Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Dec 21st, 2005, 12:17 PM       
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.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Dec 21st, 2005, 12:51 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
I don't know about Clinton and Carter, but It's on record that Kennedy and Johnson did.
On top of the fact that this isn't entirely relevant, and is a really, really dumb argument.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Geggy Geggy is offline
say what now?
Geggy's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Peebody
Geggy is probably a spambot
Old Dec 21st, 2005, 03:06 PM       
Don't forget how Clinton got caught having a relation with Monica Lewinsky. ANd no it wasn't the stain on the dress...
__________________
enjoy now, regret later
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Cosmo Electrolux Cosmo Electrolux is offline
Stone Pants Rabbit
Cosmo Electrolux's Avatar
Join Date: May 2001
Location: In your distant memory
Cosmo Electrolux is probably a spambot
Old Dec 21st, 2005, 03:31 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geggy
Don't forget how Clinton got caught having a relation with Monica Lewinsky. ANd no it wasn't the stain on the dress...
Well, that and he lied under oath...probably why Bush and Company refuse to testify under oath. I think that they should have information extracted from them the way they like to extract information.....
Reply With Quote
  #30  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Dec 21st, 2005, 03:44 PM       
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.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
LadyMage LadyMage is offline
Member
LadyMage's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: new york
LadyMage is probably a spambot
Old Dec 21st, 2005, 08:39 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
yeah he lied under oath, thats it, and over what a friggin blow job, he shouldn't have been on trial in the first place
__________________
I am a happy, well adjusted emotionally disurbed person
Reply With Quote
  #32  
ItalianStereotype ItalianStereotype is offline
Legislacerator
ItalianStereotype's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: HELL, where all hot things are
ItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty ok
Old Dec 21st, 2005, 08:52 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
I don't know about Clinton and Carter, but It's on record that Kennedy and Johnson did.
On top of the fact that this isn't entirely relevant, and is a really, really dumb argument.

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.
where I've seen this argument applied is when some overzealous ass starts screeching about the evil Republicans and how they're ruining America blah blah blah and ifDemocrats had won we'd be in a utopia blah.

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!
__________________
I could just scream
Reply With Quote
  #33  
CaptainBubba CaptainBubba is offline
xXxASPERGERSxXx
CaptainBubba's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
CaptainBubba is probably a spambot
Old Dec 21st, 2005, 10:27 PM       
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
Reply With Quote
  #34  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Dec 22nd, 2005, 08:57 AM       
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.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Dec 22nd, 2005, 09:09 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalianStereotype
where I've seen this argument applied is when some overzealous ass starts screeching about the evil Republicans and how they're ruining America blah blah blah and ifDemocrats had won we'd be in a utopia blah.
Well, it's funny you'd put it this way. Apparently there were reports prior to the 2004 election from an "unnamed senior official" that the NSA was very concerned this practice would be stopped were Kerry elected president.

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:
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?
It's not, and call me crazy, but i believe that they have been using this practice to really go after the bad guys. I believe they are genuine when they say that.

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?
Reply With Quote
  #36  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
ziggytrix is probably a spambot
Old Dec 22nd, 2005, 09:27 AM       
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?
Reply With Quote
  #37  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Dec 22nd, 2005, 01:18 PM       
"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.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Dec 22nd, 2005, 02:32 PM       
"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.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Cybernetico Cybernetico is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Location: Location: Location:Location: Location: Location: Location: Location: Location:
Cybernetico is probably a spambot
Old Dec 22nd, 2005, 03:36 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
3.) The administration assumed no one would mind. After all, 9/11, ya know!


Do you still mind me tapping to your conversations? I didn't think so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kahljorn
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.
I think it was "sexual relations" which does include oral.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Dec 22nd, 2005, 04:48 PM       
"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.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:52 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.