Latest Amazing Bush Quote

[QUOTE="Trashface"]

If you're doing nothing wrong, and the taps can actually help to protect people, why would you care?

SpaceMoose

Well, as I already said in my post that you quoted, "So, explain to me, then, why NORMALLY, you need a warrant to get a wiretap. Now once you answer that question, you will hopefully understand why wiretapping without a warrant is not good."

And until at least one of you gives a serious answer to that, I don't feel any need to further discuss this.

Normal changed after the towers fell.

Normal changed after the towers fell.

Trashface

"Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad." - James Madison

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

Anyway, I'm tired of 9/11 being used as a free pass for the government to basically do whatever it wants. That's not going to cut it.

[QUOTE="Trashface"]

Normal changed after the towers fell.

SpaceMoose

"Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad." - James Madison

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

Anyway, I'm tired of 9/11 being used as a free pass for the government to basically do whatever it wants. That's not going to cut it.

In your opinion, it doesn't cut it. To me, if the ability to listen to my conversation has the ability to save people, why would I care? I'm not doing anything of interest to them on the phone. It's not like they're tapping everyone or tapping randomly. People of suspicion should be tapped.

[QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="Trashface"]

Normal changed after the towers fell.

Trashface

"Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad." - James Madison

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

Anyway, I'm tired of 9/11 being used as a free pass for the government to basically do whatever it wants. That's not going to cut it.

In your opinion, it doesn't cut it. To me, if the ability to listen to my conversation has the ability to save people, why would I care? I'm not doing anything of interest to them on the phone. It's not like they're tapping everyone or tapping randomly. People of suspicion should be tapped.

[QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="Trashface"]

Normal changed after the towers fell.

X360PS3AMD05

"Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad." - James Madison

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

Anyway, I'm tired of 9/11 being used as a free pass for the government to basically do whatever it wants. That's not going to cut it.

In your opinion, it doesn't cut it. To me, if the ability to listen to my conversation has the ability to save people, why would I care? I'm not doing anything of interest to them on the phone. It's not like they're tapping everyone or tapping randomly. People of suspicion should be tapped.

Illegal war? You do realize that many people had to vote and give permission for this "illegal" war, right? Until there is sufficient evidence, this is just propaganda. Bush was hated long before the war. Also, Hussein agreed to terms that he didn't keep in order to stay in power. The UN did not enforce these terms. We should have just turned a blind eye? There were also Al Queda training camps in Iraq. There was plenty of reason to attack, even if they weren't the reason given. The reason given was WMD's. Bush used the same intelligence as everyone else believed. They gave him permission. If the intelligence was fabricated, then I could consider the war illegal, but until that is proven, it is a conspiracy theory and terms such as "illegal war" can be dismissed as propaganda.

If I were into silly partisan games, I'd probably care more about the Wolfowitz thing. And yes, I brought Clinton up because the constant bashing of the current president is annoying. Most of the people doing this are probably just repeating what their parents and/ or the media says.

Trashface

Bringing up Clinton's "what the definition of is is" thing is just repeating what Rush Limbaugh and the like says, so how is that NOT just repeating what the media says? Anyway, obviously, I'm not going to KNOW what the president is up to without "the media", so that's kind of a silly argument. It somehow doesn't occur to you that maybe, just maybe the reason Bush keeps getting "bashed," is because of the rather unbelievable amount of b.s. this adminstration is guilty of?

Also, not that it's especially relevant, my political views are nothing like my parents' (well the one who says anything at all about politics, which is almost always hysterically ignorant), I can assure you of that...

People hated Bush from the beginning simply because of his conservative stances.

trashface

I hardly gave a crap about him one way or the other until he somehow made the amazing leap in logic of tying al-Qaeda and Afghanis to Iraq. I am, however, against relatives of former presidents being president. That does not sit well with me to begin with, just on principle, and yes, that includes Hillary.

People use the war now to justify their hatred. He's not well spoken, but his points do get conveyed. He also doesn't waiver in his stances which shows he doesn't care about pandering. trashface

Some people would call that "inability to admit mistakes," among other things. Funny thing anyway is that it simply isn't true:

Bush's Top Ten Flip-Flops

And please spare me the "liberal media" diatribe. I'm already one step ahead of you.

