please, don\'t ever call yourself a moderate again. It does a disservice to those who try to stay the middle course in these times of paranoia.
By the way, have you bought that ticket to China yet?
-
I don\'t care if they hear me talk about the newest chick I\'ve met or what I did a week ago. I fail to see how I\'m losing so many civil liberties because they can moniter certain phone calls. I\'m not doing anything wrong so WHATEVER. When it actually affects how my day goes then maybe I\'ll agree.
-
How about privacy.
When I talk on the phone I walk into another room so my friends and family don\'t hear me.
It\'s called privacy. If I wanted people listening to me I\'d get a talk show or sign up for Big Brother.
The show, I mean, not the Bush administration.
-Dan
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
Contribute something useful, or post with the rest of the bullshit in Off-Topic.
The soap box jockey comment is relevant particularly to you. And being that you are a lib, you SHOULD hug a tree.
-
Originally posted by hyper
Gore seemed very relevant to me when he spoke at our campus a few weeks ago. No, old man, just because you sanctify the memories of 2000 doesn\'t mean others refuse to move on.
Clinton did the same thing so GWB has every right to as well?? :laughing: The rabid right, instead of distancing itself from whom they called a failure of a president, cites Clinton as an example when justifying the actions of one of their own. :laughing: How ironic! Clinton has become the president on which every conservative must be modeled after.
Granted, previous administrations have suspended civil liberties. FDR and Lincoln come to mind. The difference between their war and ours is that the war on terrorism will never end. When, then, will our rights be restored?
Agreed. Security is a vital issue, and it is unfortunate that some of it will be sacrificed by banning wiretapping. But it is a sacrifice I am willing to make to protect basic rights.
Please, don\'t ever call yourself a moderate again. It does a disservice to those who try to stay the middle course in these times of paranoia.
By the way, have you bought that ticket to China yet?
Young and clueless - I guess that best describes you hyper, need I point out you are from Kalifornia which shares nothing in common with mainstream US.
Who is sanctifying the 2000 election? It seems you dimwit libs want to rant on about it until the end of time. I think you need to tell that nutcase Gore and your komrades that they are the ones that need to move on - no pun intended.
You moderate? Please - you are a leftist and don\'t try and wash over your moonbat ideology by labeling yourself moderate. The only paranoia I see is coming from people like you. I couldn\'t care less if they are listening to my phonecalls. Civil liberties violated? No I don\'t think so. This is just another excuse for the wacked out left to whine about how their rights have been trampled on. :rolleyes:
I disagree with you on winning this war against Islamic terrorism. Is being a pessimist a prerequisite for being a lefty? I suppose you and your ilk would be claiming WWII is unwinnable if we were back in 1942. Go figure...
I am sure you have booked a tour with Harry Belefonte to go visit Cuba and Venezuala with a stop over in Boliva.
Please when it comes to National Security - leave it us who actually have a backbone and can keep this country safe.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Government spying on you = ok.
For security, they should probably sit in the bushes with binoculars and look for terrorists in our bedrooms.
There might be a terrorist in my car, I ought to have a federal agent in my passenger seat. Like a kind of anti-terror buddy system.
Spying = teh w1n!!1
-Dan
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
I couldn\'t care less if they are listening to my phonecalls. Civil liberties violated? No I don\'t think so.
Then how about we give the N.S.A. license to have unauthorized acess to search ours homes too?
I would consider them one in the same.
Oh,
And I also think you\'ve gone completely crazy.
-
Originally posted by Ghettomath
Then how about we give the N.S.A. license to have unauthorized acess to search ours homes too?
I would consider them one in the same.
Oh,
And I also think you\'ve gone completely crazy.
All you and your kind seem to do is complain and offer no answers. Not even the lib nuts in Congress have an answer - all they do is cry about things.
If it is any consolation, I for one have always thought you are an idiot who is out of touch with the reality of the situation we are in when it comes National Security. You take such a small thing like the NSA listening to certain people calling certain people overseas and now you compare it to them busting down an average American\'s door and searching their home - go figure. :stick:
I suppose you think it is ok for terrorists to run around this country doing their business without being monitored. No? Then what is your answer? You like the rest of the dimwits have none.
Lastly, tell me how this has effected any of you whiners? What can you not do now that some traitor disclosed that certain individuals are being wiretapped? Make a bomb? Plot assassinations? No in reality, this only hurts those who wish to hurt the citizens of this country.
-
well i\'ve said my piece on this already, but i really believe that the gov\'t will be listening to americans of arab decent. i mean yeah they say they will listen to everybody\'s convo\' but seriously....i think that\'s what\'s really goin down..then of course you will get the pervs in the gov\'t that will like to hear my stories of twistin women out! :fro:...seriously tho it\'s sorta like the war on drugs,..tons of the stuff comes into our borders on a daily basis, and yet the gov\'t and local police will lock up every low bit drug dealer in the inner city instead of just stoppin it at the border from the jump.....
let me try yo clear that drug part up a bit more what i was tryin to say is that the gov\'t says it wants to shut down the drug game, but instead of arrestin\' the top dog, they arrest every low level drug dealer in the inner city....hmmm that didn\'t sound much different from what was stated earlier...:(..oh well you get the point...
-
Originally posted by Eiksirf
How about privacy.
When I talk on the phone I walk into another room so my friends and family don\'t hear me.
It\'s called privacy. If I wanted people listening to me I\'d get a talk show or sign up for Big Brother.
The show, I mean, not the Bush administration.
-Dan
You leave the room cause you could possibly be talking about them or something relevant to them.
Also, unauthorized search of houses the same as tapping phone calls, haha.
-
Originally posted by Bozco
Also, unauthorized search of houses the same as tapping phone calls, haha.
