 |
Ill make it clearer. Anyone who is a non citizen or persons not being documented to be here. If you are on visa or permit or visiting here then because you're here by permission then you may have protection under our "rights" as established by law. But anything else and you fall under a different category. Or may fall under international law like the Geneava Convention.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Face the facts ; that the FISA rules were amended by Congress in 2008 to make the very surveillance in question statutory compliant means that at most the Bush program was in conflict with the stautory language and not the constitution...
Or are you saying the FISA act is unconstitutional itself ? I can make that argument that FISA was unconstitutional because of its infringement on the inherent authority of the CIC to conduct foreign surveillance. The fact that the enemy is waging war on American soil is besides the point and irrelevant.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
So, the illegal and UNCONSTITUTIONAL wiretapping that went on BEFORE 2008 is just so much chopped liver. I understand. Well, I got news for you.
excon
So "We the People of the United States... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Thanks for making my point.
All that hopenchange is here now, though...Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Obama 'Even Worse' Than Bush On Secret Wiretapping Case, Says S.F. Lawyer
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
By embracing the specious legal arguments Bush employed, he IS worse. It least you expect it from a right winger.
excon
The states secrets argument seems sound to me... even if it causes the government to lose the case.
What this tells me is that both sides of the political divide see the rationale .It is extremism that argues for constitutional rights to the enemy under some universal application.
Since "we the people" are free to leave this country if we so wish and live under different laws, that means that the Constitution only covers those who VOLUNTEER to be governed by it.
I can't see how you can stretch it to govern anyone who doesn't want to live under it.
If we say that our Constitution should govern everyone in the world, then would we not be obligated to ENFORCE that on all people?
This happened well before 2000 FYI... I know democrats have trouble grasping the fact they lost in 2000 and 2004... and Al Bore lost his mind as a result... but this dates back well before 2000... so get over it already.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
And State Secrets should remain secrets... after all, they are far more important than say... Obamas School records are which the left isn't calling to be made public.
Once he posts them, you will say, "Thank you, kind sir! That's exactly what we wanted to see. We are satisfied. Now we will move on to our other requests and concerns."Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
We await the revelations with bated breath!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
But you do promise to let it go and move on to some other complaint once you've seen his official records. Right?Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Once he releases his "Records" which apparently are state secrets... the only question that could be posed is "Why did it take so long". And we are entitled to know as the American Public... WHY they were being withheld at this point as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
This issue is of his own making. Why does the left think he is so special nothing that applied to every other President doesn't apply to him. He's NOT the Messiah.
I seem to remember the left screaming when Bush didn't get his out fast enough to suit them... but ignored the fact John Kerry refused to release his until months after he lost.
Double standards for everything... badmouth Bush and make slanderous statements earns Herohood to the left... but get visciously indignant if someone won't accept Obamas word as gospel.
And the idiots on the far left claiming anyone who disagrees with Obama is a rascist.
Bullsh*t. I suppose all the Bush bashers were rascist too. Particularly the non-white ones.
Disagreeing with a black man on anything makes you a rascist in the eyes of a left winger. But a Black person, Hispanic person etc... isn't rascist if they disagree with anyone NOT a lefty.
Sorry... I'm entitled to disagree with the "dear leader"... the first amendment thing, remember.
At least dumbo is starting to grasp the fact... he's been in office the last 15 months... not Bush. He wanted the job... time to man up and accept the responsibility that goes with it. I haven't heard the man-child blame Bush for something for at least a week now.
But... but... but... ummmmm... erm... isn't that what makes U.S. politics so... so.. um... fun and keeps us all so sharp and current, and since both sides do it?Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Difference is... nobody has proven Bush lied about anything. And yeah... haven't you heard the adio and video recordings of every major Democrat who actually saw the same reports that said SH HAD what was claimed... in their own voices that pretended otherwise later?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Nobody has proven Obama has been truthful about anything... in fact... the CBO has proven the claims as false on the Health care destruction agenda.
I have a MAJOR bug up my azz with the halfwits in the DNC calling anyone who disagrees with "The Mesiah" is a rascist. Those are fighting words. Usually tossed around by people that ARE rascists themselves, and thus think everyone else is too.