And with Clinton, he blatantly broke the law by lying under oath, which I haven't known Bush to do. trashface

Yes, he did, although I am still at a loss as to why he was asked such questions in the first place. Yeah, and the only reason Bush doesn't lie under oath because he never is under oath. :lol: Great argument. He's lied so many times about job-related things that he might as well say the sky is green. It's not under oath though, so who cares.

You can claim that they fabricated intelligence, trashface

I'm pretty sure that I, personally, have never made that claim, although it wouldn't surprise me, to say the least. I know for certain that I didn't make it in this thread. I also know for certain that quite a few White House insiders have commented to the press on how Bush was determined to find SOME REASON to use as justification to invade Iraq, well before he actually did it.

but until that's proven, it's just a conspiracy theory. My views go beyond political parties, but it's probably a safe bet that like alot of modern democrats, you having a loathing for the conservative mindset.

trashface

I have a loathing for polticians who lie so much - who have reason to lie so much in the first place - that basically anything they say anymore is meaningless, especially when they have the highest political office in the country. I have a loathing for using the "war on terror" to justify anything and everything, to justify disregarding due process and to justify ignoring the Geneva Conventions by playing silly word games to find loopholes to basic human decency. I have a loathing for a White House that has had so many scandals that I lost track of how many there have been. I have a loathing for blind support of someone no matter how many times he disregards the basic principles of this country. If that is the "conservative mindset," then, yes, I have a loathing for the conservative mindset.

In your opinion, it doesn't cut it. To me, if the ability to listen to my conversation has the ability to save people, why would I care? I'm not doing anything of interest to them on the phone. It's not like they're tapping everyone or tapping randomly. People of suspicion should be tapped.

Trashface

Well, like I said twice now,

"So, explain to me, then, why NORMALLY, you need a warrant to get a wiretap. Now once you answer that question, you will hopefully understand why wiretapping without a warrant is not good."

Not surprisingly you dodged the question entirely by invoking 9/11.

Just like the president would do.

[QUOTE="Trashface"]

If I were into silly partisan games, I'd probably care more about the Wolfowitz thing. And yes, I brought Clinton up because the constant bashing of the current president is annoying. Most of the people doing this are probably just repeating what their parents and/ or the media says.

SpaceMoose

Bringing up Clinton's "what the definition of is is" thing is just repeating what Rush Limbaugh and the like says, so how is that NOT just repeating what the media says? Anyway, obviously, I'm not going to KNOW what the president is up to without "the media", so that's kind of a silly argument. It somehow doesn't occur to you that maybe, just maybe the reason Bush keeps getting "bashed," is because of the rather unbelievable amount of b.s. this adminstration is guilty of?

Also, not that it's especially relevant, my political views are nothing like my parents' (well the one who says anything at all about politics, which is almost always hysterically ignorant), I can assure you of that...

People hated Bush from the beginning simply because of his conservative stances.

trashface

I hardly gave a crap about him one way or the other until he somehow made the amazing leap in logic of tying al-Qaeda and Afghanis to Iraq. I am, however, against relatives of former presidents being president. That does not sit well with me to begin with, just on principle, and yes, that includes Hillary.

People use the war now to justify their hatred. He's not well spoken, but his points do get conveyed. He also doesn't waiver in his stances which shows he doesn't care about pandering. trashface

Some people would call that "inability to admit mistakes," among other things. Funny thing anyway is that it simply isn't true:

Bush's Top Ten Flip-Flops

And please spare me the "liberal media" diatribe. I'm already one step ahead of you.

And with Clinton, he blatantly broke the law by lying under oath, which I haven't known Bush to do. trashface

Yes, he did, although I am still at a loss as to why he was asked such questions in the first place. Yeah, and the only reason Bush doesn't lie under oath because he never is under oath. :lol: Great argument. He's lied so many times about job-related things that he might as well say the sky is green. It's not under oath though, so who cares.