Unauthorized search for information. That\'s the same.
Get a warrant, know who you\'re spying on and spy away.
This article suggests our government has its head up its ass when it comes to this stuff and it\'s gone from careful intelligence gathering to invasion of our privacy.
I don\'t want the government to spy on its citizens.
Spy on terrorists.
Don\'t do both. It\'s just the gateway to stripping away the next freedom and the next after that.
And if I\'m in the minority, then get the law changed so its not illegal to spy on us.
-Dan
-
I don\'t have the resources to debate this properly and I rather don\'t feel like arguing.
I\'ll say a few words, though.
There is a line and they won\'t cross it. Liberals, conservatives, whoever. All of the people in power. There is a logical line between the current state of things, and a "1984" situation. The majority of the people know how far is too far, I have faith in that.
Illegal wiretapping is pretty far, but it\'s not in the same ballpark as George Orwell\'s worst fantasy. The US was lenient on terrorists; Bush, Clinton, Bush Junior... none of them perceived the imminent threat. Or at least, they didn\'t want us to think they did.
The fact of the matter is, you leave 2 horny teenagers (male and female) in a room long enough with no restrictions and they\'re bound to make love more sooner than later. The government discovered a similar probability rather unfortunately on the morning of September 11th, 2001. I\'m willing to turn a blind eye to the Patriot Act after that.
-
Originally posted by Eiksirf
Unauthorized search for information. That\'s the same.
Get a warrant, know who you\'re spying on and spy away.
[/b]
You want to sit around and wait 72 hours? When it comes to our security we need to cut the red tape. Warrants are fine for garden variety criminals, but do not work as well against terrorists.
Originally posted by Eiksirf
This article suggests our government has its head up its ass when it comes to this stuff and it\'s gone from careful intelligence gathering to invasion of our privacy.
I don\'t want the government to spy on its citizens.
Spy on terrorists.
[/b]
What do you exactly think intelligence gathering is? Looking at private/secret information. Our "careful" intelligence gathering was ineffective and you want it to go back to that? If a US citizen is up to no good then he deserves to be watched. Did it ever occur to you that a US citizen could also be a terrorist and a good way to find out is by listening to their conversations?
Originally posted by Eiksirf
Don\'t do both. It\'s just the gateway to stripping away the next freedom and the next after that.
[/b]
You really are paranoid.
Originally posted by Eiksirf
And if I\'m in the minority, then get the law changed so its not illegal to spy on us.
-Dan
It hasn\'t been decided that the wiretapping was illegal in the first place.
-
Look I\'m going off this article that says we\'re spying on innocent Pizza Hut employees.
I\'m not an idiot. I see your point and was cool with all this before I realized we\'re apparently just spying on random people.
I\'ve already pointed out why this is stupid and useless.
I\'m not paranoid, I\'m just stating the obvious. Last year I might\'ve said, "Before you know it, they\'ll be spying on Pizza Hut employees." And that sounds ridiculous, but if you believe what\'s in this story...
...At least when mm spouts off, it\'s tongue-in-cheek.
-Dan
-
Originally posted by Blade
There is a line and they won\'t cross it. Liberals, conservatives, whoever. All of the people in power. There is a logical line between the current state of things, and a "1984" situation. The majority of the people know how far is too far, I have faith in that.
That "line" is called THE LAW. It has already been crossed. Just like Eiksirf said, if the current laws don\'t permit adequate wiretapping to protect the public, then change the law so that it\'s easier. The Republican party controls the damn government; how hard can it be?
It\'s crazy to argue that this hasn\'t been proven illegal. There is a procedure in place for obtaining warrants, and it doesn\'t take 72 hours. Bush could have ordered wiretaps, and obtained a warrant AFTER the information was collected. This is all covered under FISA. There was no hinderance to the speed that the wiretaps could be completed. Obviously there must have been ANOTHER reason that the Bush administration didn\'t want to go through the FISA court. Perhaps because the wiretaps were unnecessary and the warrants might have been denied? I don\'t know. In any case, he did not obtain warrants, and therefore it was illegal.
If the Republicans want to be able to do this, they should change the law. (If they can).
BTW Giga, I think you better stop calling people names like "idiot," "moonbat," and "dimwit." It does nothing to promote an intelligent discussion.
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
That "line" is called THE LAW. It has already been crossed. Just like Eiksirf said, if the current laws don\'t permit adequate wiretapping to protect the public, then change the law so that it\'s easier. The Republican party controls the damn government; how hard can it be?
It\'s crazy to argue that this hasn\'t been proven illegal. There is a procedure in place for obtaining warrants, and it doesn\'t take 72 hours. Bush could have ordered wiretaps, and obtained a warrant AFTER the information was collected. This is all covered under FISA. There was no hinderance to the speed that the wiretaps could be completed. Obviously there must have been ANOTHER reason that the Bush administration didn\'t want to go through the FISA court. Perhaps because the wiretaps were unnecessary and the warrants might have been denied? I don\'t know. In any case, he did not obtain warrants, and therefore it was illegal.
Once again you are wrong. I guess some don\'t fully understand that we are at war.
President Bush has broken no laws in ordering the National Security Agency to conduct selected wiretaps without warrants, the DOJ argued. On the contrary, Bush has acted fully within his authority as the commander-in-chief of a nation at war and the "sole organ" for the conduct of U.S. foreign policy, the DOJ stated in a 42-page white paper on the issue.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/nation/epaper/2006/01/20/a14a_nsa_0120.html
As for your claim to change the law and the waiting period:
[Excerpt]
Victoria Toensing in yesterday\'s Wall Street Journal has an excellent piece (sub. req\'d so no link) that takes on critics of the Bush administration\'s NSA surveillance program. She points out, among other things, the folly of two of the most often heard arguments peddled by critics: 1) you can always go back and get a FISA warrant 72 hours after placing the tap; and 2) why did the president not ask Congress to change the FISA law.
