|
FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First) |
Dec 22nd, 2005 04:48 PM | |||||
kahljorn |
"I think it was "sexual relations" which does include oral." Maybe. I didn't really follow the trial that closely because it was kind of stupid, I was just spreading the word of some person. |
||||
Dec 22nd, 2005 03:36 PM | |||||
Cybernetico |
Quote:
Do you still mind me tapping to your conversations? I didn't think so. Quote:
|
||||
Dec 22nd, 2005 02:32 PM | |||||
kahljorn |
"Well, that and he lied under oath" I don't know if anybody mentioned this, but he actually didn't lie under oath. What he said was that he never had SEX with monica lewinsky... she just gave him a blowjob (not that he mentioned that part) Smart guy. |
||||
Dec 22nd, 2005 01:18 PM | |||||
mburbank |
"From what I understand, this has only been used thus far to monitor international calls to countries that are considered high risk and that this has yielded positive results." You have no way of knowing that beyond their personal word. It may well be true, but the reason we have oversight and checks and balances is so that we don't have to be ruled by a policy of 'trust me'. That is one of the key aspects of a democracy. "maybe I'm behind on my information, but why exactly is this a bad thing? " For exactly the reason Clintons perjury was a bad thing, and though I personally thought it was silly, though I still believe it was a set up and I know it was in no way related to what he was under oath to testify about, PERJURY IS A CRIME. No matter what you think about the reasons for it, even if Clintons reason was just to keep from looking like a total fuck and W's reason was to save the world, PRESIDENTS BREAKING THE LAW IS A VERY, VERY BAD THING. We are a nation of laws, not people. If you want to argue that congress meant for him to have supreme power as long as he promised not to abuse it, do so. If not, we have a president breaking the law and saying he can and he intends to continue doing so. No one should want that or think it's no big deal. |
||||
Dec 22nd, 2005 09:27 AM | |||||
ziggytrix |
I can conceive two plausible explainations. 1. They are monitoring someone they believe they might not be allowed to under the law. (Note: this is not to imply they are spying on political enemies. I'm not crying conspiracy, yet.) or 2. They don't like having to ask permission to do what they think is right, because complicated rules just get in the way. :cowboy Can anyone dream up any other rationale? |
||||
Dec 22nd, 2005 09:09 AM | |||||
KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
But that aside, I understand your point. Of course the Air Americas types are going to take this too far, but it should go as far as it needs to go regardless. The Senate will decide that, I guess. Quote:
However, if that's all they're doing, and the FISA court rarely ever says no, and the patriot act expands upon even those tiny limitations, then why even do it? Why is this practice necessary? |
||||
Dec 22nd, 2005 08:57 AM | |||||
KevinTheOmnivore |
Sure thing, sport. oh, and btw, what Clinton may have done is not the same as what this president clearly did do. When Jamie Gorelick testified that physical searches were okay without warrants, it in fact was under FISA at the time. FISA has since been amended to include the searches. But hey, you're really balanced here. You hate both parties. I'd say the twisted testimony of a deputy attorney general is exactly the same as words right from Bush's mouth. Not to mention that wire tapping has been banned through FISA for years and years now. I apologize, you certainly aren't biased like everyone else. Forgive me. |
||||
Dec 21st, 2005 10:27 PM | |||||
CaptainBubba |
Who said I was arguing that Kevin? My point is that ya'll are biased as all hell. Unless I'm mistaken you probably didn't pull a WTF about clinton bypassing the law in a simmilar fashion, but when a republican does it you're all up in arms. The fact that you think I'm trying to justify it only blatantly shows your bias since I hate democrats and republicans, and from my post it should seem apparent that I despise Bush's policies. I don't even really know what ya'll think I was trying to argue actually. It seems like you think I just really like the status quo even though I hate the government. Seriously though ya'll are not even fammiliar with Clinton or Carter bypassing court orders so obviously it wasn't a big deal to you then. I hate that corruption can pass by this country one half at a time because you people are so set on believing in a two party system. But keep on making "oh man, that was stupid" responses to my posts before actually reading them, Kevin. It shows both a great deal of class, and is a mark of a high quality moderator. ;p |
||||
Dec 21st, 2005 08:52 PM | |||||
ItalianStereotype |
Quote:
from what I understand, this has only been used thus far to monitor international calls to countries that are considered high risk and that this has yielded positive results. maybe I'm behind on my information, but why exactly is this a bad thing? oh, and geggy is officially the new ranxer. RED PILL RED PILL RED PILL BLUE PILL RED PILL!!!11!!!1ONE and by the way mr. omnivore, I wish you had more to say about empires! |
||||
Dec 21st, 2005 08:39 PM | |||||
LadyMage |
Quote:
|
||||
Dec 21st, 2005 03:44 PM | |||||
KevinTheOmnivore |
Look, the point we should take away from this is that if Clinton lied under oath, it would be waaaay too hypocritical to get upset over anything any subsequent presidents might do. Thanks, Bill. |
||||
Dec 21st, 2005 03:31 PM | |||||
Cosmo Electrolux |
Quote:
|
||||
Dec 21st, 2005 03:06 PM | |||||
Geggy | Don't forget how Clinton got caught having a relation with Monica Lewinsky. ANd no it wasn't the stain on the dress... | ||||
Dec 21st, 2005 12:51 PM | |||||
KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
I mean, clearly, if past administrations did bad things, we should just shrug our shoulders, turn a blind eye to current wrongs, and let it slide. |
||||
Dec 21st, 2005 12:17 PM | |||||
mburbank | I don't know about Clinton and Carter, but It's on record that Kennedy and Johnson did. A whole lot pf power is a very bad thing. That's why balance of powers and checks and balances are the best thing about the constitution. It assumes the powerful can't be trusted. | ||||
Dec 20th, 2005 10:22 PM | |||||
CaptainBubba |
Crazy Libertarians, the government will never become that corrupt. Actually most of my friends who I argue with about this stuff would defend this by saying "Yea but they're only going to use these intrusive rights on suspicious middle easterners, not you or me so it doesn't really matter to us". Most people refuse to believe that the government would ever abuse its power in regards to them. Seriously though ya'll should go buy some shooootguuuuuuns. I give it 4 years till we're either in a nuclear conflict and there is a draft or we are ruled by alien overlords from Battlefield Earth. Btw Btw Clinton and Carter would never do anything remotely simmilar to this lol am I right guys ? ;p ;p They loved them some court orders. |
||||
Dec 20th, 2005 09:08 PM | |||||
Geggy |
I'm interested in knowing who exactly they are spying on... I'm already convinced they're lying about wire tapping into phone conversations for any suspicious terrorist activities. I've thought about the possiblities of them spying on journalists to keep any dissents in check since 9/11... Remember in the movie, The Matrix, the agents called Morpheaus, the man who guided neo and crew to the truth, a terrorist? It's kinda like that with agent Bush... God I love that movie. |
||||
Dec 20th, 2005 06:57 PM | |||||
kahljorn | The ajax makes it pretty colours that dazzle and confound simultaneously :O | ||||
Dec 20th, 2005 06:47 PM | |||||
KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
Dec 20th, 2005 03:26 PM | |||||
ziggytrix |
re: my earlier question - I was thinking of George H.W. Bush's chief of staff, John H. Sununu. This John Sununu is that Sununu's son. Which is interesting in itself, to me. |
||||
Dec 20th, 2005 02:33 PM | |||||
mburbank |
Preech, I was totally wrong about the timetable speech, I admit it, but I think you're wrong that this is going to go away quickly. Senators seek probe of Bush's spying orders 57 minutes ago WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Rebuffing assurances from President George W. Bush, bipartisan members of the U.S. Senate's Intelligence Committee called on Tuesday for an immediate inquiry into his authorization of spying on Americans. ADVERTISEMENT But Vice President Dick Cheney predicted a backlash against critics of the administration's anti-terrorism policies as he forcefully defended a program that critics say may have exceeded Bush's powers. Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia Snowe of Maine joined Democratic Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan, Dianne Feinstein of California and Ron Wyden of Oregon in calling for a joint investigation by the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees into whether the government eavesdropped "without appropriate legal authority." Several Republican and Democratic lawmakers have raised questions about whether spying on Americans violates the U.S. Constitution and have already backed a plan for a congressional hearing into the program, first revealed by The New York Times last week. Bush and senior administration officials have defended as legal the policy of authorizing without court orders eavesdropping on international phone calls by Americans suspected of links to terrorism. They argue it provided the agility -- beyond a 1978 law allowing court-warranted eavesdropping -- to help defend the country after the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington. 