You can claim that they fabricated intelligence, trashface

I'm pretty sure that I, personally, have never made that claim, although it wouldn't surprise me, to say the least. I know for certain that I didn't make it in this thread. I also know for certain that quite a few White House insiders have commented to the press on how Bush was determined to find SOME REASON to use as justification to invade Iraq, well before he actually did it.

but until that's proven, it's just a conspiracy theory. My views go beyond political parties, but it's probably a safe bet that like alot of modern democrats, you having a loathing for the conservative mindset.

trashface

I have a loathing for polticians who lie so much - who have reason to lie so much in the first place - that basically anything they say anymore is meaningless, especially when they have the highest political office in the country. I have a loathing for using the "war on terror" to justify anything and everything, to justify disregarding due process and to justify ignoring the Geneva Conventions by playing silly word games to find loopholes to basic human decency. I have a loathing for a White House that has had so many scandals that I lost track of how many there have been. I have a loathing for blind support of someone no matter how many times he disregards the basic principles of this country. If that is the "conservative mindset," then, yes, I have a loathing for the conservative mindset.

You can't KNOW what the president is up to with or without the media. To just blindly follow the media is foolish. And yes, suspected pperpetrators of a Jihad should not be held in the same regard as common criminals, because they are not common criminals. I never used the term "liberal media". My point was not to believe propaganda, no matter where it comes from. While your views may be thought out, you can't deny the seeming hordes who just repeat what they hear.

[QUOTE="Trashface"]

In your opinion, it doesn't cut it. To me, if the ability to listen to my conversation has the ability to save people, why would I care? I'm not doing anything of interest to them on the phone. It's not like they're tapping everyone or tapping randomly. People of suspicion should be tapped.

SpaceMoose

Well, like I said twice now,

"So, explain to me, then, why NORMALLY, you need a warrant to get a wiretap. Now once you answer that question, you will hopefully understand why wiretapping without a warrant is not good."

Not surprisingly you dodged the question entirely by invoking 9/11.

Just like the president would do.

And once again, as I've said, perpetrators of a Jihad are not "NORMAL", common criminals. Oh, and while I may type some things similar to what Rush says, you can assume all you want, but I hardly listen to him. I'm too suspicious of biased ness to blindly follow a pundit. I also dodged nothing in invoking 911, as it is a very, very relevant issue to the current security environment. Maybe you and others accuse people of "invoking 911 to dodge the issue" because you don't care or understand how relevant it is. Maybe to you, saying this is just a weapon to further your political view.

And once again, as I've said, perpetrators of a Jihad are not "NORMAL", common criminals.

Trashface

Fine, allow me to rephrase the question, since the thing you seem to be stuck on is the word "normal":

"Why is a warrant needed for a wiretap?" 

i prefer "is our children learning?" and "the pope was a great american."matrix_hiei

Ah man that made my night! Is our children learning. I can't breathe.

[QUOTE="Trashface"]

And once again, as I've said, perpetrators of a Jihad are not "NORMAL", common criminals.

SpaceMoose

Fine, allow me to rephrase the question, since the thing you seem to be stuck on is the word "normal":

"Why is a warrant needed for a wiretap?" 

It's needed in common court issue after being deemed that a person should be tapped. Obviously in a homeland security issue, agents make this judgement themselves as they're in a position above any common judge.

It's needed in common court issue to deem whether a person should be tapped. Obviously in a homeland security issue, agents make this judgement themselves as they're in a position above any common judge.

Trashface

No, that is what a warrant is needed for, not why it is the law that warrants are needed.

(edited for clarity) 

[QUOTE="Trashface"]

It's needed in common court issue to deem whether a person should be tapped. Obviously in a homeland security issue, agents make this judgement themselves as they're in a position above any common judge.

SpaceMoose

No, that is what a warrant is needed for, not why warrants are needed. 

Alright, warrants are needed to show proof to the suspect that a judge has deemed them suspicious enough (that's my guess anyway) . Is there a constitutional right saying that a suspect is entintled to a warrant?

Alright, warrants are needed to show proof to the suspect that a judge has deemed them suspicious enough. Is there a constitutional right saying that a suspect is entintled to a warrant?

Trashface

Not every law is in the Consitution, first of all.

Second of all, many would interpret a wiretap based on a hunch and / or someone's ethnicity as "unreasonable search and seizure." Obviously modern electonics were not explicitly conisdered in the Constitution since they weren't invented.

The whole point of it being through the courts is that whole "checks and balances" thing, something Bush doesn't seem especially fond of.

