Scary.

[fredjacksonsan]

I agree with most of your post, GTPDad. Where I differ:

Originally Posted by GTP Dad

Now, did the Bush administration do something illegal yes they did, as each wiretap should have been authorized by a judge. But lets put everyone in this debate on the spot and ask what would you have done if you were told that a certain group of people were plotting to blow up a mall or high rise and kill thousands but you didn't have any information other than the name of the group and a couple of members.

Start the wiretaps. Get some buddies and find a judge to report the wiretaps to. Follow the law so that I would be working cleanly and so no one could come back later and say I broke the law.

Put in your request the reason (antiterrorism) and the information you have.

Originally Posted by GTP Dad

No judge would give you a warrant to do wiretaps with that amount of information.

Conjecture and speculation. I don't think any of us here are judges, so stating that "no judge would give you a warrant with that amount of information" isn't really valid.

Originally Posted by GTP Dad

Suppose you did nothing and that attack happened. The people would crucify you for inaction. So we have to ask ourselves, do we act or do we ignore the issue?

As stated above, act but do it the right way. Once you cross the line of legal and illegal, you are wrong. The President should have to abide by the same laws as the rest of us.

Originally Posted by GTP Dad

Finally, the free borders of the United States have created a large part of these problems. Allowing foreign nationals to come into the US unchecked have given rise to issues that were never a consideration before. My grand parents were immigrants in the 1920's who came here for a better life they didn't come to try to overthrough our way of life but to live that life for themselves. Today radicals are trying to destroy the American way of life because of their own ideas as to how we should live they are not coming here to live the American dream, a portion of them are coming to try to create as much chaos and damage as they can and are willing to sacrifice themselves to insure that it happens.

Agreed. 3/4 of my grandparents came over just prior to WWI. They did it legally, despite being dirt poor and unable to speak English. They worked hard and made a life for themselves, legally. The standards of the current immigrants should be the same. /offtopic, there are other immigration threads.

[YogsVR4]

From what I've been able to gather, what Bush did has been done by every president since Carter. Of course, that does not make it right, but it does add some perspective to the uproar. In the grand scheme of things that will affect our rights, I find this wire tapping pretty low compared to the recent rulings on imminent domain. My biggest fear is that the courts don’t become the final say on the constitution. While I don’t want judges writing laws, I do want them to be the final arbitrator. As long as that happens, illegal or potentially illegal activities by the other branches of the government (especially the administrative branch) can be reigned in.

I’d like to see this mess cleaned up. I have no doubt that the eves dropping is necessary but I also want a judge to authorize each instance. Again, based on a multitude of articles, it sounds like the law leaves to much wiggle room for several presidents to authorize this kind of surveillance. I don’t like it and I want congress to investigate what’s going on with that information.

The biggest restrictions on our freedom don’t come from people listening to what we say (hell, to many people yakking on their cell phones in public as it is) its from people being prosecuted for what they say. You want scary? Try http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/wha/8311.htm and this part

"The law provides for freedom of speech and of the press, and the Government generally respects these rights in practice; however, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Government may limit free speech in the name of goals such as ending discrimination, ensuring social harmony, or promoting gender equality. The Court ruled that the benefits of limiting hate speech and promoting equality are sufficient to outweigh the freedom of speech clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

I find that Canadian take on free speech a lot scarier then a wire tap on every person in the US. In the same vein; I’m more concerned by attempts to ban burning the flag. I’m more concerned about a more invasive IRS. I’m more concerned about this administration protecting the boarders. I’m more concerned about this administration eliminating tariffs. I’m more concerned about my governor altering the small business tax.

When it comes to restricting freedoms, I believe we need to stay vigilant but not to the point of paranoia.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by Flatrater

I guess I am one of the ones you are waiting for! So here goes. I have been quiet in this forum for awhile just reading and not posting.

I agree with you on most of your post yet I can't help but read it. First you sate the above bold then you go on to say this.

Do you believe what you wrote? If you do then explain how you practice what you write?

I don't understand the question. How am I supposed to 'practice' the fact that I believe our last two Presidents have been crooks? Other than that, my assessment that it is the R vs D division in this country bull-kaka that has the two either still in power, or out of jail.