Even if time were not an issue, any emergency FISA application must still establish the required probable cause within 72 hours of placing the tap. So al Qaeda agent A is captured in Afghanistan and has agent B\'s number in his cell phone, which is monitored by NSA overseas. Agent B makes two or three calls every day to agent C, who flies to New York. That chain of facts, without further evidence, does not establish probable cause for a court to believe that C is an agent of a foreign power with information about terrorism. Yet, post 9/11, do the critics want NSA to cease monitoring agent C just because he landed on U.S. soil?
Why did the president not ask Congress in 2001 to amend FISA to address these problems? My experience is instructive. After the TWA incident, I suggested asking the Hill to change the law. A career Justice Department official responded, "Congress will make it a political issue and we may come away with less ability to monitor." The political posturing by Democrats who suddenly found problems with the NSA program after four years of supporting it during classified briefings only confirms that concern.
It took 9/11 for Congress to pass the amendment breaking down the "wall," which had been on the Justice Department\'s wish list for 16 years. And that was just the simple tweak of changing two words. The issues are vastly more complicated now, requiring an entirely new technical paradigm, which could itself become obsolete with the next communications innovation.
-
finally the two major mods of this forum are goin\' at it..;)..and it\'s long overdue!...Core, Giga..you two hardly ever post in here anymore...anyway, i really don\'t see what the big deal is...if you\'re not doing anything wrong, what\'s the problem? Not to turn this into a racial thread but just imagine bein pulled over by cops for merely crusin thru a upper middle class white neighborhood, and bein black..:mad:..it\'s happened to me quite a few times, and trust, that is a f**ked up feeling and something to be pissed about...what the gov\'t is doin here?...it\'s practically harmless and you don\'t even realize that they\'re doin\' it...
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Once again you are wrong. I guess some don\'t fully understand that we are at war.
How are we at war, if we\'ve never declared war? When Congress voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq, the resolution didn\'t say anything about wiretapping. Congress should "declare war against terror" if they (or you) want to argue that we\'re at war, and use that as a justification for every infraction of the US Constitution.
The DOJ white paper is just another OPINION issued by the executive branch. This is not at all surprising given how involved the Attorney General was in the wiretapping while he served as the White House counsel. The bottom line is: The Bush adminstration ignored a law passed by Congress, so the constitutionality and legality have not been determined yet.
Even if time were not an issue, any emergency FISA application must still establish the required probable cause within 72 hours of placing the tap. So al Qaeda agent A is captured in Afghanistan and has agent B\'s number in his cell phone, which is monitored by NSA overseas. Agent B makes two or three calls every day to agent C, who flies to New York. That chain of facts, without further evidence, does not establish probable cause for a court to believe that C is an agent of a foreign power with information about terrorism. Yet, post 9/11, do the critics want NSA to cease monitoring agent C just because he landed on U.S. soil?
Why did the president not ask Congress in 2001 to amend FISA to address these problems? My experience is instructive. After the TWA incident, I suggested asking the Hill to change the law. A career Justice Department official responded, "Congress will make it a political issue and we may come away with less ability to monitor." The political posturing by Democrats who suddenly found problems with the NSA program after four years of supporting it during classified briefings only confirms that concern.
It took 9/11 for Congress to pass the amendment breaking down the "wall," which had been on the Justice Department\'s wish list for 16 years. And that was just the simple tweak of changing two words. The issues are vastly more complicated now, requiring an entirely new technical paradigm, which could itself become obsolete with the next communications innovation.
This stuff highlights my points perfectly. If the FISA warrant application process is inadequate, then change the law. By saying that they didn\'t want to ask Congress to amend the law because they were afraid it wouldn\'t happen, they are proclaiming their guilt. Like it or not, we live in a democracy that includes checks & balances. Congress passes the laws, and the excecutive branch enforces them.
I do not agree with ANY president ignoring the laws for the sake of expediency, especially when the existing laws are so lenient and helpful that there\'s no reason to ignore them.
-
I didn\'t bother to read this whole thread, but I read a bit on the first page that disturbed me. Some of you people seem so eager to throw away your privacy because I don\'t have anything to hide. Whether or not you have anything to hide hasn\'t got anything to do with the matter at hand! Don\'t be so foolish and throw your civil rights and privacy away!
I\'m horrified if just a single person amongst you take this lightly. Especially since you live in "the land of the free" and seem to value your freedom. Perhaps you ain\'t so free after all.
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
How are we at war, if we\'ve never declared war? When Congress voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq, the resolution didn\'t say anything about wiretapping. Congress should "declare war against terror" if they (or you) want to argue that we\'re at war, and use that as a justification for every infraction of the US Constitution.
The DOJ white paper is just another OPINION issued by the executive branch. This is not at all surprising given how involved the Attorney General was in the wiretapping while he served as the White House counsel. The bottom line is: The Bush adminstration ignored a law passed by Congress, so the constitutionality and legality have not been determined yet.
[/b]
"Congress by statute has confirmed and supplemented the president\'s recognized authority under Article II of the Constitution to conduct such warrantless surveillance to prevent catastrophic attacks on the homeland," the Justice Department document said.
Originally posted by Coredweller
This stuff highlights my points perfectly. If the FISA warrant application process is inadequate, then change the law. By saying that they didn\'t want to ask Congress to amend the law because they were afraid it wouldn\'t happen, they are proclaiming their guilt. Like it or not, we live in a democracy that includes checks & balances. Congress passes the laws, and the excecutive branch enforces them.