[QUOTE="Trashface"]

Alright, warrants are needed to show proof to the suspect that a judge has deemed them suspicious enough. Is there a constitutional right saying that a suspect is entintled to a warrant?

SpaceMoose

Not every law is in the Consitution, first of all.

Second of all, many would intepret a wiretap on a hunch or becuase of someone's ethnicity as "unreasonable search and seizure." Obviously modern electonics were not explicitly conisdered in the Constitution since they weren't invented.

So then since people don't have a RIGHT to this type of privacy, until this law pertaining to common criminals is applied to threats to national security, looks like the government has the RIGHT to wiretap whoever they deem suspicious. Definately shouldn't leave it up to the common courts. It's a government/ military issue.

So then since people don't have a RIGHT to this type of privacy, until this law pertaining to common criminals is applied to threats to national security, looks like the government has the RIGHT to wiretap whoever they deem suspicious. Definately shouldn't leave it up to the common courts. It's a government/ miltary issue.

Trashface

It wouldn't be up to the "common courts." Not for a federal wiretap...

Anyway, how about this?:

The FBI improperly and, in some cases, illegally used the USA Patriot Act to secretly obtain personal information about people in the US, a justice department audit found today.

According to the highly critical 126-page report, FBI agents sometimes demanded the information without proper authorisation and at times improperly obtained telephone records in circumstances that were not emergencies.

It blamed agent error and shoddy record-keeping for most of the problems - and did not find any indication of criminal misconduct - but has confirmed the worst fears of civil liberties groups on the use of the so-called national security letters.

A power outlined in the post-9/11 Patriot Act, the letters are a form of administrative subpoena used in suspected terrorism and espionage cases to obtain thousands of telephone, business and financial records without prior judicial approval.

"We believe the improper or illegal uses we found involve serious misuses of national security letter authorities," the audit concluded.

The audit found that the number of national security letters issued by the FBI soared after the Patriot Act became law. In 2000, the FBI issued an estimated 8,500 letters.

By 2003, however, that number had jumped to 39,000. It rose again the next year, to about 56,000 letters in 2004, and dropped to approximately 47,000 in 2005.

Over the entire three-year period, the audit found the FBI had issued 143,074 national security letters requesting customer data from businesses.

The FBI director, Robert Mueller, called the audit "a fair and objective review of the FBI's use of a proven and useful investigative tool".

The finding "of deficiencies in our processes is unacceptable", Mr Mueller said in a statement.

"We strive to exercise our authorities consistent with the privacy protections and civil liberties that we are sworn to uphold. Anything less will not be tolerated.

"While we've already taken some steps to address these shortcomings, I am ordering additional corrective measures to be taken immediately."

The use of national security letters since the September 2001 attacks has been highly controversial. They were once used only in espionage and terrorism cases, and then only against people suspected as agents of a foreign power.

With the passage of the Patriot Act, their use rocketed and was allowed against Americans during any investigation. The law also allowed other agencies such as the homeland security department to issue the letters.

The greatest concern for civil liberties groups is that unlike search warrants, security letters are issued without prior judicial approval and require only the approval of the agent in charge of a local FBI office. A supreme court ruling in 2004 forced revisions of the Patriot Act to permit greater judicial review, without requiring advance authorisation.

Today's audit means further trouble for the attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, who has already infuriated Congress by abruptly dismissing eight government attorneys without explanation.

FBI abused Patriot Act powers, audit finds

Anyway, I think the fundamental problem here is that you trust people too much not to abuse power.  As Lord Acton so famously said over 100 years ago, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

[QUOTE="X360PS3AMD05"][QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="Trashface"]

Normal changed after the towers fell.

Trashface

"Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad." - James Madison

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

Anyway, I'm tired of 9/11 being used as a free pass for the government to basically do whatever it wants. That's not going to cut it.

In your opinion, it doesn't cut it. To me, if the ability to listen to my conversation has the ability to save people, why would I care? I'm not doing anything of interest to them on the phone. It's not like they're tapping everyone or tapping randomly. People of suspicion should be tapped.