I want to put my foot so far up the behind of those idiots that I will dislodge their eyeballs from behind with the toe of my shoes.
Calling me or anyone a rascist just because "The Dear Leader" is black is the biggest load of crap since the Western-Pacific hauled a trainload of Manure to California.
We all know Jimmy Carter was an incompetent boob when he was in office... now he's a demented old boob today... his problem can be attributed to dementia, he IS advanced in years... not so with the younger democrats doing that.
This is what makes politics so fun. A bunch of idiots running the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Score one for the Dems.
YouTube - 3-25-2010_Hank_Johnson_Guam_Tip_Over.wmv
Black? I thought he was white. Wasn't his mother white?Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
And McCain-Palin would be doing what for the country right about now?Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
Half Black/ half white... at least he can legitimately claim to be African-American. Most blacks can trace their roots back 4 or 5 generations or more in the in the USA. I can't even do that. Yet I'm NOT European-American.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Doesn't matter if he was Cherokee. He's dark skinned. Hell I know Latinos as dark as him, and some Indians even darker.
I don't care what color he is... I hate his agenda. Idiots come in a rainbow of colors, and so do racists.. Look at Rev. Jeramiah Wright, Louis Farakhan... it isn't just the Klan.
Many in that comminity cry rascism any time a black gets arrested... or if anyone dissagrees with Obama... the fact #1 the 1st amendement grants us that right... and you don't have to be a rascist just because you disagree with anyone on anything. Unles of course, you are white and a conservative. Then you are automatically a rascist if you disagree with a Black Democrat. And Democrats allow people like that to be party spokesmen, or speakers of the house.
It doesn't matter what I think they would be doing. The point is that this person IS in there and doing it to us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Let's see what we can agree on about him. Can you think of one thing you like about him?Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Give me some time to think... there must be SOMETHING, I will admit to that much. I could think of good things Hitler did... Obama must have one or two as well. I just can't think of it off the top of my head right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
It could be something about him as a person that you like, or about what he has done or says he will do. I've already said Bush is good-looking and charming and someone I'd meet at the Crawford diner for lunch and a fun conversation. (I even like to talk about horses and cows.)Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
I've actually met Bush... he really is a nice guy... I disliked Bill Clintons politics... but I have met him too, and at a personal level, he isn't that unpleasant either. Can't say that about Hillary however... she rubbed me the wrong way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I however dislike anyone who always tries a hard sell, be it cars, vacuum cleaners... etc... or bearded bozos on infomercials.
Nothing worth having NEEDS a hard sell. Anything that IS sold with a hard sell, is to sucker people into buying a turd.
Now there was one thing he did I liked... but I forgot what it was... at least its not coming to mind right this minute.
I'll give him credit for jumping in with both feet as soon as he took office. Some will argue that was because he knew he only had a short time before his Congressional majority evaporated and others will point out the severity of the situation when he took office(and both be correct) but he at least did not take a lot of "study" time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
You guys seem to be bashing your heads against a wall here and nothing gets resolved. You are going in circles. Except for Wondergirl, who seems to be the only one on here with a purpose and sensible comments.
And then there is ex, who has some good points too, and a purpose; you all just read around him and miss the point. Get the point. I am Canadian and I get the point.
Its good Friday, I have just had supper, its 1900H here in southeastern Ontario, a lovely bright sunny day and why I am on here, I don't know. I am off to watch TV and rest after a busy day working outside where all of you should have been if you are in the same climate.
Tick
Hello tick:Quote:
Originally Posted by tickle
It IS like arguing with a bill board, isn't it?? But, I'm not trying to convince them. That'll NEVER happen. I write for the silent readers amongst us. You're one of 'em. You can see the truth.
excon
Hi, tick. The circular arguments are precisely the point of these discussions. They're also the only forums I know of that never devolve into obscenity. Rational discussions on the internet are pearls beyond price.