'HELL OF A THREAT' Cheney, speaking to reporters during a trip to the Middle East and Asia, said: "The president and I believe very deeply that there is a hell of a threat," adding this obliged them to "do everything in our power to defeat the terrorists." "And I don't think that there is anything improper or inappropriate in that and my guess is that the vast majority of the American people support that, support what we're doing, believe we ought to be doing it," he said. "So there's a backlash pending, I think the backlash is going to be against those who are suggesting somehow we shouldn't take these steps in order to defend the country," he said, speaking on a plane to Oman from Pakistan. Bush said on Monday the program, which he had reauthorized more than 30 times since September 11, had been effective in disrupting terrorist acts, but he gave no details. He noted that congressional leaders have been briefed on it more than a dozen times. The eavesdropping program is the latest in a series of administration policies in Bush's declared war on terrorism that have prompted questions over whether the line has been crossed between protecting the public and protecting civil rights. The senators calling for an investigation demanded detailed information on the program, including on its legality. "It is critical that Congress determine, as quickly as possible, exactly what collection activities were authorized, what were actually undertaken, how many names and numbers were involved over what period, and what was the asserted legal authority for such activities. In sum, we must determine the facts," they said in a joint letter. This is a bi-partisan call for investigation. If the intelligence commitee had actually been briefed on this, I don't think they'd be calling to investigate. I'm gonna guess W saying they've been briefed is like him saying "Congress saw the same intelligence we did", ie. a lie designed to snow folks who only read headlines or watch Fox News. It is because this was SO totally uneccesary that even R's in the Senate are flipping out. W is a lame duck and I don't think they'll let him damage the party if they think that's what he's doing. The ONLY reasons to circumvent FISA are to take power away from the other branches simply to do it, or to use eavesdropping in so corrupt fashion that a secret court which has only objected to four wire taps in twenty some odd years would have known was rotten. Chenney WISHES there would be a backlash. I wonder if anyone in the whitehouse is actively praying for a terrorist strike yet. |
||||
Dec 20th, 2005 02:16 PM | |||||
Preechr |
Quote:
Quote:
The only way the Democrats will ever end their downward spiral looks more and more like one of two options: 1. Become something that it's increasingly apparent they are not, or 2. Wait around until the Republicans implode. They have seemingly realized actual leadership and integrity is either beyond their grasp or useless to them, so they've opted to catalyze option 2. Why do I always find myself reminding you that I do not like ANYTHING government does? What part of libertarian crank do you find so hard to grasp, man? |
||||
Dec 20th, 2005 01:58 PM | |||||
KevinTheOmnivore |
"I'm not misstating the facts. I've read the White House (sic) and they put out a list of actual terror attacks that were prevented because of the Patriot Act that's not going to be re-authorized because of YOU." All I want for Chrtistmas is one swift kick at his nuts. That's it. |
||||
Dec 20th, 2005 01:37 PM | |||||
ziggytrix |
So is Republican Senator John Sununu a loose cannon like Sen. McCain, cuz I seem to recall a Republican politician with a similar name who was pretty far right, politically, but I think maybe I'm getting names mixed up. anyway - Quote:
|
||||
Dec 20th, 2005 01:00 PM | |||||
KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
Quote:
I don't think the investigation cries will hold up. It's his best defense I suppose, and it's right out of politics 101. I know an angel loses his wings every time this is said now, but this new response is certainly the work of karl Rove. It's smart message politics, which is what he does. Quote:
I think it's irrational to rally around the team jersey on issues like this. You can sound like a conspiracy theorist all you want, and assume that all of these things MUST be manufactured by the liberal media, and the Dems., and George Soros, and somehow, Barbara Streisand. Or you could take a look at an administration that constantly finds itself in the cross hairs of people on both sides of the aisle, for various reasons, and maybe stop and ask whether or not there's some merit to these complaints. The Dems. are the minority party in Congress. If investigations come about over this NSA stuff, it'll be Republicans who ultimately be the deciding catalyst behind that. |
||||
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. |