Quote speaking about the Iranian leader: He's nuts!
__________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 13 Sep 2007 07:53
zod69
i saw this when it was on. he didn't make one intelligent point to back his position. i loved how he said wire tapping is okay because he hears us on the phone talking loud at the mall. good point dumbass.
Posted: 13 Sep 2007 15:09
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4170
Join Date: Jul 2007
You aren't making any intelligent arguments against him either. Just calling him a name doesn't count as disproving his position. I think the mall thing was a joke.
Has anybody ever heard of an American citizen getting busted due to wiretapping that turned out to be innoccent? As anybody even heard of a citizen being wire tapped that was innoccent? Isn't it true that the wiretapping is for those talking to known terrorists? Just answer the question.
I love court room drama don't you? __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 14 Sep 2007 01:51
Registered User
Posts: 3845
Join Date: Aug 2007
Wiretapping without a warrant is the issue, not the aftereffects of it. Just because we haven't heard of anyone innocent getting tapped or busted doesn't matter-it might have still happened and it's against the law in the first place without that warrant.
The thing in the mall was a joke, loosen up Zod. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 14 Sep 2007 16:25
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4170
Join Date: Jul 2007
Simply pointing out for the jury that there has been no reported abuse of power that has had a negative effect so far on the average American citizen.
In fact is it not true that there has not been another 911 incident thanks to the tireless efforts of our men and women in the fbi and cia? Is this not true!
Your honour I rest my case. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 15 Sep 2007 02:29
Registered User
Posts: 3845
Join Date: Aug 2007
I would remind whatever people you think you are seeing and calling a jury that an abuse of power is just that; an abuse of power.
There hasn't been another 911 level incident because there hasn't been one. This is like proving a negative Tim. False connection. That means your statement is not true. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 15 Sep 2007 20:47
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4170
Join Date: Jul 2007
I think it's clear we haven't had an another attack due to the diligence and hard work of our military, and government officials. It wasn't like the bad guys weren't trying to break through and slam us again. How many times have terrorists been caught since 911? Just the other day they caught some trying to attack a fort with explosives. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 16 Sep 2007 01:57
Registered User
Posts: 3845
Join Date: Aug 2007
The lack of an attack may just mean that any that did happen just weren't reported. Whether any happened or not does not prove any particular agency did any job preventing it. What if there were simply no attacks? Maybe it's clear that football season prevented them this week by your reasoning.
What fort? What explosives? Where's the source of your claim? __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 16 Sep 2007 07:09
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: Simply pointing out for the jury that there has been no reported abuse of power that has had a negative effect so far on the average American citizen.
Okay, weird.
Tim, I would like to point out to you that if you're going to pretend to be a lawyer, you should look up the concept of legal precedent.
When something like wiretapping without a warrant is approved, the American people are suddenly left exposed to a host of abuses by their government. For the sake of argument, lets say that these haven't taken place...yet. That doesn't mean they won't be used in the future. How are you going to feel if a liberal President uses wiretapping to spy on conservative political opponents? Not great I bet.
And isn't the point of spying on someone that you don't alert them to the fact that you spied on them? How would we know whether or not this power has been abused? The Bush administration is not going to issue a press release saying they've been listening in where they shouldn't.
There needs to be oversight over these matters, just as there has been since the late 70's. The secret court that provided warrants to the National Security Agency have only denied two requests ever. If the Bush administration felt they had to go over the heads of this seemingly lenient court- then their requests must have been pretty damn bad.
The Bush administration has already attempted to use Department of Justice to fire federal attorneys that didn't use the law to influence elections to their liking. If you don't think that future administrations won't abuse the unchecked power that will be passed down the line, then you have a lot more faith in politicians than I do.
Posted: 17 Sep 2007 20:48
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4170
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: That doesn't mean they won't be used in the future. How are you going to feel if a liberal President uses wiretapping to spy on conservative political opponents?
You are stretching that by a mile. Right now wiretapping is occurring on people in talks with known terrorist. All i know I don't care how they do it, they better be listening in, or we should vote out the current government and put somebody in that will protect us. I ain't getting blowed up by some terrorist because you don't like Bush.
Quote: The Bush administration has already attempted to use Department of Justice to fire federal attorneys that didn't use the law to influence elections to their liking.
Didn't Clinton fire like 10 times that number? __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 18 Sep 2007 03:32
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: You are stretching that by a mile. Right now wiretapping is occurring on people in talks with known terrorist. All i know I don't care how they do it, they better be listening in, or we should vote out the current government and put somebody in that will protect us. I ain't getting blowed up by some terrorist because you don't like Bush.
I'm not stretching anything. What I describe isn't unbelievable just because it runs counter to your crush on the President. If this were Bill Clinton we were talking about, you'd be disconnecting your phone and blogging in secret code.
That bit about you not caring how they do it? Maybe you don't, but I do. I like a country where you can disagree with the government free of repercussions. I want you to have that right too, as did the people who died for that concept.
If you want to live in a country under total lock down that is totally free of Al Qaeda, I'm afraid you missed your chance. Iraq prior to 2003 sounds right up your alley.
Speaking of a buyer's market, what are you worried about anyway? You live in TN. Your rights will be violated before you are "blowed up" by terrorists, I assure you.