Illegal war? You do realize that many people had to vote and give permission for this "illegal" war, right? Until there is sufficient evidence, this is just propaganda. Bush was hated long before the war. Also, Hussein agreed to terms that he didn't keep in order to stay in power. The UN did not enforce these terms. We should have just turned a blind eye? There were also Al Queda training camps in Iraq. There was plenty of reason to attack, even if they weren't the reason given. The reason given was WMD's. Bush used the same intelligence as everyone else believed. They gave him permission. If the intelligence was fabricated, then I could consider the war illegal, but until that is proven, it is a conspiracy theory and terms such as "illegal war" can be dismissed as propaganda.

[QUOTE="Trashface"]

So then since people don't have a RIGHT to this type of privacy, until this law pertaining to common criminals is applied to threats to national security, looks like the government has the RIGHT to wiretap whoever they deem suspicious. Definately shouldn't leave it up to the common courts. It's a government/ miltary issue.

SpaceMoose

It wouldn't be up to the "common courts." Not for a federal wiretap...

Anyway, how about this?:

The FBI improperly and, in some cases, illegally used the USA Patriot Act to secretly obtain personal information about people in the US, a justice department audit found today.

According to the highly critical 126-page report, FBI agents sometimes demanded the information without proper authorisation and at times improperly obtained telephone records in circumstances that were not emergencies.

It blamed agent error and shoddy record-keeping for most of the problems - and did not find any indication of criminal misconduct - but has confirmed the worst fears of civil liberties groups on the use of the so-called national security letters.

A power outlined in the post-9/11 Patriot Act, the letters are a form of administrative subpoena used in suspected terrorism and espionage cases to obtain thousands of telephone, business and financial records without prior judicial approval.

"We believe the improper or illegal uses we found involve serious misuses of national security letter authorities," the audit concluded.

The audit found that the number of national security letters issued by the FBI soared after the Patriot Act became law. In 2000, the FBI issued an estimated 8,500 letters.

By 2003, however, that number had jumped to 39,000. It rose again the next year, to about 56,000 letters in 2004, and dropped to approximately 47,000 in 2005.

Over the entire three-year period, the audit found the FBI had issued 143,074 national security letters requesting customer data from businesses.

The FBI director, Robert Mueller, called the audit "a fair and objective review of the FBI's use of a proven and useful investigative tool".

The finding "of deficiencies in our processes is unacceptable", Mr Mueller said in a statement.

"We strive to exercise our authorities consistent with the privacy protections and civil liberties that we are sworn to uphold. Anything less will not be tolerated.

"While we've already taken some steps to address these shortcomings, I am ordering additional corrective measures to be taken immediately."

The use of national security letters since the September 2001 attacks has been highly controversial. They were once used only in espionage and terrorism cases, and then only against people suspected as agents of a foreign power.

With the passage of the Patriot Act, their use rocketed and was allowed against Americans during any investigation. The law also allowed other agencies such as the homeland security department to issue the letters.

The greatest concern for civil liberties groups is that unlike search warrants, security letters are issued without prior judicial approval and require only the approval of the agent in charge of a local FBI office. A supreme court ruling in 2004 forced revisions of the Patriot Act to permit greater judicial review, without requiring advance authorisation.

Today's audit means further trouble for the attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, who has already infuriated Congress by abruptly dismissing eight government attorneys without explanation.

FBI abused Patriot Act powers, audit finds

Anyway, I think the fundamental problem here is that you trust people too much not to abuse power.  As Lord Acton so famously said over 100 years ago, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Overly trusting can be a mistake just like being overly suspicious can be. The Acton quote is an example of being overly suspicious. I justify their right to wiretap where they see fit. You think they'll randomly select someone they don't like and wiretap him to find false evidence? They won't wiretap without reason. From the report you posted, what I see is a faulty system, not devious agents. I have no problem with a more organized process, but it should not be left up to a common court system. Maybe a miltary judge.

[QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="X360PS3AMD05"][QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="Trashface"]

Normal changed after the towers fell.

X360PS3AMD05

"Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad." - James Madison

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

Anyway, I'm tired of 9/11 being used as a free pass for the government to basically do whatever it wants. That's not going to cut it.

In your opinion, it doesn't cut it. To me, if the ability to listen to my conversation has the ability to save people, why would I care? I'm not doing anything of interest to them on the phone. It's not like they're tapping everyone or tapping randomly. People of suspicion should be tapped.