Originally Posted by Flatrater

I see more democrats being led like sheep. The dems will do anything to hurt the republicans without thought as long as it goes against the republicans. Democrats are too busy trying to hinder the republicans that they lost sight of their core beliefs. Why do you think we have a republican led congress as well as a republican president? Until the dems get back to basics we will keep control of the government. Kerry lost because he spent more time and money trying to drag Bush thru the mud instead of stating his stance.

My turn to ask. Are YOU serious? Thank you for making my point for me.

You bust in here with those partisan lines like...sheep.

Originally Posted by Flatrater

I see more republicans being led like sheep. The reps will do anything to hurt the democrats without thought as long as it goes against the democrats.

Dood. It's just as viable backwards, as it is forwards. It's a fucking game to all of them, and you are a fucking pawn, willing to sacrifice good will towards fellow Americans, just to spout the party's bullshit. Same to you, and Democrat hard-liners.

Originally Posted by Flatrater

Democrats are too busy trying to hinder the republicans that they lost sight of their core beliefs.

Hint: They are EQUALLY trying to hinder each other. I'd say the R's are more successful right now, as they have more power. Also, BOTH have lost sight of their core beliefs, especially the Republicans, as I have a longer history with them, coming from a Republican household. To say otherwise, is proof to my point about you, and any other hard-liner in here.

Originally Posted by Flatrater

Why do you think we have a republican led congress as well as a republican president? Until the dems get back to basics we will keep control of the government. Kerry lost because he spent more time and money trying to drag Bush thru the mud instead of stating his stance.

Are you kidding me? I think the Kerry campaign spent more time defending their candidate from the likes of you and your party/party-supporters, than he ever did, trying to promote himself.

Again, thanks for proving my point about you and your likes being partisan sheep.

[tenguzero]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051224/...vesdropping_dc

...mmhmmmm


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/au...wire-a02.shtml
http://www.computeruser.com/articles...1,0501,01.html

-Programs like Carnivore and Echelon were used for everything form internet monitoring, to surveillance, to outright foreign spying during the Clinton era. And anyone who wants to, can dig through the records of any administration to find evidence to support surveillance activities (it's said The Union regularly engaged in telegraph wire-tapping during the Civil War.)

The ultimate concern is how much the actions utilized under the power of these programs is being regulated, and what they are expected to conform to. Again, my concern with the current practices of the administration and the feds, is not so much WHAT they're doing, but HOW they're going about doing it. I've already noted the document classification/declassification process. Practices like the executive order signed by Bush in 2001 altering the way the Presidential Records Act (an act that, for some reason managed to fly pretty low on the radar) are troubling in the least. Bottom line -- this government is FAR too secretive, and that COMBINED with the power granted by certain provisions in things like the Patriot Act easily justify heightened concern on the public's part.

How much can they justify doing (and get away with) to fight "the war on terror", and where would it end? The administration is not just thinking about today or tomorrow, they're thinking about what they can do now that will echo for YEARS. I find it interesting that Bush signed that order hamstringing the PRA just a couple months before Reagan's records would have been made available -- and ultimately, a few years later, his own father's...

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by bnaylor3400

I have taken a similar oath. Have you?

Yes I have, as a matter-of-fact.

Originally Posted by bnaylor3400

Not only do you swear to uphold and defend the Constitution but to protect this country from all enemies both foreign and domestic.


"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

And what does all of the above have to do with my thread that is about people happily taking sides in a game that is being played AGAINST them instead of FOR them, as it should be? Are you telling me that Bush is NOT bordering on breaking, if not has already broken, his oath to the Constitution? If so, care to elaborate? Remember, these were AMERICAN CITIZENS he was violating the rights of. BTW, how many fucking convictions have Bush and Co. gotten out of any of their 'hard work'? That's what I thought.

Originally Posted by bnaylor3400

"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato.

Your point? I had one, where's yours? Oh, I see. You HAD to say something, right?

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

Yes I have, as a matter-of-fact.