[/b]
I would point out the none other than Benjamin Franklin, one of the brightest scientific minds of his age, sat on a Continental Congressional Committee on secrets and intelligence called something like The Secret Correspondence Committee.
Dr. Franklin even said Congress should not be told everything, because Congress cannot keep secrets.
Nothing has changed.
Originally posted by Coredweller
I do not agree with ANY president ignoring the laws for the sake of expediency, especially when the existing laws are so lenient and helpful that there\'s no reason to ignore them.
Just for the sake of argument and to show how warped your thinking is lets just say the president has to make an instant decision on saving 3 million lives or ignore some existing law you would chose to follow the law? Are you sure you aren\'t a Vulcan?
-
Originally posted by Samwise
I didn\'t bother to read this whole thread, but I read a bit on the first page that disturbed me. Some of you people seem so eager to throw away your privacy because I don\'t have anything to hide. Whether or not you have anything to hide hasn\'t got anything to do with the matter at hand! Don\'t be so foolish and throw your civil rights and privacy away!
I\'m horrified if just a single person amongst you take this lightly. Especially since you live in "the land of the free" and seem to value your freedom. Perhaps you ain\'t so free after all.
What privacy has anyone here lost. I challenge them to prove they have lost anything. It seems I made this same statement before regarding the Patriot Act and not one of these people could prove that it effected them or their rights in any way.
Stop reading that rag of a paper they call the New York Times it is no longer the respected paper it used to be, but a political mouthpiece for the Democratic Party.
-
Hehe, ain\'t everything but Fox a political mouthpiece for the Democratic Party? ;)
-
Originally posted by Samwise
Hehe, ain\'t everything but Fox a political mouthpiece for the Democratic Party? ;)
Nah Vicente Fox is pissed about us building that wall so his countrymen can\'t come here and steal our money.;)
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
It hasn\'t been decided that the wiretapping was illegal in the first place. [/B]
Well, sort of...
http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/fisa_faq.html
I\'m not using this to prove my point, just to offer up direct quotes (instead of some hometown op-ed piece) from legal paper.
I think the problem centers on the vagueness of this document.
As an American, I feel as if my rights are infringed upon, but I\'m more pissed that this is where my tax dollars were going toward. The program was wholly uneffective - that\'s why I feel so taken advantage of. If we would have caught a few more "terrorists" in the wiretapping, this would be a totally different argument.
Giga, you\'re requesting evidence that my rights are being infringed upon. I\'m requesting you show me some HARD proof that wiretapping and the Patriot Act have worked.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
"Congress by statute has confirmed and supplemented the president\'s recognized authority under Article II of the Constitution to conduct such warrantless surveillance to prevent catastrophic attacks on the homeland," the Justice Department document said.
I don\'t know what statute the AG is referring to. I also don\'t have time right now to research it, so if you could do that for me, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks. :)
Just for the sake of argument and to show how warped your thinking is lets just say the president has to make an instant decision on saving 3 million lives or ignore some existing law you would chose to follow the law? Are you sure you aren\'t a Vulcan?
To pursue your extreme example: As far as I\'m concerned, the president is welcome to save 3 million lives by breaking the law, so long as he admits his "crime" after the fact, and submits to any necessary investigations or hearings against him. If he\'s cleared, that\'s cool.
In this case, the President never acknowledged his illegal actions until the news media released the story, and now he\'s arguing for proceedings against the whistleblowers. He\'s taking on the appearance of a dictator.
I\'ll give you an obvious extreme example to respond to: If illegal wiretapping is OK with you, then what is not OK? Shouldn\'t we have video cameras installed in every home to monitor your personal conversations, and make sure you\'re not discussing a bomb plot against your local Dairy Queen? When you start bending the rules, you have NO comprehensible line to draw on what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. Our only line is THE LAW, and our President has an even greater responsibility to observe the law than any of us.
-
The government spying on its citizens is the infliction on its citizens\' rights that we\'re talking about.
We don\'t need to prove that happened, apparently. In fact, it seems the government needs to prove that while it definitely happened, it happened legally and with just cause.
Anyway, if you need me I\'ll be next door spying on my neighbors.
I\'m at a heightened state of alert and everything.
-Dan
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Young and clueless - I guess that best describes you hyper, need I point out you are from Kalifornia which shares nothing in common with mainstream US.
Old and senile. Did I not accept that a balance must be struck between liberty and security? A working democracy must not only be free, but also just. Allowing terrorists suspects to run amok targeting the innocent clearly would be immoral.
Be that as it may, the government\'s wider powers should be based on clear-cut terrorism laws passed by Congress, not the piecemeal legislations that the Bush administration forces down whenever it wants. Illegally wiretapping citizens and indefinitely detaining "enemy combatants" without Congressional mandate reek of executive hubris that will open the doors to abuse. Also, these powers should be accompanied by increased scrutiny. Would it be so hard for Bush to follow due process when enacting his policies? No. In fact, he would greatly increase his legitimacy if he could show that these behind-the-scenes surveillance policies were themselves being watched and questioned by judges and politicians. As it stands, what we have is a secretive executive branch that disregards checks and balances and civil liberties in the name of security.
You say I am out of touch with the majority for criticizing the administration? Apparently not, according to the Supreme Court.
From The Economist:
"Last June, the Supreme Court made three rulings that were a severe blow to Mr Bush\'s detentions policy. First, the court ruled, prisoners at Guantanamo had the right to petition against their detention. Second, it decided that Yaser Hamdi, an American citizen captured in Afghanistan, may not be held indefinitely as an "enemy combatant" without any opportunity to face a court. And third, the court granted Mr Padilla another chance to have his case against detention heard in a lower court."
