Check out some similar questions!

NeedKarma · Jun 4, 2008, 11:12 AM

McCain: I'd Spy on Americans Secretly, Too | Threat Level from Wired.com

If elected president, Senator John McCain would reserve the right to run his own warrantless wiretapping program against Americans, based on the theory that the president's wartime powers trump federal criminal statutes and court oversight, according to a statement released by his campaign Monday.
...
McCain's new position plainly contradicts statements he made in a December 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe where he implicitly criticized Bush's five-year secret end-run around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

C'mon my neighbours to the south, is this what you really want?

tomder55 · Jun 4, 2008, 11:41 AM

I'm more concered that he would not grant immunity from predatory lawyers and activists for companies who when called upon to help defend the country ,answered the call.

That's how I read his position also .If he has revesed it then although it is a flip flop ;it is the correct call. Congress has it within it's powers to bring the FISA into the 21st century and I would suggest a more useful employ of their time would be to do so rather than hold silly hearings and trying to screw patriotic companies.Instead ;as is typical of the Dems ;they are blocking the reform of the antiquated legislation because their goal is not security as much as playing gotcha .

McCain should take the lead and hammer away at the Dems on this issue rather than his forever pursuit of being liked by them . As this season has shown ;that is a futile effort.

BABRAM · Jun 4, 2008, 01:38 PM

NK- It's typical Republican hogwash when they suggest they are for less government. To the contrary, they want in every body's business. So much so that opened up a branch in Iraq. Anyone that banks, buys, sales, or burps, has big brother looking over their shoulder.

WVHiflyer · Jun 11, 2008, 07:22 AM

"[H]old silly hearings and trying to screw patriotic companies"!? You mean the ones that ignore civil liberties? I'll choose freedom over repressive "security" any day. Those that seek safety over freedom deserve neither. (I know that's not the exact Franklin quote, but it's close enough.) The Bush/Cheney regime had no intention of honoring their oaths of ofc to uphold the Constitution - their goal was to remake it in their own image. There's not one of the Bills of Rights they like except for the Second. I treasure the Second to help me uphold the other nine...

tomder55 · Jun 11, 2008, 07:44 AM

Oh the way the Presidents actions post 9-11 are exaggerated ! What liberties have you lost except for the fact that you have to take your shoes off to get through security at the airport ?

I don't know how you define "repressive "security . I guess it is a judgement call. I can't get worked up the our intelligence agencies wanted to listen in on conversations by terrorists that were coming into the country. Governments are organized for the security of the people ;the common defense . That is almost by definition a "surrendering " to some extent of personal liberty .

By the way Your in SW Penn. Close to Shanksville ? Hope to visit there sometime .

WVHiflyer · Jun 11, 2008, 10:06 AM

The biggest liberty loss is one on anonymity. Of course that was headed out the door before King Bush, but he's sure hurried it along. He also doesn't seem to understand that a free society needs to hear dissenting opinions - only way to make informed decisions. If you doubt he wants to stifle debate, just ask those who were restricted to the laughable "free speech" cages whenever he made an appearance. I used to love to fly, but I won't even go in an airport anymore. I'd have to take my shoes off all the way to my knee. My leg set off alarms to begin with. Being separated for a wand check I could deal with, but do you really think that's all that I'd get now? When a 2-in chocolate gun or nail clippers are considered deadly weapons?

I consider my private phone calls private. King Bush wasn't just listening to terrorists calling here, or even terrorists calling "there," but ANY CALL THEY WANTED TO. I also won't go to the library when my computer doesn't work because what I look up is no one's biz but mine. That the free exchange of ideas is suppressed by the fact that everything you say is under scrutiny and that men in black suits are going to snatch you up just for expressing an opinion is no way to run a free society. Communist Russia and its satellites were famous (infamous) for their sneaky little secret searches, but they're all too common here now.

BTW - Shanksvill is a couple hours from here...

Choux · Jun 11, 2008, 10:38 AM

George Will was on a political talk show discussing his new book and some politics within the week. He is one of the leading Conservatives, a Conservative columnist, and a quality individual of integrity recognized by all as such. He said that the Republican Party in power is not Conservative, that there is no Conservative party any more.

What Bush has done in all his impeachable offenses, this one included, is typical Fascist power grabbing, and *that* is what worries serious, quality, educated Americans.

Decent Americans are poised to take back our country, our *REPUBLIC* from the Fascist interlopers. :)

magprob · Jun 11, 2008, 03:23 PM

Hey McSame, listen to this:

))))))))))))))BRUUUUUMMMPPPPPPP!! ((((((((((((((((((((

Can you hear me now?

George_1950 · Jun 11, 2008, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by Choux

George Will was on a political talk show discussing his new book and some politics within the week. He is one of the leading Conservatives, a Conservative columnist, and a quality individual of integrity recognized by all as such. He said that the Republican Party in power is not Conservative, that there is no Conservative party any more.