Not to mention the government actually catches people when it is vigilant and competent. Lets try that for a change before we throw away all our rights.
Finally, Bush had everything he needed to tap phones before- all he needed was probable cause before a secret court to obtain a warrant. Why did he want to do away with that system? What other reason is there besides he was doing something he shouldn't?
But why am I bothering with all this again? You WANT a king as long as he's a Republican.
But thats the best part. Those bastard weasel D's caved in for Bush and approved the plan for the next 6 months. I'm sure it will get approved again at the end of that. And in a particularly terrible irony that won't make either of us happy, you probably WILL get to gripe about this subject when a Clinton is pulling the same BS in 09. God save the Queen, eh Tim?
Can you tell I'm in a bad mood about this? Anyone, from either party SHOULD BE.
Quote: Didn't Clinton fire like 10 times that number?
Ah, Fox News. I swear you must be Sean Hannity's parakeet.
Most Presidents fire the previous administration's US Attorneys upon taking office. Clinton fired his in 93. If I'm not mistaken, so did George HW Bush when he took office.
Of course, the guy I quote below definitely has no problem with mass overhauls. Bring us some clarity Sire:
Quote: As we cut through all the partisan rhetoric, it's important to maintain perspective on a couple of important points. First, it was natural and appropriate for members of the White House staff to consider and to discuss with the Justice Department whether to replace all 93 U.S. attorneys at the beginning of my second term. The start of a second term is a natural time to discuss the status of political appointees within the White House and with relevant agencies, including the Justice Department. In this case, the idea was rejected and was not pursued. -Guess Who!
Okay, a little odd at the beginning of the second term, but even that isn't as bad as getting rid of only the ones who don't play ball.
You see Tim, most Presidents DON'T do is fire attorneys who don't prosecute cases against Democrats the way they would like. Ask a Republican. Here are a couple on Meet the Press, who were fired because they didn't bend the justice system the way the Bush people expected. I doubt you'll read this, but you never know.
You're going to have to be patient Tim. Until we completely have the monarchy installed, the government is still a little accountable to the law.
Posted: 18 Sep 2007 14:51
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4170
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: I'm not stretching anything. What I describe isn't unbelievable just because it runs counter to your crush on the President. If this were Bill Clinton we were talking about, you'd be disconnecting your phone and blogging in secret code.
Look when the President starts wire tapping the homes of democrats and liberals then I'll know he went to far abusing his power for political gain. As long as it's just crazy wacko types bent on destroying the world I'm good. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 18 Sep 2007 15:06
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
It is as simple as this:
How do you know?
Posted: 19 Sep 2007 18:20
Captain America
Quote: How do you know?
Especially if the White House refuses to turn over documents to the appropriate Congressional committees?
Posted: 20 Sep 2007 18:16
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4170
Join Date: Jul 2007
You don't know for sure either way, I suppose, but innoccent till proven guilty right. You seem to be automatically assuming the President is using this wire tapping thing for personal gain.
Although I would also suppose that if your average joe were to be railroaded, or especially someone highly involved in politics that a huge stink would be made of it that even the President couldn't hide. After all he hasn't hid the fact that two border patrol agents were imprisoned for shooting a drug dealer in the butt. We all know that was about being nice to the Mexican government and all this illegal immigration political bull. Funny you libs have the Prez on that the border patrol agents, but you never worry about that even though it's a pretty cut and dry case. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 24 Sep 2007 04:53
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: You don't know for sure either way, I suppose, but innoccent till proven guilty right.
Do you acknowledge an understanding of what happened here? They broke the law by bypassing the court which grants this sort of warrant. The warrant has only been denied twice. They refuse to turn over any documents related to the matter. Something is being covered up here. He can't be "proven guilty" because he's blocking any investigation into what he has done. Does that sound like a public servant who is accountable to the people?
I'm telling you- all this blind faith in a leader will come back to bite you in the ass. Unfortunately, you and I are in the same boat- so pardon me if I don't wish to surrender my liberties with you.
Quote: Although I would also suppose that if your average joe were to be railroaded, or especially someone highly involved in politics that a huge stink would be made of it that even the President couldn't hide.
As explained above- that is the point. How is this average Joe going to know they were wire tapped?
Quote: Funny you libs have the Prez on that the border patrol agents, but you never worry about that even though it's a pretty cut and dry case.
No, it wasn't that simple. I looked it up back when you were the most upset about it. I'm not saying the treatment of these guys hasn't been terrible and I'm not saying I know enough to pass judgment- but cut and dry it was not. One thing is for sure, Bush has not had the nerve to get involved in it.
Posted: 24 Sep 2007 17:00
Registered User
Posts: 3845
Join Date: Aug 2007
__________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 24 Sep 2007 19:54
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4170
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: so pardon me if I don't wish to surrender my liberties with you.
Pardon me if I don't want my ass shot off by some terrorist.
Quote: How is this average Joe going to know they were wire tapped?
He'd probably guess it when he goes to jail for not agreeing with Bush. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 24 Sep 2007 20:42
Registered User
Posts: 3845
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: He'd probably guess it when he goes to jail for not agreeing with Bush.
What country are you from again? __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
I love court room drama don't you?