Illegal war? You do realize that many people had to vote and give permission for this "illegal" war, right? Until there is sufficient evidence, this is just propaganda. Bush was hated long before the war. Also, Hussein agreed to terms that he didn't keep in order to stay in power. The UN did not enforce these terms. We should have just turned a blind eye? There were also Al Queda training camps in Iraq. There was plenty of reason to attack, even if they weren't the reason given. The reason given was WMD's. Bush used the same intelligence as everyone else believed. They gave him permission. If the intelligence was fabricated, then I could consider the war illegal, but until that is proven, it is a conspiracy theory and terms such as "illegal war" can be dismissed as propaganda.

While they make not share all of the same beliefs, they probably shared a hatred of America. Yes, there were camps and yes, an Al Queda member stayed in an Iraqi hospital. As far as the Downing memos, The document was retyped from the photocopy, and the photocopy destroyed. This has led to question of the document's authenticity. It has only been UNOFFICIALLY confirmed. And yes, what if there was a wanting to invade the country. There was reason aside from 911. hussein defied the UN and kicked inspectors. What did they do? Impose a few sanctions?

Overly trusting can be a mistake just like being overly suspicious can be. I justify their right to wiretap where they see fit. You think they'll randomly select someone they don't like and wiretap him to find false evidence? They won't wiretap without reason. From the report you posted, what I see is a faulty system, not devious agents. I have no problem with a more organized process, but it should not be left up to a common court system. Maybe a miltary judge.

Trashface

Um, WHY a military judge?...

How about no?

Alright, this is clearly pointless. I'll just say that I'm glad the general populace does not share your views and leave it at that. I'm done for now. I'll leave you with one word:

Watergate.

[QUOTE="Trashface"]

Overly trusting can be a mistake just like being overly suspicious can be. I justify their right to wiretap where they see fit. You think they'll randomly select someone they don't like and wiretap him to find false evidence? They won't wiretap without reason. From the report you posted, what I see is a faulty system, not devious agents. I have no problem with a more organized process, but it should not be left up to a common court system. Maybe a miltary judge.

SpaceMoose

Um, WHY a military judge?...

How about no?

Alright, this is clearly pointless. I'll just say that I'm glad the general populace does not share your views and leave it at that. I'm done for now. I'll leave you with one word:

Watergate.

The general populace doesn't agree that there should be an effective method to deem people suspects? Of course a military judge will be the most appropriate figure because it is a military issue. Your suspicion is too great. Watergate? Didn't you just attack me for bringing Clinton into this because we're talking about the current president? So then you dig up a scandal from 35 years ago? I'll leave you with two words:

Double standard

The general populace doesn't agree that there should be an effective method to deem people suspects? Of course a military judge will be the most appropriate figure because it is a military issue. Your suspicion is too great. Watergate? Didn't you just attack me for bringing Clinton into this because we're talking about the current president? So then you dig up a scandal from 35 years ago? I'll leave you with two words:

Double standard

Trashface

Watergate is an example of how power can be abused, and, incidentally, electronic surveillance.

Double standard my behind.

The rest of your little rant just reminds me of exactly why we have checks and balances and an election system in place, flawed though they may often be. The military does not do the job of the courts, and neither does the Executive Branch. And while I'm on the subject I might as well add that neither does the Legislative Branch.

My suspicion is too great?  You must not have been paying attention to, oh, I don't know, the entirity of recorded human history.

[QUOTE="Trashface"]

The general populace doesn't agree that there should be an effective method to deem people suspects? Of course a military judge will be the most appropriate figure because it is a military issue. Your suspicion is too great. Watergate? Didn't you just attack me for bringing Clinton into this because we're talking about the current president? So then you dig up a scandal from 35 years ago? I'll leave you with two words:

Double standard

SpaceMoose

Watergate is an example of how power can be abused, and, incidentally, electronic surveillance.

Double standard my behind.

The rest of your little rant just reminds me of exactly why we have checks and balances and an election system in place, flawed though they may often be. The military does not do the job of the courts, and neither does the Executive Branch. And while I'm on the subject I might as well add that neither does the Legislative Branch.

My suspicion is too great?  You must not have been paying attention to, oh, I don't know, the entirity of recorded human history.