Well, cherrypicking if ever it existed. Will is a conservative and Bush is a fascist? What you and many others fail to see in your blanket condemnations is that Republicans are not of one stripe. Being 'conservative' is not an easy task. Have you ever noticed that no one ever complains about a candidate running as a conservative and who gets to Washington and votes 'liberal'? No, it is quite the opposite: say one thing at home and go to Washington and vote the other. At least, until the folks back home find out what their representative has been up to.

inthebox · Jun 11, 2008, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

McCain: I'd Spy on Americans Secretly, Too | Threat Level from Wired.com

C'mon my neighbours to the south, is this what you really want?

No, but I will tolerate it for national security.

What I cannot tolerate and can'y understand is the other intrusions into privacy.

From credit companies, telemarketers, the department store clerk asking for your phone number, surveillance cameras everywhere, photo traffic tickets, internet spy and adware,.

Fr_Chuck · Jun 11, 2008, 06:14 PM

What everyone does not want to discuss is that of course all presidens democrat and republican have all used the wire taping, that is why there is a large complex that is always staffed and have been there for years.
And why the government searches billions of web sites and web transmissions.

WVHiflyer · Jun 14, 2008, 09:19 AM

The problem, Fr_Chuck, is that King Bush wants to do away with the required legal channels. The OK is virtually rubber-stamped as it is.

George_1950 · Jun 14, 2008, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by BABRAM

NK- It's typical Republican hogwash when they suggest they are for less government. To the contrary, they want in every body's business. So much so that opened up a branch in Iraq....

Got to watch those wascally wepublicans; they opened up a huge branch below the Mason-Dixon, after ethnic cleansing; then came the occupation, 1865 to 1877.

pinkcelly123 · Sep 17, 2008, 07:20 PM

YOU can't blame him he is old and senile!! OBAMA"08"

speechlesstx · Sep 18, 2008, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by pinkcelly123

YOU can't blame him he is old and senile!!!!!OBAMA"08"

As opposed to young and clueless like his opponent?

excon · Sep 18, 2008, 10:26 AM

Hello:

Ifin I had a choice, as I apparently do, between the Young and Clueless, or the Old and Senile, I'd still choose the Young and Clueless.

At least the clueless one has a chance at being clued in. The old fart ain't got no chances left.

excon

ETWolverine · Sep 18, 2008, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

McCain: I'd Spy on Americans Secretly, Too | Threat Level from Wired.com

C'mon my neighbours to the south, is this what you really want?

Nah... why would we want a President who is trying to stop terrorism? We'd much prefer more 9/11 attacks in the future, just to protect some terrorists from being spied on.

NeedKarma · Sep 18, 2008, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Nah.... why would we want a President who is trying to stop terrorism? We'd much prefer more 9/11 attacks in the future, just to protect some terrorists from being spied on.

Good point. How about you post your full name here and your home address. If you aren't a terrorist then you have nothing to fear.

ETWolverine · Sep 18, 2008, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by WVHiflyer

"[H]old silly hearings and trying to screw patriotic companies"!? You mean the ones that ignore civil liberties? I'll choose freedom over repressive "security" any day. Those that seek safety over freedom deserve neither. (I know that's not the exact Franklin quote, but it's close enough.) The Bush/Cheney regime had no intention of honoring their oaths of ofc to uphold the Constitution - their goal was to remake it in their own image. There's not one of the Bills of Rights they like except for the Second. I treasure the Second to help me uphold the other nine....

You're right, that is NOT the Ben Franklin quote. And in fact it is VERY FAR from what he said.

The exact quote is, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

That is VERY different from what you said, or what you are interpreting. The differences are MORE than just semantics.

We are being asked to give up nothing essential to our liberty. Our liberty remains as strong as it always was. And we are not asking for TEMPORARY safety, but rather PERMANENT safety.

Franklin spoke of giving up something essential for something temporary, and in that scenario, I agree, it's a bad deal. But our REAL LIFE scenario is one of giving up nothing essential at all for a permanent increase in our security. And that is a deal tha Franklin would have (and did) jump at in a second.

Elliot

ETWolverine · Sep 18, 2008, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Good point. How about you post your full name here and your home address. If you aren't a terrorist then you have nothing to fear.

I have posted my full name and address at other websites. Sites that the government has access to. In fact, I have posted my information, including my SS number at various federal government websites. And I have no fear of doing so because I'm not a terrorist. (The most recent time I did that was earlier this week when I applied for several federal and state government jobs online as part of my job-search. Name, address, DOB, SSN, contact information, etc. No problems whatsoever.)

The reason I don't do it here is not because of fear of the government. IT's because of fear of fruitcakes who troll sites like this for information that they can use for criminal activities. ID Theft ain't fun to deal with. But I'm not afraid of the government arresting me.

Elliot