I cannot imagine a more boring endeavor than researching Mr. Romney’s phone records. It would be like eating a five gallon jar of mayonnaise.
Not quite. But I do trust them not to give a shit, as long as the bill gets paid.
“They”? Who is “they”? Your middle-school composition teacher didn’t beat that out of you, unlike most of us, apparently.
Perhaps it seems to you that this is so entirely obvious and accepted fact it need not be cited. Humor us, and do it anyway.
What claim do you imagine I’m making that should be cited?
From your post, you seem to believe that someone was directed by their employer or other authority figure to comb through Mr. Romney’s phone records looking for certain info.
Do you believe that? And can you tell us why, with cites showing the information you discovered or found that led you to this belief?
I love it when you bat the big, brown, innocent eyes. What SnowBo said.
I do believe that.
But the reason for my belief is indirect inference, not direct evidence.
I imagine you’re just as aware of the reasons as I am.
What have you done with the real Bricker?
And, how much do we have to cough up to get him released? Oh, and is it cheaper to just get him untied? (you can leave the duct tape on…)
I’m sorry, had I known it was a matter of solid and irrefutable indirect inference, I never would have asked for a cite. My bad.
Clearly you imagine a lot of things.
Since you offer no reasons for your imaginings, I’ll just assume that they have the same basis in fact as your imagining about me: none.
For protesting something that the critics support, and simplifying the argument. “Support our troops,” as if criticizing the Iraq Invasion meant people wanted harm to come to our soldiers. And then there’s “Paying taxes is patriotic,” which doesn’t tackle the issue of government spending. It was an argument by a member of Congress I believe, who said we shouldn’t have gone to war if we couldn’t pay for it. Then there’s the issue of bailing out the banks, etc. Both groups had good criticisms which should have been addressed, along with looking at their aims, as you said, with a critical eye as well. But painting them into un-patriotic Americans is counterproductive to any thoughtful discussion.
Because the phone company can’t put you in jail. The phone company can’t get the FBI to crawl up your ass with a microscope. The phone company can’t write legislation that.
Comparing the power [to affect your life] between the phone company and the freakin’ Government, and judging it to “be the same” is incorrect.
Nobody’s worried if a corrupt phone company might infringe on your first amendment right. How many battalions does AT&T got?
I had to look through the thread again and it doesn’t look like it quite contradicts my assertion. So far I’ve heard excuses, finger pointing and rationalizations by left leaning media personalities, Democrat supporters and even posters at this forum.
Well, if facts, evidence and common sense isn’t what it takes to convince you, what will?
Facts and evidence that disprove the claims in my earlier post.
[QUOTE=Gerald II]
I had to look through the thread again and it doesn’t look like it quite contradicts my assertion. So far I’ve heard excuses, finger pointing and rationalizations by left leaning media personalities, Democrat supporters and even posters at this forum.
Well, if facts, evidence and common sense isn’t what it takes to convince you, what will?
[/QUOTE]
Previously
Ed Schultz pretty much saying it’s different when Obama does it
Former candidate, now President, Barack Obama on warrantless wiretapping
Not to mention MSNBC personalities like Mika Brzezinski and Lawrence O’Donnell also subtly defending the NSA program by arguing that it’s legal and then focusing on the character of Edward Snowden and trying to discredit him.
It’s VERY important to bring up how these problems got started in the first place because so many people have short term memories, and it’s important to see how things got so far and where they started. However, why focus on one side being hypocritical. If they suddenly changed their minds just because a Democrat took office, well good for those against the spying of all American citizens. Then it should make it easier for change.
Although I saw the writing on the wall when Obama granted the telecom companies immunity for breaking the law and spying on citizens, unlike Kimstu, I DIDN’T vote for him based on that issue along with a couple others. I don’t regret it either considering his signing off on NDAA, and now the revelations of the further expansion of the surveillance state, continued by the current President.