"Fortunately, the courts are there to uphold the law, and this week the administration was dealt a sharp rebuff when a federal appeals court ruled it was wrong to hold hundreds of deportation hearings in secret. "The executive branch seeks to uproot people\'s lives, outside the public eye, and behind a closed door," it said. "Democracies die behind closed doors." It was right. Whatever the need for greater surveillance, no case has been made for abandoning the right to open justice."
It is sad that starry-eyed conservatives like you cannot see that your president is out of hand. I think the following nicely sums up the situation:
Mr Bush may have made a mistake when he chose to call his response to September 11th a "war." Talk of war conjures up the need for the suspension of normal political life and even of civil liberties. That is bad enough in a war of the conventional kind. But this war, if war it is, is one that may go on for ever. It can certainly never be declared won; terrorism, like poverty, is probably always with us. Awful as it sounds, that may mean learning to live with terror, even as you fight it: to be dominated by a fear of terrorists, to credit them with greater power than they really have, and to tear up your freedoms in the face of their threats is to hand them a needless victory.
- The Economist
Where do you get off saying that California is detached from reality? Not only is it the wealthiest state in the Union, it also contains Stanford, Caltech, Berkeley and the UC system, all of which exemplify the pinnacles of higher education. You live in Alabama. Case closed.
-
As for the slowness of FISA:
From The Economist:
Mr Bush claims that in some cases his spies needed to act quickly rather than waiting for a warrant. A two-minute phone call between an al-Qaeda operative in America and one of his contacts overseas could lead to thousands of American deaths. Given that wiretap warrants can be granted retroactively, his critics wonder whether this argument adds up. Mr Bush has refused to give many details of how exactly the wiretaps were carried out, citing the need to protect operational secrecy.
What are retroactive warrants, you ask? Let\'s explore further:
From Newsweek:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/
What is especially perplexing about this story is that the 1978 law (that would be FISA) set up a special court to approve eavesdropping in hours, even minutes, if necessary. In fact, the law allows the government to eavesdrop on its own, then retroactively justify it to the court, essentially obtaining a warrant after the fact. Since 1979, the FISA court has approved tens of thousands of eavesdropping requests and rejected only four. There was no indication the existing system was slow—as the president seemed to claim in his press conference—or in any way required extraconstitutional action.
To paraphrase, there was nothing stopping the president from immediately putting wiretaps through. All that\'s required is that he go to a judge for approval within three days. Why he did not choose to use this legal channel and obtain retroactive warrants is beyond me.
I realize that this has been brought up before. Just throwing in what retroactive warrants actually are and how they may have been used.
EDIT: To add a bit more. What concerns would Bush have of obtaining these warrants? Judging from the fact that only 4 out of 19,000 warrants have ever been denied, it seems to me that the only reason for denial would be that the warrants were for something completely outrageous. Expediency would not be an issue, since the warrants would have been granted immediately. The article from the Wall Stree Journal makes no sense.
-
Originally posted by hyper
Old and senile. Did I not accept that a balance must be struck between liberty and security? A working democracy must not only be free, but also just. Allowing terrorists suspects to run amok targeting the innocent clearly would be immoral.
Be that as it may, the government\'s wider powers should be based on clear-cut terrorism laws passed by Congress, not the piecemeal legislations that the Bush administration forces down whenever it wants. Illegally wiretapping citizens and indefinitely detaining "enemy combatants" without Congressional mandate reek of executive hubris that will open the doors to abuse. Also, these powers should be accompanied by increased scrutiny. Would it be so hard for Bush to follow due process when enacting his policies? No. In fact, he would greatly increase his legitimacy if he could show that these behind-the-scenes surveillance policies were themselves being watched and questioned by judges and politicians. As it stands, what we have is a secretive executive branch that disregards checks and balances and civil liberties in the name of security.
You say I am out of touch with the majority for criticizing the administration? Apparently not, according to the Supreme Court.
From The Economist:
It is sad that starry-eyed conservatives like you cannot see that your president is out of hand. I think the following nicely sums up the situation:
Where do you get off saying that California is detached from reality? Not only is it the wealthiest state in the Union, it also contains Stanford, Caltech, Berkeley and the UC system, all of which exemplify the pinnacles of higher education. You live in Alabama. Case closed.
Blah blah blah when did I say you were out of touch with the majority I said you were out of touch with WHAT needs to be done for national security.
The president is far from out of hand it is his duty to protect this country. Once again you are sidestepping the issues. None of you libs have any answers and would handcuff the government in its job of protecting the US. Once again hyppy how has this effected you? Come on tell me I am still waiting.
Yes I live in Alabama - I am not a native and I can promise you I have seen more of the world than you will ever see.
Kalifornia... :laughing:
Lastly you apparently didn\'t read the full reason as to why going to FISA won\'t work. You claim that 99 percent of the warrants have succeeded - you are glossing over the fact that FISA will only grant a warrant if it is a slam dunk case. You never hear about the ones they deny. You can\'t refute the WSJ article - you use the same liberal talking points over and over again. The real reason for these attacks on the wiretapping is not about civil rights or any of that bullshit - it is about Bush and the hatred the media and the left has for him.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Kalifornia... :laughing:
i like living here but the politicians are fucking retards...our mayor was retarded, our old governor messed everything up, we elected a damn actor to clean up the huge mess.
even better, the government isnt listing san diego as a target for terrorism so we dont get the protection we need. We have a bunch of stuff here, military bases, a chemical plant about 45 minutes from me, supposedly some nukes (not really sure if thats true..a teacher whose pretty dumb said it).
and if ur basing all of your expectations of what california is based on LA, you couldnt be any more of the stereotype of an ignorant hick. i was too lazy to look for what u ment by \'detached from reality\' which im assuming means that were all from west hollywood
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Blah blah blah when did I say you were out of touch with the majority I said you were out of touch with WHAT needs to be done for national security.