And what does all of the above have to do with my thread that is about people happily taking sides in a game that is being played AGAINST them instead of FOR them, as it should be? Are you telling me that Bush is NOT bordering on breaking, if not has already broken, his oath to the Constitution? If so, care to elaborate? Remember, these were AMERICAN CITIZENS he was violating the rights of. BTW, how many fucking convictions have Bush and Co. gotten out of any of their 'hard work'? That's what I thought.
Your point? I had one, where's yours? Oh, I see. You HAD to say something, right?

Whether Bush broke his oath will be debated for years to come. Although I do not agree with your position I respect your views and opinions. If you've taken the oath I'm assuming you had military service so maybe you will understand my position relative to yours. It has nothing to do with being a sheep or getting hood winked by a politician. I'm still subject to the oath and will support the Commander in Chief. If Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter or any Democrat President were in a similar position I would support them and have done so.

As to ALLEGED violations of rights of so called AMERICAN CITIZENS, they were suspected of terrorist activity in post 9/11 which changes the equation. Do you really believe that Bush invaded the privacy and constitutional rights of your average American citizen? If so, state the facts or your proof.

As to convictions, there have been numerous convictions due to wiretap both with and without warrant. Just check out Federal case law from all the Circuits. The Fourth Amendment assertion and alleged illegality of wiretap and/or electronic surveillance arguments did not hold up well in the Courts. Convictions resulted, nonetheless. Supporting the Constitution and it's Amendments is one thing but invoking the right to get out of a criminal prosecution is another story. The last time I checked mainly criminal defendants invoke their constitutional rights to weasel out of a prosecution. So if you are not in that category what are you getting so bent out of shape for. If you are a Bush hater I can understand your position.

I stated my point in this thread and other spinoffs posted. Therefore you are well aware of my position and views. Nothing you say will change that. Whether I am a wise man or fool is up to you. I'll admit I am guilty and resemble both....lol.

[GTP Dad]

Well said Bob! Everyone here has their own opinion about Bush and what he did. We don't have to agree with each other since that is what political debate is all about. I am sure that both politicians and historians will also debate what has happened. Defending a country and a constitution are a tough job. Sometimes men make mistakes in an effort to do what they think is right. How history will remember Mr. Bush is up to future generations. They will have far more information and experiences to judge his presidency than we do right now.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by bnaylor3400

Whether Bush broke his oath will be debated for years to come. Although I do not agree with your position I respect your views and opinions. If you've taken the oath I'm assuming you had military service so maybe you will understand my position relative to yours. It has nothing to do with being a sheep or getting hood winked by a politician. I'm still subject to the oath and will support the Commander in Chief. If Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter or any Democrat President were in a similar position I would support them and have done so.

I respect that opinion, as I did the same for GWB's dad, when I became a part of Desert Storm.

To this day, I'd jump in front of a bullet for GWB, as much as I despise him. Search my old posts in here - this isn't the first time I've said this. I would do it out of respect and reverence for his position, and out of worry about what chaos his death in office could bring - and that I am more wary of Cheney...

Originally Posted by bnaylor3400

As to ALLEGED violations of rights of so called AMERICAN CITIZENS, they were suspected of terrorist activity in post 9/11 which changes the equation. Do you really believe that Bush invaded the privacy and constitutional rights of your average American citizen? If so, state the facts or your proof.

How about YOU state your facts and proof? My 'fact and proof' is Bush's words himself. In the other thread, you can see where I quoted each section of the existing law that Bush broke. There have also been reports that the NSA had the ability to spy on ANYBODY, as they went to the heart of the telecommunications industry, and coerced cooperation from the providers themselves. Also, FISA, out of 19,000 requested taps since 1978, has only turned-down FOUR requests. Even then, taps on the turned down ones could have been made already, as you can tap, THEN request from a judge, in a SECRET court. If The Administration did indeed have due cause to tap these persons within the country, what did they have to worry about, in putting in a request to a FISA judge?

Here's an op-ed piece that speaks clearly of my sentiments: http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/an...notherview-hed

December 28, 2005

Bush's wiretapping stirs constitutional crisis ...