I agree.. And also agee to disagree when needed :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Catsmine
Of course!Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
Yes I know about 'circular arguments' and I thinks its wonderful and quite amusing that you guys are civil with each other, still, under the political conditions of your universe, and now the healthcare thrown into the mix.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catsmine
Tick
Even more change from the Obama administration, tighter screening for passengers flying to the U.S. we'll now be screening passenger's "personal characteristics" to weed out potential terrorists. Sounds positively like the evil of profiling, but not so according to the powers that be:
I love this Orwellian regime of ours, ain't it great that Bush is gone?Quote:
Under the new system, passengers on flights from all countries could be subject to special screening before boarding if they have personal characteristics that match the latest intelligence information about potential attackers, the senior official said.
"We believe it is a much more effective system" that is "tailored to optimize our ability to interdict would-be terrorists," said the official, who requested anonymity in describing the plan.
Even U.S. citizens traveling to the United States from abroad would be subject to special screening if they matched certain characteristics, the official said.
Administration officials said the system would provide greater fairness than the current method.
They said it would not amount to improper profiling because it would rely on specific and frequently updated intelligence and involve more countries than the current 14.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
A little bit.
excon
Hello again:
Now, I don't know WHY it doesn't piss you off that the NSA is monitoring your phone calls and reading your emails... Nope. I have NO clue why good right wingers such as those contributors to this board, TRUST the government soooo much. Maybe you can splain it to me.
Let me ask you this. Would it piss you off if they were WATCHING you through your web cams? Probably not. You righty's LOVE the government so much... I mean, if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't mind a little snooping, right?? That IS the right wing mantra, isn't it??
You DO know, of course, that the feds HAVE the capability, don't you? You also know, of course, that since they THINK they don't have to get a warrant to monitor your phone calls, certainly they don't think they'll have to get a warrant to WATCH you in your own home..
I wonder who amongst us, is willing to grant the government that kind of license... Wait a minute. It's YOU - the right wingers here. You know, I COULD call you UNPATRIOTIC for letting (no ENCOURAGING) the government to do that. But, I understand you didn't do it because you're unpatriotic. You did it because you're scared, and you TRUST government... I don't know WHY you do that, but you wingers do. Oh, well...
Well, I for one, MIND very much that my government is spying on me. Frankly, as an AMERICAN, I'm appalled that you think it's just hunky dory.
excon
I may be considered right winger with some of my attitudes but in reality Im an independent. I do object to random spying without reason. The problem occurs when your talking terrorists. There is a fine line between being pro active and reactive. We are all aware that you can't arrest someone until a crime has been committed. And with terrorism that's another side that we find difficult to look at because with the random nature of the acts you can't really wait. It's a tough call to make. It was Clinton where it started the "lets check everything" mentality since technology had progressed to a point to where it could be done by monitoring certain words or phrases. Yes a sad day indeed. I have seen the innocent intursion of government that expanded into laws to subject the innocent to investigation. Once you give the goobermint a foot in the door they think they own the place. All I can say to that matter is be aware, be informed and please vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I know, the thrill isn't quite what it was a year ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I'll say it again, Ex. There has never been a time since the invention of the telegraph that the Federal government has NOT monitored long distance communications.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Why are you so mad all of a sudden?
The rest of us just assume it, since it's always happened.
Hello again, Cats:
Because other presidents have violated the law, does not excuse the president we have, or the ones we can find and still prosecute. Why, as a good right winger, do you want to let felons off the hook? I thought you guys were FOR LAW & ORDER. Or, would that be LAW & ORDER for the little guy, but not our leaders? I understand how you are. Really, I do.
As we've discussed, the Constitution is the law of the land. It's NOT a guideline.
excon
Unless it's your heroes doing the violating, like Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus or FDR trying to mandate old age savings (then he got caught and had to call it a tax) or Truman and Clinton sending our troops off to wear different uniforms or Obama mandating the purchase of a service from private companies. Yeah, for the Conservatives it's the LAW. For Liberal/Progressives it is like directions, kind of, depending on your definition of "is."Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I can assure you that my conversations aren't being monitored. I do not call AQ HQ coordinating and financing attacks on the country like al-Haramain did .
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:45 AM. |