The president is far from out of hand it is his duty to protect this country. Once again you are sidestepping the issues. None of you libs have any answers and would handcuff the government in its job of protecting the US. Once again hyppy how has this effected you? Come on tell me I am still waiting.
Yes I live in Alabama - I am not a native and I can promise you I have seen more of the world than you will ever see.
Kalifornia... :laughing:
Lastly you apparently didn\'t read the full reason as to why going to FISA won\'t work. You claim that 99 percent of the warrants have succeeded - you are glossing over the fact that FISA will only grant a warrant if it is a slam dunk case. You never hear about the ones they deny. You can\'t refute the WSJ article - you use the same liberal talking points over and over again. The real reason for these attacks on the wiretapping is not about civil rights or any of that bullshit - it is about Bush and the hatred the media and the left has for him.
Ignoring everything that opposes conservative bigotry. Typical of a right-wing nutjob.
Read between the lines, old man. Did I ever say I wanted to take away the powers given to the government? No. I merely suggested that its policies be mandated through the proper channels of checks and balances and judicial review in order to minimize abuse. *smacks forehead* Oh, I forgot! You don\'t know what separation of powers means! Homeland security has censored it from your fucking brain.
How much has this affected me? Very little. Why you think this is relevant? I have no fucking clue. Rarely does a governmental policy have a significant impact on the individual. What we are discussing is the macro trend, of what kind of government we ultimately end up with. I\'m sorry that you can\'t see this.
About the FISA issue. Yeah, we never hear of the ones that are denied... because there have only been four. :laughing: Unplug the presidential dick from your ass, old man. Perhaps it will clear up your mind and help you see that your beloved idol can be WRONG.
You, seeing more of the world than I have? Newsflash, bigot. I\'ve lived in South Korea for 10 years, which means I\'ve covered the other side of the world far longer than your ineffectual life is capable of. And considering I attend Stanford, surrounded by people from all over the globe and by experts in every field, my cosmopolitanism will always exceed yours.
Be that as it may, it\'s not where you\'ve been, it\'s how much you know. You obviously stick exclusively with the right, absorbing all its literature and propaganda without even considering once to question its validity. Although I may lean to the left, I am always prepared to hear what the other side has to say, which is why I supported the Iraq war.
I\'ve told you before, old man, that the world is not black and white. It\'s well past time you learned this.
-
He\'s not that old.
-
Yeah. But he certainly acts old.
-
Or is it the opposite?
-
John McCain believes the President\'s spying program may be illegal and needs to be investigated:
McCain on Fox News Sunday, 1/22/06 (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/22/mccain-wiretaps-illegal/)
WALLACE: But you do not believe that currently he has the legal authority to engage in these warrant-less wiretaps.
MCCAIN: You know, I don’t think so, but why not come to Congress? We can sort this all out. I don’t think — I know of no member of Congress, frankly, who, if the administration came and said here’s why we need this capability, that they wouldn’t get it. And so let’s have the hearings.
Other prominent Republicans who have expressed concerns about the legality of the warrantless wiretapping: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN).
-
Originally posted by hyper
Ignoring everything that opposes conservative bigotry. Typical of a right-wing nutjob.
And you are a typical leftwing moonbat. Because it doesn\'t fall in line with your beliefs it is full of bigotry? Well I have some bigotry for you - keep reading.
Originally posted by hyper
Read between the lines, old man. Did I ever say I wanted to take away the powers given to the government? No. I merely suggested that its policies be mandated through the proper channels of checks and balances and judicial review in order to minimize abuse. *smacks forehead* Oh, I forgot! You don\'t know what separation of powers means! Homeland security has censored it from your fucking brain.
[/b]
And this has effected you how???? Homeland Security... hmmm your comment sounds a lot like that certifiable idiot Harry Belifonte.
Originally posted by hyper
How much has this affected me? Very little. Why you think this is relevant? I have no fucking clue.
[/b]
Exactly, you don\'t have a fucking clue.
Originally posted by hyper
About the FISA issue. Yeah, we never hear of the ones that are denied... because there have only been four. :laughing: Unplug the presidential dick from your ass, old man. Perhaps it will clear up your mind and help you see that your beloved idol can be WRONG.
[/b]
Anytime someone agrees with a Bush policy he is automatically their idol? You automatically assume because someone does so they agree with everything Bush does. You have shown your true colors here hyper. You are as stupid as Mystiq and you have proven that this isn\'t about "macro government" it is about Bush - thanks for finally admitting that.
Originally posted by hyper
You, seeing more of the world than I have? Newsflash, bigot. I\'ve lived in South Korea for 10 years, which means I\'ve covered the other side of the world far longer than your ineffectual life is capable of. And considering I attend Stanford, surrounded by people from all over the globe and by experts in every field, my cosmopolitanism will always exceed yours.
Since you are ranting on about my age and where I live it is time to fire back at you with some of your tactics. I am assuming you are South Korean and if this is the case I have lived there myself. That country is the foulest, dirtiest, shithole I have ever lived in and I have lived all over the world - Europe, Asia, the Middle East. There is nothing worldly or charming about South Korea.
Your claim that Stanford is the center of enlightenment and education is laughable. Most of my education from highschool onward comes from the North East - where the best schools and colleges are. I went to prep school in New England and spent most of my life in that area. Sure I completed college in the South East, but then again who the fuck cares? Where you go to college doesn\'t mean shit and if you haven\'t figured that out yet, you are in for a rude awakening.