Though the White House would pretend otherwise, President Bush now faces a full-blown constitutional crisis over his insistence that he may spy on Americans without warrant. The more he tries to browbeat Congress and delude the rest of us, the more isolated he becomes.

Respected federal judges are rebuking Bush, while he has alienated many political allies and lost any chance of blocking congressional investigations. Citizens are incensed by this latest in a long train of abuses and usurpations. A showdown looms over the rule of law.

For days Bush has been whistling past the graveyard in which Richard Nixon's reputation lies buried. All signs are that he is terrified of what this scandal may herald. On Dec. 16 The New York Times reported that Bush had ordered, without warrants, the National Security Agency to tap the phones of Americans. NSA agents leaked the story because they think the policy is illegal.

It flagrantly violates the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits warrantless searches of Americans; the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), prohibiting electronic spying on U.S. citizens without a warrant (except in emergencies, when a retroactive warrant may be issued within 72 hours); and USSID 18, a longstanding directive preventing the NSA from eavesdropping on Americans.

The White House blanched. After stonewalling for a day, Bush veered from his prepared radio address to defend his secret policy, boasting that it would continue as long as he is president. Bush asserted that it's legal because he is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and that Congress authorized him to use force against the terrorists who struck on Sept. 11, 2001. He also warned that any public discussion of his policy endangers the nation.

It was too much, even for a country grown used to secret prisons, kidnapping and waterboarding in the name of national security. The crisis boiled over. Administration officials hemmed and hawed when asked why the President could ignore the law. Bush held a hasty press conference. It did not shore up support.

He reiterated his bald justifications for ignoring FISA and warned Congress that any hearings (such as Sen. Arlen Specter promised) would aid the terrorists. Facing intense criticism, the White House characteristically spun a web of lies and half-truths. Bush stressed that Congress was briefed about the spying, implying that the executive branch really was subject to oversight. He insisted that the policy is necessary to act quickly on urgent intelligence. Also, the president stated that the NSA listens in only on calls to and from abroad, not on calls within the United States.

We're even assured by Bush's claque that Presidents Clinton and Carter both authorized warrantless spying on Americans. As so often happens, these claims turned out to be false. The Los Angeles Times reports that the NSA has been spying on purely domestic calls, too. That betrays the absence of real congressional oversight. The few congressmen actually briefed were prohibited from discussing the policy with anybody. Further, several senators say the White House withheld critical information. There in a nutshell is Bush's idea of checks and balances.

The allegations from Bush's defenders about Presidents Clinton and Carter are a mark of desperation. The orders they signed required the NSA to adhere to FISA, and prohibited spying on U.S. citizens.

Bush's NSA policy is neither legal nor necessary. His determination to circumvent FISA is bizarre. The FISA court has granted virtually every warrant ever requested of it, quickly and even retroactively. The court was created to prevent civil liberties abuses by an unchecked executive branch. Last year, Bush defended the Patriot Act by arguing that under law all spying in the U.S. still required a FISA warrant.

Alberto Gonzales, asked at confirmation hearings last January whether the president could authorize warrantless searches of Americans, assured the Senate it was illegal. We now know both men were violating the very law upon which they appealed for our trust.

George Bush has created a constitutional crisis by insisting on his ''plenary'' power (shades of monarchy) to ignore laws as he sees fit. Yet the Supreme Court put that notion to rest more than 50 years ago. One judge on the FISA court has resigned in protest (a thing unheard of) to make the same point more boldly. The next day, The Washington Post reported the full FISA court plans to confront Bush, and if dissatisfied with his explanation, may even disband itself. The silhouette of impeachment has grown distinct on the horizon.

See, this goes to the heart of this thread. YOU would take Bush at his word, if for nothing else that you support his party or chosen 'side'. I doubt if the exact same thing happened to Clinton, that you'd be half as understanding. Same goes for Clinton supporters, who wouldn't be half as vehement, if it was Clinton in this position.

(No, reverence for position does not mean reverence for the man. I should clarify what I stated above: 'I would die to save the President, but I would not die to save George W. Bush'. Meaning, if I were a Secret Service man, that happened to be assigned to protect Bush after his term, or Clinton now, I'd gladly quit, or ask to be reassigned.)

