The irritating part is that Scylla can make logical, compelling arguments when he wants to. As he was earlier.
Oh well.
“Freedom of the Press? Goodbye!”
(Though I’m sure an apologist will be by soon to tell us why this is all for our own good…)
BTW, I cancelled my long-distance service with AT&T today and switched over to Qwest. Fucking bastards.
I’m sorry but it’s for your own good.
Oh well is right. My arguments are “logical and compelling” to my liberal brethen in a direct proportion to their agreement with a liberal viewpoint, and I tend to be chastised when they are not.
Do you think that this is a mischaracterization of what is occuring?
Consider. I have not insulted Hamlet. I accepted the left leaning Mediawatch cite for what value it had.
My cites were categorically denounced most rudely and insultingly by Hamlet, though I acknowledged their right-leaning slant. There was informational value in them as that is the source from which I got some of the arguments and cites for which I was earlier complimented.
I quote Hamlet:
Bear in mind that only one cite was to Rush Limbaugh and that had several good primary cites within it (which I pointed out.)
In response to Hamlet I pointed out that it could hardly take ten minutes to scan the Rush cite and even summarized the cites (clearly I took liberties in what to summarize and how to present it, but I was mildly irked by the insulting and dismissive tone, and thought I was being somewhat humorous
In response I am grossly insulted. I quote again:
I didn’t insult Hamlet. I didn’t dismiss a partisan cite when it contained value.
Yet, for some reason you feel compelled to chastise me for dropping the goodwill and lowering the argument, while curiously ignoring the fact that the person who I’m in discussion with (who shares your political sympathies) is being, and started being dismissive and rude.
But what do I know? I’m just a “brainless parrot” of a “partisan hack.” Funny that that doesn’t earn your notice or comment.
Your criticism is lopsided.
But apparently not enough to offer an apology. Your casual dismissal, rudeness, and insults did not get the better of me or my emotions.
I guess I’m just a highly evolved entity from an emotional standpoint.
While you may have boiled down my post to a single sentence, I would not have. There is more there than your rude, casual and insulting treatment suggests. And, since you specifically asked me to summarize it for you after you’re rude and hyperbolic dismissal, you can hardly reasonalby complain about the result. It was more courtesy than you were entitled based on your reply.
Maybe we can still play nice, though. What do you think? Cross this off and move forward? Or not?
Now that’s comedy!
I’m sorry I was rude and insulting to you. In the Pit. On a message board know for its snarky author. Maybe you could confine yourself to MPSIMS or maybe the boards at Big Fluffy Puppy weekly, until you get over your case of the vapors.
You are one person on this board I ever thought would hide behind the “I’m so offended, I can’t go on” drama queen crap. The guy who proudly proclaims himself an asshole? The guy who can throw down with the best of them? I’ll tell you what Little Princess Sunshine, I am sorry that I started with the insults, because it damaged my argument, just as bup said. However, you are also correct that I started the insults, and, for that, I am sorry to you too. From our prior dealings, I honestly thought you could take it without even batting an eye, and even throw some back. And I do get frustrated spending my time researching an issue, only to have it dismissed with partisan hot air instead of argument.
When you get done complaining about how cruel and mean I am, please explain where I was wrong about dismissing your arguments. Teddy Kennedy is an asshole is not a valid argument, nor are the other ones I responded to. If I missed a valid argument, please, by all means, point it out to me.
My answers in this post have been mean and insulting too. That is because this is the Pit, on a message board, and I’m dealing with you, Scylla. Were this discussion going on in GD, in real life, or with someone who I knew couldn’t handle insults, I never would have started, or even continued, with them. I am absolutely stunned that you would have ever taken true offense at a slight message board flaming, and if, for whatever reason you did, I do apologize.
If you want to get back to a completely insult free discussion, feel free to respond to this edited post of mine:
I look forward to a productive, intelligent, interesting, yet not completely snark free discussion.
Funny you should bring that up. He still hasn’t bothered to answer my request to use that as my .sig.
Oh, well. I still have the one from Giraffe.
If Scylla chooses to play the wounded pussy role, nobody should be surprised. It’s the next step in the apologista handbook. Got no real argument? Try Clinton (or some other proxy for a tu quoque). Suggest that we need to wait because we don’t have the full picture. Try appeals to patriotism or charges of abetting terrorism. Try crying foul about the method, such as blaming the liberal media. Insist that this is a separate incident from all the others, and especially the work of one bad apple if possible. All else fails, cry out for bipartisan good will, a forward-looking approach to the problem, and/or appeals to the common decency (just pretend that you didn’t shit all over everyone else during the steps leading up to this last ditch).
Scylla’s arguments, such as “You’re just upset about this because you hate Bush” are offensive in and of themselves. If he opts not to put any profanity in between his offensive statements, that doesn’t make him a thoughtful guy. One may smile and smile and be a villain.
I hate thinking that anyone would feel bad about throwing insults back at the guy. His playing the sniveling lightweight in return, I’m not surprised about.
You left out “As you know, there is an ongoing legal investigation into this matter, and it would not be proper to comment on it at this time.”
Carry on.
Wait. So you think that the NSA is going to let a simple thing like Qwest denying them access keep the US from monitoring call made on the Qwest network?
