OT: Is this true?!

[Nuck 'n Futz]

D'ohNuts wrote:
> No Nutz wrote:
>>
>> When Bush does it, while at war and ONLY when it's documented
>> AQ-related (not US citizen to US citizen), it's pasted on the front
>> page -- timed to sell some asshole's book AND affect debate on the
>> Senate floor.
>>
>> Got it.
>>
>> N&F
>
> Bush asked the Old Gray Lady not to publish. They held out for a
> year. If it had been released at the time they had the story, it
> would have been during the election and then watch yer whiny a**
> *****!
>
> You know, your references to possible criminal activities of past
> presidents doesn't really make a difference - sounds like some little
> kid whining "he did it first!" Which, of course, we all know is a
> free pass to "Above the law" land.
>
> Got it?

What I got is a need to ride. You're a moron. Worse, you're a dishonest
moron.

Worse yet, you KNOW you're a lying partisan scumbag -- just like the leading
Dem senators crying foul for stuff they'd defend if a (shudder) Dem was
prez.

Go screw yourself.

N&F

 

[D'ohBoy]

N&F opined:

> Worse, you're a dishonest moron.

What did I lie about?

D'ohBoy, who really wants to know.

 

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote (without quoting anything):

> What where your search criteria? Obviously Getalick wasn't going to
> help. And when I tried Clinton and Warrantless search I got alot of
> junk in which I did not see the article you just link. Anyway...

"clinton warrantless wiretaps" (whole bucha hits)

> I never knew that the conservatives where so respectful of Clinton's
> views on constitutional law that they would advance his questionable
> opinion into an entire policy.

Nice strawman. (Hint: the issue is that Dems are acting like history began
on the day GWB was sworn in, ignoring what previous admins and they
themselves have said and done repeatedly. At least they're consistent!)

BS (really)

 

[[email protected]]

yawl may notice that bush is inarticulate and recently under stress
trying bush for stating delay is innocent when bush constantly states
no comment because it's inappropriate to comment on ongoing
investigations
is unnecessary.
did you know thatn the tax cuts leaves the middle class paying the rich
$8,000 a year
for fewer benefits?

 

[Mark Hickey]

"D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:

>You know, your references to possible criminal activities of past
>presidents doesn't really make a difference - sounds like some little
>kid whining "he did it first!" Which, of course, we all know is a free
>pass to "Above the law" land.

Just a thought here...

I think what Bill and NnF were saying was that it's obvious that the
"horrendous, unpardonable crime" is only so when it ain't your guy
doing it (applies equally to both sides of the fence). That shouldn't
come as a shock to anyone even remotely conscious of the political
process anywhere on the planet.

Clearly, the current tempest in a teacup is being whipped up into a
frenzy when it's historically clear that it obviously wasn't the end
of the world when the same thing happened in a previous
administration. Add in the fact that it appears that senators from
both sides of the aisle were kept in the loop (though some claim there
were "missing details"...), and I think this is one of those "crises"
that will just wind down to nothing when the full story (finally)
comes out.

So just for grins, what say we have a political thread-free holiday
season (no matter what the hoiday you may or may not celebrate might
be) on r.b.t.? I think Washington DC can get along just fine without
our opinions for the next couple weeks.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

"D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Peter observed:
>
>> Snipped, OT it is and it seems like yer looking for a argument.
>> There is enough argumant about bike ****...
>
>Not necessarily looking for an argument, just blown away by the
>continued revelations of ethical and criminal abuses of power by the
>current administration.

It's just that if you actually buy into such over-the-top obvious
fabrications, you're going to go through life with your knickers
tightly twisted. The world is full of misinformation on both sides of
just about every issue, and it's important to avoid "news sources"
that "aren't". ;-)

>OT means "proceed at your own risk" to me.
>
>At least I'm not like that lame-o highracer dude - and I realize that
>comparison doesn't automatically put me in a good light.

Heh heh heh... that's like saying "I'm more of a humanitarian than
******"... ;-) Note that I not only made a great comparison, I also
invoked Godwin's law, thereby ending this thread. Ta da!!!!

>D'ohBoy, chastened slightly, but still outraged.

S'okay to be outraged - just make sure it's about something that
actually happened. It's even better when you can get the "whole
story" about the issue. If someone (on either side!!!) is trying to
get you to be outraged by fabricating stories, or deleting important
facts, they're playing you for a sucker (and the world is obviously
full of suckers).

(just doing my best to throw cold water on any political thread).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Jay Beattie]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Peter observed:
> >
> >> Snipped, OT it is and it seems like yer looking for a argument.
> >> There is enough argumant about bike ****...
> >
> >Not necessarily looking for an argument, just blown away by the
> >continued revelations of ethical and criminal abuses of power by the
> >current administration.

<snip>

> (just doing my best to throw cold water on any political thread).

Yah, right!

By the way, what Bush actually said was "I waive my private parts at
your aunties, you cheesy lot of second hand electric donkey bottom
biters" -- or something to that effect. -- Jay Beattie.

 

[Mark Hickey]

"Jay Beattie" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Peter observed:
>> >
>> >> Snipped, OT it is and it seems like yer looking for a argument.
>> >> There is enough argumant about bike ****...
>> >
>> >Not necessarily looking for an argument, just blown away by the
>> >continued revelations of ethical and criminal abuses of power by the
>> >current administration.
>
><snip>
>
>> (just doing my best to throw cold water on any political thread).
>
>Yah, right!
>
>By the way, what Bush actually said was "I waive my private parts at
>your aunties, you cheesy lot of second hand electric donkey bottom
>biters" -- or something to that effect. -- Jay Beattie.