Well to me, this crap is a violation regardless. Black and white. Just as Clinton disregarded standing law when he lied under oath.

My point is, they're ALL fucking crooks in some form or another. Our system is so corrupt, an honest man would be hard-pressed to make it as mayor of a small town, much less the highest office in the country. Yet you sit there, ready to take verbal flack for, and give flack in return, for these fucking politicians that are raping our country.

Originally Posted by bnaylor3400

As to convictions, there have been numerous convictions due to wiretap both with and without warrant. Just check out Federal case law from all the Circuits. The Fourth Amendment assertion and alleged illegality of wiretap and/or electronic surveillance arguments did not hold up well in the Courts. Convictions resulted, nonetheless. Supporting the Constitution and it's Amendments is one thing but invoking the right to get out of a criminal prosecution is another story. The last time I checked mainly criminal defendants invoke their constitutional rights to weasel out of a prosecution. So if you are not in that category what are you getting so bent out of shape for. If you are a Bush hater I can understand your position.

Links? Reports I've heard, but cannot document, is that there was only one conviction, which was overturned shortly.

Originally Posted by bnaylor3400

I stated my point in this thread and other spinoffs posted. Therefore you are well aware of my position and views. Nothing you say will change that. Whether I am a wise man or fool is up to you. I'll admit I am guilty and resemble both....lol.

I'm not asking you to change your opinion. I'm asking you to think about where your opinions are coming from.

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

See, this goes to the heart of this thread. YOU would take Bush at his word, if for nothing else that you support his party or chosen 'side'. I doubt if the exact same thing happened to Clinton, that you'd be half as understanding. Same goes for Clinton supporters, who wouldn't be half as vehement, if it was Clinton in this position.

(No, reverence for position does not mean reverence for the man. I should clarify what I stated above: 'I would die to save the President, but I would not die to save George W. Bush'. Meaning, if I were a Secret Service man, that happened to be assigned to protect Bush after his term, or Clinton now, I'd gladly quit, or ask to be reassigned.)

Well to me, this crap is a violation regardless. Black and white. Just as Clinton disregarded standing law when he lied under oath.

My point is, they're ALL fucking crooks in some form or another. Our system is so corrupt, an honest man would be hard-pressed to make it as mayor of a small town, much less the highest office in the country. Yet you sit there, ready to take verbal flack for, and give flack in return, for these fucking politicians that are raping our country.Links? Reports I've heard, but cannot document, is that there was only one conviction, which was overturned shortly.I'm not asking you to change your opinion. I'm asking you to think about where your opinions are coming from.

I do not take any politician at their word. Just for your information I voted for Bill Clinton twice, so I would be very understanding if he were in a similar situation.

If you are talking about politicians in general I agree. Again, you are entitled to your opinions and I respect that.

You know as well as I do until the matter develops we will not really know the full extent of alleged FISA violations. After all it is a secret court that oversees the program and due to national security the information is classified and not a matter of public record.

What I do know is no civil rights suits have been filed against the United States and Bush yet. No criminal charges or articles of impeachment have been filed against Bush or any of his administration regarding the alleged illegal wiretaps and/or electronic surveillance. It is not to say it won't happen.

I believe Iyman Faris, a US citizen, is seeking a lawyer to sue Bush. His conviction was not overturned but the judgment vacated and remanded back to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals by the US Supreme Court. His sentencing was found to be improper. Justices ordered that the 4th Circuit reconsider consistent with the standards articulated in United States v. Booker. It evolved to a Sixth Amendment issue concerning sentencing guidelines, etc. The issue was not wiretap/electronic surveillance but with the new revelations he will probably raise it in a Federal civil suit.

See Faris v. United States and
United States v. Faris

What case are you referring to?


Edited/Added:

Faris v. United States was based on a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and plea bargain in which the District Court denied.


2005 U.S. LEXIS 2414,*;125 S. Ct. 1637;
161 L. Ed. 2d 469;73 U.S.L.W. 3554

Iyman Faris, Petitioner v. United States.

