Posted by Debaser:
There haven’t been? Whew! That’s got to be a relief to Ron Padilla (and all those folks at Guantanamo Bay).
First off, I don’t admit any such thing. My comment was quite accurately directed toward the amount of screaming, frothing furor that is being raised over it. That’s hardly fuck-all.
As far as the actual wiretaps go…would you agree that this is the scenario?
(quoted from a 12/17/20005 article at President Bush, NSA accused of wiretap abuse | Ars Technica)
I believe that it was also not just limited to foreigners, but specifically to people with ties to al-Qaeda or its buddies (I stand to be corrected on this).
If this is the case, then without having read the text of the Executive Order (which is classified as of now), I would have to say that I find nothing wrong with it on the surface. The key phrase is: monitored communication between Americans and foreigners. Given that the clear and present source of danger to the USA is foreign terrorism, it makes sense to monitor communications with foreigners, regardless of who is on the other end of the line. I have yet to see any indication that the government is listening in on the ladies of the knitting society exchanging cookie recipies.
Bite me, Tooth. You’ve watched how I operate? Wow. I’m so impressed.
And to set your misguided ass straight - I said I posted a question, nothing more. That is a statement of fact. If you are going to try to call me a liar on it, post proof of it. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.
Oh, and by the way - I’m not batting my eyes at you. That’s a finger you see extended in your direction, not an eyelash.
:wally
This is “a question, *nothing * more”?
Nice setting the tone for this upcoming innocent question, there.
Already answered; it wasn’t the same thing, and there were indeed cries of outrage despite the contention in the blog you lifted that from that there weren’t.
Also already answered; Clinton acted within the law.
Yes, you missed whatever Fox didn’t tell you, obviously, and just as obviously you still do. Your last “question” has already been answered, but you haven’t noticed that yet, either.
That’s called a “rant”, son. Among other things, that is.
Here’s a question that meets your definition of “question”: Humpy, why are you such a fool?
You mean people someone thinks is tied to al-Qaeda.
And why could they not got through the legal method of getting court approval for the wiretaps? Wiretaps are legal with the appropriate court order. Explain again why a few days (or even hours in an emergency) would put the country at risk?
Another conservative backpedalling like a mother fuck from a dumbass comment. Don’t be a pussy - step up, or cowboy up, or whatever and acknowledge you fucked up. You imbedded a statement of fact (“when Jimmy Carter did the same thing”) in a question (“Would somebody mind telling me where the liberal cries of outrage and demands for impeachment were?”) for both Carter and Clinton, and now you just look like a big sissy running away with a pathetic claim that you did not assert Carter did the same thing. Gah. Fucking embarrassing.
When I referred to “Ron Padilla” a bit earlier, of course I meant Jose Padilla. Don’t know where I got “Ron”.
It’s interesting how you guys can have a straight face while you are calling out Clothahump on his tone, all the while flaming the shit out of him without even attempting to be polite or reasonable. The hypocracy is stunning.
Batting eyelashes, indeed.
HaHAhaHa! PLOP!
::Scott has now died from laughting too much::
His tone doesn’t bother me. I think he’s a big freakin’ idiot, but not an exceptionally rude big freakin’ idiot. He just happens to be yet another conservative who defends Bush by coming up with unproveable hypotheticals in which liberals are hypocrites. If Carter had wiretapped American citizens, goes the hypothetical, then liberals wouldn’t have complained; therefore liberals are stupid.
The problem is that we all know that if Reagan had eaten babies on national TV, conservatives would have all taken up baby-eating, so we know that conservatives are stupid; and can you prove me wrong?
Hypothetical arguments are fun when you’re talking about a rousing game of Dungeons and Dragons, but they really don’t have a place in political discussions. Politics is the art of the possible, not the imaginary.
Daniel
So, Clothahump, if I’m following your argument correctly, you’re claiming that George Bush is as bad as Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter? I’m not necessarily saying you’re wrong, but I see Bush more as a Richard Nixon or Lyndon Johnson type with some Herbert Hoover on economic issues.
But I will concede that Clothahump is right. You never heard a word of criticism about the administration on this board when Carter was President. But to be fair, we gave Reagan a pass too. And Taft and Fillmore and Jackson.
And when Jefferson skirted the law and did that whole Louisana Purchase thing? Where the fuck were we, man? We just totally blew it off! The same with Washington and that whole Whiskey Rebellion business. Buncha god damn commie-pinko slackers is what we are.
:::hangs head in shame:::
Nope. Still don’t believe you. Maybe a bigger smilie would be more convincing.
There have been a few posters who have been unstinting in their criticism of President Jackson. Unfortunately, he doesn’t seem to be paying attention.
So, it’s ok to trample constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties as long as a foreigner’s involved? Say you’re conducting a religious service on the American side of the Rio Grande, and the Mexicans on the other side are listening to the hymns. Can the US government legitimately crack down on your right to religious freedom because the Mexicans just over the border are involved in the service?
Besides this, the government has been spying on some purely domestic calls as well. Cite.
Yeah, just on PETA, Greenpeace, and Catholic Workers. Do you read the news or just some right-wing blog?
Well, PETA does have financial links to terrorism, and IIRC Greenpeace has broken a law or two in obtaining their goals. Don’t know anything about the “Catholic Workers,” though.
(And yes, my first post in this thread was sarcasm.)
In terms of, “Well, they know some fringey groups who have even fringier elements that break into battery farms and assault people wearing fur coats”. By that kind of standard, the Republicans and Democrats both have links to terrorism, if you count…I dunno…a few degrees of separation leading to various far-right militia groups on the Republican’s part, or the Black Panthers on the Dem’s part.
Um, no.
In terms of “giving money to people and groups that blow shit up”. That kind of financial ties to terrorism.
Google “PETA ALF ELF funding”. Or rent the Penn & Teller “Bullshit” episode on it.