If only.... (wouldn't the news be a lot more fun!)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[[email protected]]

Nuck 'n Futz wrote:

> Worse yet, you KNOW you're a lying partisan scumbag -- just like the leading
> Dem senators crying foul for stuff they'd defend if a (shudder) Dem was
> prez.

How bout the Republicans crying foul? Are they lying partisan
scumbags too?

R

 

[Mark Janeba]

[email protected] wrote:
> Nuck 'n Futz wrote:
>
>
>>Worse yet, you KNOW you're a lying partisan scumbag -- just like the leading
>>Dem senators crying foul for stuff they'd defend if a (shudder) Dem was
>>prez.
>
>
> How bout the Republicans crying foul? Are they lying partisan
> scumbags too?

Yes, but they are *his* lying partisan scumbags. That makes it ok.

Mark

 

[Nuck 'n Futz]

Mark Janeba wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Nuck 'n Futz wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Worse yet, you KNOW you're a lying partisan scumbag -- just like
>>> the leading Dem senators crying foul for stuff they'd defend if a
>>> (shudder) Dem was prez.
>>
>>
>> How bout the Republicans crying foul? Are they lying partisan
>> scumbags too?
>
> Yes, but they are *his* lying partisan scumbags. That makes it ok.

Funny, but I don't think any Pubs have called for impeachment over clearly
legal actions (also taken by Carter and Clinton).

Just like a lot of stuff lately, this will come back and bite the Dems in
the dairyailleur!

N&F

 

[Nuck 'n Futz]

Nuck 'n Futz wrote:
> Mark Janeba wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> Nuck 'n Futz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Worse yet, you KNOW you're a lying partisan scumbag -- just like
>>>> the leading Dem senators crying foul for stuff they'd defend if a
>>>> (shudder) Dem was prez.
>>>
>>>
>>> How bout the Republicans crying foul? Are they lying partisan
>>> scumbags too?
>>
>> Yes, but they are *his* lying partisan scumbags. That makes it ok.
>
> Funny, but I don't think any Pubs have called for impeachment over
> clearly legal actions (also taken by Carter and Clinton).
>
> Just like a lot of stuff lately, this will come back and bite the
> Dems in the dairyailleur!

Another follow-up:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/techn...ry?coll=chi-technology-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

 

[[email protected]]

First, the straw man is your argument that since Clinton did it it is
somehow okay. That never even worked with my parents. "Everybody else
is doing it" never got me out of anything. But maybe family life is
different when your daddy is the president of the USA.

Second, the facts may be quite different from the report you found:

"What Clinton actually signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the
[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is
authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to
acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year,
if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that
section.

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search
will not involve "the premises, information, material, or property of a
United States person." That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the
United States.

The entire controversy about Bush's program is that, for the first time
ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people
inside of the United States. Clinton's 1995 executive order did not
authorize that. " mediamatters.org

 

[RonSonic]

On 29 Dec 2005 12:58:14 -0800, [email protected] wrote:


>The entire controversy about Bush's program is that, for the first time
>ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people
>inside of the United States. Clinton's 1995 executive order did not
>authorize that. " mediamatters.org

Spying on our nation's enemies has never required a warrant. The NSA has been
routinely monitoring international electronic communication since its inception.

This is the smallest non-story of this century or the last. The fact that
demagogues are running in circles flapping their hands does not change this.

Ron

 

[Tim McNamara]

RonSonic <[email protected]> writes:

> On 29 Dec 2005 12:58:14 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>>The entire controversy about Bush's program is that, for the first
>>time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and
>>other people inside of the United States. Clinton's 1995 executive
>>order did not authorize that. " mediamatters.org
>
> Spying on our nation's enemies has never required a warrant. The NSA
> has been routinely monitoring international electronic communication
> since its inception.

The NSA can spy on you, right now, without a warrant. You might or
might not be an enemy of the U.S. You might or might not include a
few keywords in some post or e-mail that attracts the attention of the
NSA, and become a target of their surveillance. Perhaps you think
that the loss of your freedom is the price you pay to be free.

When a President and the government place themselves above the law,
rule of law ceases to function. Not that Bush and his cronies are
unique in this nor the first to have done so.

> This is the smallest non-story of this century or the last. The fact
> that demagogues are running in circles flapping their hands does not
> change this.

Spoken like an apologist.

 

[RonSonic]

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 23:41:04 -0600, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

>RonSonic <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On 29 Dec 2005 12:58:14 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The entire controversy about Bush's program is that, for the first
>>>time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and
>>>other people inside of the United States. Clinton's 1995 executive
>>>order did not authorize that. " mediamatters.org
>>
>> Spying on our nation's enemies has never required a warrant. The NSA
>> has been routinely monitoring international electronic communication
>> since its inception.
>
>The NSA can spy on you, right now, without a warrant. You might or
>might not be an enemy of the U.S. You might or might not include a
>few keywords in some post or e-mail that attracts the attention of the
>NSA, and become a target of their surveillance. Perhaps you think
>that the loss of your freedom is the price you pay to be free.

That situation has existed since long before I was born. That this has become an
issue this year is pure politics. Not a damn thing else, just filthy politics.

>When a President and the government place themselves above the law,
>rule of law ceases to function. Not that Bush and his cronies are
>unique in this nor the first to have done so.

You are complaining about a routine practice that has been examined by every
level of our courts.

>> This is the smallest non-story of this century or the last. The fact
>> that demagogues are running in circles flapping their hands does not
>> change this.
>
>Spoken like an apologist.

Spoken by a tool. You're being used.

Hey, dd you hear about the student who requested Mao's red book and was
interrogated by Homeland Security?

Ron