No. 04-6848.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

125 S. Ct. 1637;161 L. Ed. 2d 469;2005 U.S. LEXIS 2414;73 U.S.L.W. 3554

March 21, 2005, Decided

PRIOR HISTORY: United States v. Faris, 388 F.3d 452, 107 Fed. Appx. 308, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 16637 (2004)

JUDGES: [*1] Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer.

OPINION: On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. _____, 160 L. Ed. 2d 621, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).

[Flatrater]

carrrnuttt


You like to profess that you are not a die hard liberal and I will do the same and profess I am not a die hard republican. I vote for the best person for the job and can care less about their party. I have supported dems as well as republicans in elections.

I also believe that all politicans lie, cheat and steal we just elect the lesser of 2 evils.

What I was trying to say about the democratic party is right now the dems are too busy trying to please everyone. I would like to see the dems put together a platform and stick to it instead of trying to appease everyone. With the right leadership in the dem party they could ovetake the republicans.

If in the last election Bush was running as the dem and Kerry was the republican I would of voted for Bush. Labels have nothing to do with my choice of a president.

You posted some figures on the amount of wiretaps and how many were rejected. Tell me how many of those wiretaps did Bush ask for? I doubt Bush asked for all those wiretaps. I doubt the republicans were behind all those wiretaps. How many of those wiretaps were for suspected terrorists? Why do all the liberals blame every single thing on one person? I'm not saying Bush is totally innocent but I am saying it is impossible for one person to have his hand in every cookie jar in Washington. Maybe we should blame Bush for the problems that are facing General Motors, Ford, Delta, and USAIR to name just a few. While we are at it we might as well blame George Bush because it rained this morning so why stop there blame him for the hole in the Ozone that started before Bush was born.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by Flatrater

carrrnuttt


You like to profess that you are not a die hard liberal and I will do the same and profess I am not a die hard republican. I vote for the best person for the job and can care less about their party. I have supported dems as well as republicans in elections.

I also believe that all politicans lie, cheat and steal we just elect the lesser of 2 evils.

What I was trying to say about the democratic party is right now the dems are too busy trying to please everyone. I would like to see the dems put together a platform and stick to it instead of trying to appease everyone. With the right leadership in the dem party they could ovetake the republicans.

If in the last election Bush was running as the dem and Kerry was the republican I would of voted for Bush. Labels have nothing to do with my choice of a president.

Whatever you say buddy. I think your track record in here speaks for itself. You're just backpedaling now, since you are *starting* to get a faint hint of my point in this thread.

Example in point: You're too quick to call me, or whoever opposes Bush a liberal (check the highlighted part of your post below), when, what I'm really all about is my opposition against big government, and Bush and his cronies are as big as they come right now. You DO realize that long-time Republicans are now voicing out against Bush right? I wanted Kerry for the last election because an administration with him in it would counterbalance the Republican House. Believe me or not, our best times as a country have happened when the parties are cancelling each other out.

I never worried about Clinton as I do now about Bush, as I knew the Republican House would check him on any major moves.

Originally Posted by Flatrater

You posted some figures on the amount of wiretaps and how many were rejected. Tell me how many of those wiretaps did Bush ask for? I doubt Bush asked for all those wiretaps. I doubt the republicans were behind all those wiretaps. How many of those wiretaps were for suspected terrorists? Why do all the liberals blame every single thing on one person? I'm not saying Bush is totally innocent but I am saying it is impossible for one person to have his hand in every cookie jar in Washington. Maybe we should blame Bush for the problems that are facing General Motors, Ford, Delta, and USAIR to name just a few. While we are at it we might as well blame George Bush because it rained this morning so why stop there blame him for the hole in the Ozone that started before Bush was born.

I was going to ignore your post altogether, because of the segment above, but I needed to point out what I did, and I will quote myself, hoping a second and concentrated look, will let your comprehension catch up with you:

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

FISA, out of 19,000 requested taps since 1978, has only turned-down FOUR requests. Even then, taps on the turned down ones could have been made already, as you can tap, THEN request from a judge, in a SECRET court. If The Administration did indeed have due cause to tap these persons within the country, what did they have to worry about, in putting in a request to a FISA judge?