Now go back to eating your Kimchi and STFU about my age and my background and where I happen to live now you racist hypocritical fuckhead. Don\'t like it do you? You know nothing of either and you don\'t know my true political beliefs as is evident by your claims I view Bush a God. I normally like people of all colors unless they cop an attitude, but the underlying message I am getting from your posts is one of racism, which is not suprising given that most liberals are the most racist people in this country and they don\'t even realize it.
Originally posted by hyper
Be that as it may, it\'s not where you\'ve been, it\'s how much you know. You obviously stick exclusively with the right, absorbing all its literature and propaganda without even considering once to question its validity. Although I may lean to the left, I am always prepared to hear what the other side has to say, which is why I supported the Iraq war.
I\'ve told you before, old man, that the world is not black and white. It\'s well past time you learned this.
Blah blah blah more Howard Dean talking points... :gay: You have proven my point in that this whole thing about Bush and Republicans and not about what is right and best for this country. If a Democrat was doing this you wouldn\'t hear me whining about it and I bet I wouldn\'t hear you and others complaining either. As you have stated this hasn\'t effected you at all. This is has been going on for years and you haven\'t noticed a thing personally. Not until the NYT publishes it do you have a problem with it claiming it is erroding our civil liberties and harming Americans.
Taking this away along with the Patriot Act would only leave our country more vulnerable to attack and it seems you are comfortable with this. There is no viable option that critics to this have proposed - NONE. Until one of you enlightened progressives can come up with a better idea that will keep our country safe, shut up and stop trying to undermine our national security. I am listening and hearing the same thing I have heard for the past four years from the left - "It is Bush\'s fault, Bush is evil, Bush is Hitler", etc...
Just maybe if the left would actually propose ideas instead of attacking one man and making everything about partisan politics - this country would actually start moving forward again.
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
John McCain believes the President\'s spying program may be illegal and needs to be investigated:
McCain on Fox News Sunday, 1/22/06 (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/22/mccain-wiretaps-illegal/)
Other prominent Republicans who have expressed concerns about the legality of the warrantless wiretapping: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN).
Most conservatives look at both McCain and Specter as RINO\'s anyway. Nothing surprising about this at all.
-
Call me as a liberal, call me paranoid, but I find it disgusting that the goverment would to this. You can give me all these reasons that it may be valid and you know what? It doesn\'t matter. It comes down to one thing and that is privacy. I enjoy my privacy and I don\'t want the goverment to have any right to invade that privacy.
I will say this - one again, Giga goes to show he can\'t debate without cussing and what not at members.
Quotes.....
"Moonbat"
"Fucking clueless"
"Young and clueless"
The list goes on and on. Good job at representing your point of view...:rolleyes: You succesfully threw a tantrum on a forum. Congrat\'s to you, Giga. Just glad to see you are keeping it civil in this topic.
And if anyone is racist and what not, it would be you Giga. You\'ve attacked Mystiq and countless others for stupid stuff.
-
:laughing:
*"old man" and "nutjob" edited out*.
I\'ve said all I needed to say.
EDIT: Yeah, I agree, Eik.
-
Enough with the \'old man\' \'nutjob\' \'immature\' \'moonbat\' comments. K, thx.
-Dan
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Call me as a liberal, call me paranoid, but I find it disgusting that the goverment would to this. You can give me all these reasons that it may be valid and you know what? It doesn\'t matter. It comes down to one thing and that is privacy. I enjoy my privacy and I don\'t want the goverment to have any right to invade that privacy.
I will say this - one again, Giga goes to show he can\'t debate without cussing and what not at members.
Quotes.....
"Moonbat"
"Fucking clueless"
"Young and clueless"
The list goes on and on. Good job at representing your point of view...:rolleyes: You succesfully threw a tantrum on a forum. Congrat\'s to you, Giga. Just glad to see you are keeping it civil in this topic.
And if anyone is racist and what not, it would be you Giga. You\'ve attacked Mystiq and countless others for stupid stuff.
I had no idea that moonbat and young and clueless are so offensive... :rolleyes:
As far as throwing a tantrum, hmmm hyper\'s insult filled posts were surprisingly overlooked by you. Go figure and it isn\'t the first time it has happened. Then again anyone who agrees with you gets a free pass from your ridicule. :rolleyes: You still haven\'t figured out this forum creates very passionate debates? More than say Console Gaming ever could. Furthermore, I can debate circles around you in politics, but you don\'t care that much about this topic, just as I don\'t care about anime or Batman.
I dunno LIC maybe you and I should just get everything off our chests that we don\'t like about each other and be done with it. Better yet, put me on ignore.
Once again I challenge anyone here to prove their privacy has been violated - I seriously doubt anyone in national intelligence even cares that you or I exist LIC - or offer a better alternative to keep this country safe. I have said this all along and not one person has given me an answer to either so instead I get hate filled posts directed at me because they can\'t answer my question.
I for one am sick of the constant attacks by some on the president. I don\'t think he is the greatest president by any means, but seeing one baseless and negative post after the other about him gets quite old. The Republicans are in power the Democrats are not - instead of the constant partisan attacks by the Democrats and rebuttals by the Republicans they should work together without trying to smear one another. I am personally sick of both parties trying to make the other look bad for their own gain, but I feel it is coming more from the left because they are the ones trying to gain votes in the upcoming elections.
-
Your problem is you are the single most judgemental person on this board. You want to sit here and debate, but you don\'t debate. All you do is put everyone else down for not sharing the same opinion as yourself. You want to know how to debate? Go read some of Cored\'s post, Shockwaves, Eik\'s . Those are posters who actually have a point and get it across without having to resort down to insulting, like you do.