I don’t know the ins-ands-outs of the technology involved (if I did I’d either be working for the NSA or dead), but it seems to me that such a piddling thing as non-compliance would slow down the NSA about as long as it takes a GI to photograph a naked muslim man with panties on his head.
“Smile! Say ALLAH!” *<click!> *
Done and done.
Not feeling bad; just noting that the discussion had been getting somewhere up until that point.
Go for it.
“The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time. And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad.” [President Bush, 12/17/05]
So how many terrorists have we caught? Or are we all now suspected killers? It’s the bogeyman gambit.
“The law enforcement and counterterrorism officials said the program had uncovered no active Qaeda networks inside the United States planning attacks. ‘There were no imminent plots - not inside the United States,’ the former F.B.I. official said.” [New York Times, 1/17/06]
I see, it was a total waste of time and money.
“Another very important point to remember is that we have to have a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda.” [Attorney General Gonzales, 12/19/05]
So how many million of us are now suspected enemy agents?
“It is very limited in nature.” [Scott McClellan, 1/3/06]
OK, it’s limited only to those who use a phone.
Now to the “but Clinton did it too” argument…
What Drudge says:
- Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”*
What Clinton actually signed:
- Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.*
That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.
The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.
The distinction is clear. The Clinton administration viewed FISA, a criminal statute, as the law. The Bush administration viewed FISA as a set of recommendations they could ignore.
As to the Echelon Argument, or “we been doing it all along anyway”…
Another variation of the “Clinton did it” argument involves a top-secret surveillance program employed by the Clinton administration, code-named Echelon. The conservative outlet NewsMax presents the basic case:
*“During the 1990’s under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon…all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.” *
This is false. The Echelon program complied with FISA. Before any conversations of U.S. persons were targeted, a FISA warrant was obtained. Then-CIA director George Tenet testified to this before Congress on 4/12/00: “We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department.”
I’m sure we are all well aware that in his speeches, Bush claimed there was no wiretapping going on without a warrant, and then we found out it was happening. Then he claimed there was no data mining or fishing expedition, and now we know there is.
If it was all legal and above board, why not just say so instead of denying it? Why not go to the FISA court, since the FISA law is so damn easy to comply with?
If it is so legal and proper, why is the Dept of Justice investigation being blocked?
Why is the FCC commissioner calling for an investigation?
Something stinks. Toss in the recent news media claims about their sources being monitored for what may be political enemies and it just stinks even more.
My sensibilities survived. I figured that since you and Frank the Tank were lamenting my behavior I might as well point out, that in fact, I maintained the moral highground, while you through insults and lowered the tone of the discussion to typical pit level.
It is a proud, yet sad and lonely thing to be Scylla, and stand alone on such moral heights unattainable by the those such as yourself that cluster to me, like so many moths to the flame, only to be burned through their own foolishness and cast down…
[sigh]
Ah well.
It is true that I am both formidable and might.
You are pardoned.
Ok. Seriously. Not offended. Not worried. If I had thrown back at you then I couldn’t claim the moral highground and look all wounded and wronged and whatnot, now could I?
If you feel bad, I can gratuitously insult you. I’d do that. As a favor.
Ok. This may seem obvious to you, but it’s a bit of a peccadillo to me. Quite a few people in this thread have used this issue primarily as a political issue. To use it to cast aspersions solely on Bush, or Repbublicans, or to claim a moral bully pulpit is to misrepresent what is actually occuring. To lie. Or, to be willfully ignorant. If we take that tact, if we pursue and “It is all Bush/Republicans fault,” If we go with Pelosi or Kennedy or Hentor than the obvious solution to the problem is to vote the evil Republicans out and replace them with Democrats so that it will all get fixed. Since the Democrats are equally culpable in this mess, that is a false solution and a gross understatement of the risks and dangers inherent in the issue. The fact is, and I think you agree, that this problem of technology and easy access to information, the abuses and potential risks to our freedoms transcends party politics.
Therefore, those that misrepresent the situation and use it to political effect or to gain power need to be roundly denounced. It seems logical that those that would misrepresent the problem for political gain or least likely to be trustworthy with fixing it.
I honestly didn’t.
Chucklehead.
Bush agrees to review of spy program
Openess from the Bush administration?
At Midnight, on a weekday? 
Where’s the bemused smiley?
You were the one who chose to send the (hitherto quite aerified in spots) discussion in the direction of politics, by implying/stating that the concerns of the left are solely due to political concerns, rather than to the ramifications of such actions on the nation as a nation. You were, at the time I made my comment, actually arguing the facts, not simply claiming that your opponent’s prime concern was to hurt the administration/Republicans.
P.S. Rush likes to claim that he is merely an entertainer. It is common courtesy for you to condense his entertaining bloviation down to something that will serve as a cite of sorts. That is, if you choose to use an entertainer as a cite.
I thought they only flip-flopped on Fridays after 5pm?
-Joe
How so? What did I miss that makes it not Bush’ fault?
I guess I did miss something. I challenge that claim.
OK, it’s more important to fix the problem. I don’t see why it can’t also be honestly used to attack what I see as a corrupt political machine. This is bigger than esy access to information being abused. This is Bush continuing a pattern of redefining what the presidency is, and seeing his power as limitless.