[Flatrater]

If it makes you feel better to say that I am back pedaling then go fir it. My beliefs haven't changed.

As for me calling you a liberal mybe I should just call you an anti-republican which your posting record proves.

You DO realize that long-time Republicans are now voicing out against Bush right?

Do you also realize some liberals are siding with Bush now.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by Flatrater

If it makes you feel better to say that I am back pedaling then go fir it. My beliefs haven't changed.

That's painfully obvious everytime you post in here.

Originally Posted by Flatrater

As for me calling you a liberal mybe I should just call you an anti-republican which your posting record proves.

I am one of Republican Senator John McCain's biggest supporters, and have voted for him and Republican Senator Jon Kyle in every election that they have been due for re-election. You can check my old posts, where I stated that my ire for Bush and his supporters started right about the time he started slandering fellow Republican McCain, right before the 2000 Primaries. Same tactics he eventually used against Kerry, BTW, as both had actual, in-combat service (as little as Kerry's might have seemed, being around bullets is being around bullets) - which makes Bush look like the pussy he truly is.

Don't call me anti-Republican. You may, however, call me anti Neo-Con, all to your heart's content. You, on the other hand, are not anti-anything. You're not FOR anything, besides following the loudest shepherd, which makes you against whoever/whatever your shepherd's against.

Originally Posted by Flatrater

Do you also realize some liberals are siding with Bush now.

Lieberman? LMAO. You mean the guy who sold out his own party, because of a promise from Bush to appoint him Defense Secretary or some other jibber-jabber? Yeah bud - that's a reliable, credible endorsement there.

[BNaylor]

Here is an interesting article from the Wall Street Journal. FISA v. the US Constitution.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110007734

EXCERPT:

"In the continuing saga of the surveillance "scandal," with some congressional Democrats denouncing President Bush as a lawbreaker and even suggesting that impeachment hearings may be in order, it is important to step back and put things in historical context. First of all, the Founding Fathers knew from experience that Congress could not keep secrets. In 1776, Benjamin Franklin and his four colleagues on the Committee of Secret Correspondence unanimously concluded that they could not tell the Continental Congress about covert assistance being provided by France to the American Revolution, because "we find by fatal experience that Congress consists of too many members to keep secrets."


Going back to the original topic, it looks like our beloved Benjamin Franklin may have set a precedent a long long time ago.

Just food for thought.

[Flatrater]

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

I am one of Republican Senator John McCain's biggest supporters, and have voted for him and Republican Senator Jon Kyle in every election that they have been due for re-election. You can check my old posts, where I stated that my ire for Bush and his supporters started right about the time he started slandering fellow Republican McCain, right before the 2000 Primaries. Same tactics he eventually used against Kerry, BTW, as both had actual, in-combat service (as little as Kerry's might have seemed, being around bullets is being around bullets) - which makes Bush look like the pussy he truly is.

Are you John McCain's sheep? You are quick to call every Republican a sheep on here yet you vote for the same guy every time no matter what he does in office. I vote for the lesser of 2 evils, just because I voted for Bush once doesn't mean I would vote for him agai unless he was the lesser of 2 evils. BTW voting for a republican doesn't make you a republican. I have voted for some democrats in the past but I'm not liberal.

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

Don't call me anti-Republican. You may, however, call me anti Neo-Con, all to your heart's content. You, on the other hand, are not anti-anything. You're not FOR anything, besides following the loudest shepherd, which makes you against whoever/whatever your shepherd's against. .

I can't believe you have such a short memeory in order to say I am not anti anything. You must of forgetton that I am anti-UN, anti-Kerry, anti-terrorist, antu-handouts, and so on. There are many issues I am for but those types of topics never get started here just the negative topics are here. I do follow the loudest shepherd but he doesn't walk on this earth, in that respect I am a sheep.

Something I have never posted here that I want you to know is that I have great respect for anyone who posts in this forum no matter what side of the issue they are for or against. I even have respect for you and your views, most of your topics on here are good debate material and yes I do some thinking reading your posts.