Put simply - you act arrogant and ignorant at the same time. It\'s not that you don\'t have a point to get across, it\'s you don\'t know how to get it across. If you remained civil, I think people would take you a lot more serious, as it is, people just post more stuff to get you fired up and watch you go off. You\'re nothing but a tickin\' time bomb with each thread.
As for people callin\' the President out, guess what? It\'s part of the job. It is also our right to put everything he does under the microscope. If you want to blindly trust in him, go for it, but I think most American\'s want to know what is goin\' on and why. This includes wiretappin\'.
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Your problem is you are the single most judgemental person on this board.
[/b]
Pot, Kettle, Black.
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
You want to sit here and debate, but you don\'t debate. All you do is put everyone else down for not sharing the same opinion as yourself. You want to know how to debate? Go read some of Cored\'s post, Shockwaves, Eik\'s . Those are posters who actually have a point and get it across without having to resort down to insulting, like you do.
[/b]
Read the same liberal talking points? I asked Core just the other day about his comment that the president shouldn\'t go around any law and I received no response. Probably because he doesn\'t have one. I post very coherent and logical posts. I only resort to insults when another insults me. Again reread the posts in this thread.
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Put simply - you act arrogant and ignorant at the same time. It\'s not that you don\'t have a point to get across, it\'s you don\'t know how to get it across. If you remained civil, I think people would take you a lot more serious, as it is, people just post more stuff to get you fired up and watch you go off. You\'re nothing but a tickin\' time bomb with each thread.
[/b]
Arrogant and ignorant - look in the mirrior LIC. I know perfectly well how to get my points across. A good number of the posters in this forum are naive and ignorant to reality. As for people talking me seriously? Don\'t care if they do or they don\'t - it is the internet.
If you didn\'t have me in this forum along with maybe two or three others it would be equivalent to having a bunch of parrots locked up together. It also seems you have the roles reversed, it is I who fire up people to lash out in their posts. Take yourself for instance. Also look at hyper\'s reaction to my post. Go ahead and LOOK at it.
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
As for people callin\' the President out, guess what? It\'s part of the job. It is also our right to put everything he does under the microscope. If you want to blindly trust in him, go for it, but I think most American\'s want to know what is goin\' on and why. This includes wiretappin\'.
You can criticize all you want, but guess what? That is all you do! Bitch and moan is about all you seem good at. It seems you are not concerned at all with keeping this country safe, but only concerned about complaining. If you don\'t trust the government there is no further discussion to be had. Conspiracy theories and paranoia are not my thing.
I also don\'t understand why you feel you have the right to know everything the president does - this isn\'t some hippy commune. Do you understand what security clearance is? Do you understand that you do not have any clearance of any kind? Do you understand what state secrets are? Do you know that classified information is just that? I guess the idea that if you knew everything so would our enemies hasn\'t occured yet.
-
...And... derailed.
-Dan
-
Here’s a little humor from Fafblog (http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/q-our-omnipotent-president-q.html) to lighten the mood. :laughing:
Q & A: Our Omnipotent President
Q. Can the president spy on Americans without a warrant?
A. The president has to spy on Americans without a warrant! We\'re at war, and the president\'s gotta defend America, and he\'s not gonna wait for a permission slip from a judge or a senator or America to do it!
Q. That\'s just the kinda tough, no-nonsense thinking I like in a de facto dictator! Now some crazy people say the president broke some silly old laws like FISA and the National Security Act and the Fourth Amendment. Are these crazy people crazy?
A. They sure are! Maybe those laws worked back in 1978 back when Leonid Brezhnev was snortin coke with Ayatollah Khomeini and groovin to the hits of the Bee Gees, but in today\'s dark and dangerous times they just aren\'t enough.
Q. Things sure have changed since the innocent days of mutually assured destruction! But is it legal for the president to ignore the law?
A. Maybe not according to plain ol stupid ol regular law, but we\'re at war! You don\'t go to war with regular laws, which are made outta red tape and bureaucracy and Neville Chamberlain. You go to war with great big strapping War Laws made outta tanks and cold hard steel and the American Fightin Man and WAR, KABOOOOOOM!
Q. How does a War Bill become a War Law?
A. It all begins with the president, who submits a bill to the president. If a majority of both the president and the president approve the bill, then it passes on to the president, who may veto it or sign it into law. And even then the president can override himself with a two-thirds vote.
Q. See it\'s the checks and balances that make all the difference in our democratic system.
A. It\'s true.
Q. Can the president spy on me without a warrant?
A. The president would never, ever spy on you, unless you\'re talking to a terrorist.
Q. That sounds reasonable!
A. Or an associate of a terrorist or a suspected associate of a terrorist or a possible suspected relative of a member of an affiliate of a terrorist or someone with a name that\'s spelled like a terrorist\'s or someone who\'s been mistakenly identified as a terrorist by an NSA algorithm.
Q. That sounds like I should look into switching to smoke signals.
…
Q. Is the president above the law?
A. Nobody\'s above the law! As commander-in-chief the president just outranks the law.
Q. So the president doesn\'t break the law. He just appoints new laws to fill vacancies in the office of law, as empowered by Acticle II of the Shmonstitution!
A. In the presidential order of succession the law falls between Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings and Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson.
Q. You can\'t put the law any higher. It would just slow down the War on Terror with bureaucratic rules and regulations like the Geneva Conventions and the Bill of Rights.
A. If the law outranked the president we\'d never get anything done! The president would go toss Osama bin Laden through a plate glass window and the law would call him into his office an go "Dammit president, you\'re outta control!"
Q. And then the president\'d be all "You\'re outta control, chief! The whole freakin system\'s outta control!"
A. And then the president would totally turn in his badge and quit the force to fight crime!
-
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/24/nsa.strategy/
Excellent!
Thank you for re-opening this thread dispite hyper and giga\'s adolescent feud.