Little rant? Your nature has seemed less calm than mine. Another double- standard. And yes, it was a blatant double standard. You stated that this topic was about the current president when I sited Clinton, then later you site Nixon. As far as a Jihad being declared on America, that's what this threat is about. that's what these wiretaps are about. That is a homeland security/ military issue and they should be the ones to execute investigations.  I don't want meter readers investigating my stolen car and I don't want my protection compromised by some politically motivated, faulty system. Judging by this>"My suspicion is too great?  You must not have been paying attention to, oh, I don't know, the entirity of recorded human history", your entire mindset is fueled by paranoia and therefore all your ideas will be tainted, influenced, and clouded by this.

And why do they hate America? For all the things we have down to their homelands and being in the middle east right now won't make things better. X360PS3AMD05

They hate America because of our culture and because of Isreal. Foreign nations like America when it's in their interest to.

heres my quote...

"How the H*** did bush get voted into office???"

also

" Who ever voted to get Bush in office is an idiot and how do they live with yourself?"

also

"its obvious Democrats didnt win the last race, if they did we wouldve had a waay better president, so when everyrepublican is whining over the president They might agree with democrats next time"

"its obvious Democrats didnt win the last race, if they did we wouldve had a waay better president, so when everyrepublican is whining over the president They might agree with democrats next time"

ArkansasBoy91

Oh yeah, because the last democrat president was so "good," and kerry was such a "fantastic" candidate. 

Little rant? Trashface

Yeah, little rant, the one where you basically admit that you either don't know or don't care exactly why separation of powers were created as they are.

Your nature has seemed less calm than mine. Another double- standard. And yes, it was a blatant double standard. You stated that this topic was about the current president when I sited Clinton, then later you site Nixon. Trashface

The only reason you brought up Clinton was to say something about a Democrat (and because Rush Limbaugh and the like bring up that "definition of is" thing like all of the time. Apparently they just can't get enough of Clinton). The reason I brought up Watergate was to show what simply "trusting" the government gets you. Totally different. Do you have a better example of the White House misusing power, other than the Bush administration since we know you think everything they do is just kosher?

As far as a Jihad being declared on America, that's what this threat is about. that's what these wiretaps are about. That is a homeland security/ military issue and they should be the ones to execute investigations.

TrashFace

We already have a department to investigate domestic terrorism. It's called the FBI. I do love your whole "guilty until proven innocent" mindset though. I'm trying to figure out exactly how your mind works: "The president say so, therefore it is true." Would you think that way if a Democrat was president? Is this some kind of a joke? Do you just automatically assume that if someone is elected president that they are a saint?

I don't want meter readers investigating my stolen car and I don't want my protection compromised by some politically motivated, faulty system. Judging by this>"My suspicion is too great? You must not have been paying attention to, oh, I don't know, the entirity of recorded human history", your entire mindset is fueled by paranoia and therefore all your ideas will be tainted, influenced, and clouded by this.

TrashFace

My mindset is filled with paranoia? I'm not the one who constantly thinks, "Oh, no, the terrorists are going to get me. Please take away all of our rights to due process to protect us, Big Government.

Your entire mindset is fueled by [extreme right-wing propaganda, clearly militaristic in some aspects thus suggesting perhaps Rush Limbaugh] and therefore all your ideas will be tainted, influenced, and clouded by this.

[QUOTE="ArkansasBoy91"]

"its obvious Democrats didnt win the last race, if they did we wouldve had a waay better president, so when everyrepublican is whining over the president They might agree with democrats next time"

Mumbles527

Oh yeah, because the last democrat president was so "good," and kerry was such a "fantastic" candidate.

[QUOTE="Trashface"]

Little rant? SpaceMoose

Yeah, little rant, the one where you basically admit that you either don't know or don't care exactly why separation of powers were created as they are.

Your nature has seemed less calm than mine. Another double- standard. And yes, it was a blatant double standard. You stated that this topic was about the current president when I sited Clinton, then later you site Nixon. Trashface

The only reason you brought up Clinton was to say something about a Democrat (and because Rush Limbaugh and the like bring up that "definition of is" thing like all of the time. Apparently they just can't get enough of Clinton). The reason I brought up Watergate was to show what simply "trusting" the government gets you. Totally different. Do you have a better example of the White House misusing power, other than the Bush administration since we know you think everything they do is just kosher?

As far as a Jihad being declared on America, that's what this threat is about. that's what these wiretaps are about. That is a homeland security/ military issue and they should be the ones to execute investigations.

TrashFace

We already have a department to investigate domestic terrorism. It's called the FBI. I do love your whole "guilty until proven innocent" mindset though. I'm trying to figure out exactly how your mind works: "The president say so, therefore it is true." Would you think that way if a Democrat was president? Is this some kind of a joke? Do you just automatically assume that if someone is elected president that they are a saint?

I don't want meter readers investigating my stolen car and I don't want my protection compromised by some politically motivated, faulty system. Judging by this>"My suspicion is too great? You must not have been paying attention to, oh, I don't know, the entirity of recorded human history", your entire mindset is fueled by paranoia and therefore all your ideas will be tainted, influenced, and clouded by this.

TrashFace

My mindset is filled with paranoia? I'm not the one who constantly thinks, "Oh, no, the terrorists are going to get me. Please take away all of our rights to due process to protect us, Big Government.

Your entire mindset is fueled by [extreme right-wing propaganda, clearly militaristic in some aspects thus suggesting perhaps Rush Limbaugh] and therefore all your ideas will be tainted, influenced, and clouded by this.

When I mentioned Clinton, your gripe was that we were talking about the current President, not a past one. So yes, bringing up Watergate is a double-standard. Also, I'm no where near paranoid about a terrorist attack. Ignorant comments make you seem less credible. Also, I haven't ranted once. I've presented ideas and counterpoints. Once again, you've shown a double-standard as this entire topic is a rant. I've never mentioned a guilty until proven innocent mindset. Wiretapping a suspect is to find out whether they're guilty. I haven't made any "extreme right wing propaganda" comments. You're the one making the partisan comments with party labelling. I just said since it was a military issue (which it is when someone declares Jihad on our country), it should be handled in a military court. I could maybe see a special division of the FBI for these issues. I don't blindly trust anyone on this planet, political or not. Yes, you are admittedly paranoid. In so many words, you said you distrust all politicians because of human nature and the power they have. I judge by the individuals. I plan on judging candidates by stances. You seem extremely partisan.

What the hell? Half of that makes no sense.AgostonF

Ditto 

Your entire mindset is fueled by [extreme right-wing propaganda, clearly militaristic in some aspects thus suggesting perhaps Rush Limbaugh] and therefore all your ideas will be tainted, influenced, and clouded by this.

SpaceMoose

I haven't made any "extreme right wing propaganda" comments.

Trashface

[QUOTE="SpaceMoose"]

Your entire mindset is fueled by [extreme right-wing propaganda, clearly militaristic in some aspects thus suggesting perhaps Rush Limbaugh] and therefore all your ideas will be tainted, influenced, and clouded by this.

SpaceMoose

I haven't made any "extreme right wing propaganda" comments.

Trashface

How about Rush Limbaugh? I can't help but notice: you haven't denied that part.

I've addressed this. I don't blindly follow any pundit. I don't agree with taking stances based solely on whatever your party agrees with. I believe in having your own individual views.

[QUOTE="Trashface"]

I've addressed this. I don't blindly follow any pundit. I don't agree with taking stances based solely on whatever your party agrees with. I believe in having your own individual views.

SpaceMoose

I didn't ask if you blindly followed him. I simply asked if you listen to his show. 

No, you asked "How about Rush Limbaugh?". I thought you were telling me to address the accusation of me basing my ideas on his. Anyway, I've probably spent around 25 minutes listening to his show within the past 3 years or so. Sometimes I try to find some talking on the radio when music gets old or I get sleepy. The closest I come to having a favorite political commentator is Stephen Colbert.

[QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="Trashface"]

I've addressed this. I don't blindly follow any pundit. I don't agree with taking stances based solely on whatever your party agrees with. I believe in having your own individual views.

Trashface

I didn't ask if you blindly followed him. I simply asked if you listen to his show.

No, you asked "How about Rush Limbaugh?". I thought you were telling me to address the accusation of me basing my ideas on his. Anyway, I've probably spent around 25 minutes listening to his show within the past 3 years or so. Sometimes I try to find some talking on the radio when music gets old or I get sleepy. The closest I come to having a favorite political commentator is Stephen Colbert.