Forum Discussion

This seems to be some troll.

I I think think Neel Neel is is a a little little out out of of adjustment adjustment of of adjustment adjustment adjustment adjustment adjustment adjustment adjustment adjustment adjustment adjustment adjustment adjustment adjustment adjustment adjustment adjustment adjustment adjustment adjustment adjustment adjustment adjustment adjustment adjustment adjustment adjustment adjustment adjustment ..........................................................!

I thik hes a complete and total idiot, must be one of micheal moore's chroneys

You forgot your pills today, didn't you? This is the dumbest, rambling speech I've heard yet, and I've heard a lot of liberal speaches. This just proves what morons liberals are.

Man, that wasn't even imaginative flaming. Liberal or conservative, that kind of ranting achieves nothing.

this is true,
and this is the usual speech you will hear from liberals especially dean

and this is the usual speech you will hear from FOX News

//and this is the usual speech you will hear from FOX News //

Actually it's a lot closer to PBS, especially that "Travels with Buster" show, man I hate that.

Stupid rabbit. Bring back Mr. ROGERS!!!

>Actually it's a lot closer to PBS, especially that "Travels with Buster" show, man I hate that.

You should declare war on it. After all its not called Travels with Busters in the Christian America. Its way to secular no? And it might distract people from the corruption scandal, teh illegal wiretapping story, the non stop violence in Iraq. You know...that pesky reality.

//You know...that pesky reality. //

You mean reality bothers you too, Goot?! Oh wow, I think you're my long lost brother!!!

//And it might distract people from the corruption scandal, teh illegal wiretapping story, the non stop violence in Iraq.//

Which is NOTHNG like the Clinton era of Presidency, those pesky terrorists, always blowing themselves up....bring back Mr. Rogers!!!!!

//Which is NOTHNG like the Clinton era of Presidency//

When we were distracted by oral sex...oh, the horror.

//bring back Mr. Rogers!!!!!//

He's dead!

//When we were distracted by oral sex...//

Hmm....I was thinking of his half hearted shenanigans in North Africa, his generous giving of secrets to China, all the crap going on in Serbia, Whitewater...but if YOU'RE distracted by oral sex...hey! to each our own.

Impeachment was not about oral sex. The sex stuff just made Clinton's activities sleazier. And it showed Clinton's perpetual lack of morals that spiraled to breaking the law and encouraging others to do so as well. But it was the law-breaking that drove impeachment - none of the articles cited oral sex as a reason for impeachment.

But it was the law-breaking that drove impeachment - none of the articles cited oral sex as a reason for impeachment.

And the illegal WARRANTLESS wiretapping of thousands if not millions of americans does not count as law breaking?

Complete mischaracterization of what the NSA is doing. After 9/11, we got phone number and email addresses from confirmed terrorists' phones and computers. We tracked down those leads and eavesdropped on those people. A court-approved warrant is required for eavesdropping on communications between Americans, not for overseas communcations. And only 500 people living in the US (not thousands and not millions, and not necessarily even Americans) are being eavesdropped on in these overseas communincations.

Furthermore the Congress did give authority to the President after 9/11 to use all necessary and appropriate force against Al Qaeda. And that's who the NSA is listening to.

Lastly, Carter and Clinton also signed executive orders granting such powers. That doesn't justify Bush doing it, too, but it shows that the power has been upheld.

I am also wary about our constitutional rights, and I don't advocate giving them up even during wartime. So I was certainly uncomfortable when the story first came out, but the more I have learned the more reassured I have become.

Wow! Jim, please post more! Where I tend to know what's going on as far as why I support our adminstration and their activites, I have a hard time giving a written explanation in a manner as plainly and as understandable as you have.

Where I have mostly degraded into sniping silliness, you have given factual 1-2 punches that just leave us speechless. Please keep them coming!

>Furthermore the Congress did give authority to the President after 9/11 to use all necessary and appropriate force against Al Qaeda. And that's who the NSA is listening to.

Nothing in AUMF says that Bush can do whatever he wants if he calls it "protecting the country". He still has to follow laws of this country. As Republicans have long been pointing out in the Clinton sex scandal: "Its about the rule of law". Remember that?

>And only 500 people living in the US (not thousands and not millions, and not necessarily even Americans) are being eavesdropped on in these overseas communincations.

Here is the thing. Since its done without warrants and there is no oversight, WE DO NOT REALLY KNOW WHO HE IS SPYING ON. And presidents have spied warrantlessly before for their own purposes (Remember Nixon, remember how he resigned just before they impeached him for that)? There is no reason to believe him just cause he said so.

>Lastly, Carter and Clinton also signed executive orders granting such powers. That doesn't justify Bush doing it, too, but it shows that the power has been upheld.

Not without warrants. And if you think they did, please present evidence. Otherwise its just make belief.

>I am also wary about our constitutional rights ... but the more I have learned the more reassured I have become.

Well MANY people in this country are not. Let me put it to you this way: A president who illegaly spies upon Americans does not warrant trust in my and otehrs minds. And before you tell me: civil liberties does not matter if you are dead, remember this:
People fought and died to be free.

//Well MANY people in this country are not. //

Funny I got this email recently...

In one of the largest responses to a NewsMax poll ever, more than 150,000 people across the Internet have made their opinions known about this controversy.

And they resoundingly say that the President was justified in taking this action to protect America.

Here is a breakdown of the poll results for several key questions:

1) Has President Bush been justified in tapping the conversation of U.S. citizens?
Justified - 80%
Not Justified - 20%

2) Do you believe the President must have a court-approved warrant to conduct a wiretap?
Yes - 23%
No - 72%
Not Sure - 5%

3) Do you believe President Bush's claim that he undertook this action to protect America?
Yes - 83%
No - 17%

4) How would you rate media coverage about President Bush's actions?
Fair - 20%
Unfair - 80%


And then Zogby(see link below) says 49% believe what he's doing to protect America is legal, while 45% disagree. 49 is more than 45 if I remember correctly, Goot, though I must also remember that you have "intelligence issues", you poor dear.

http://www.postchronicle.com/news/breakingnews/article_2122614.shtml

//Not without warrants. And if you think they did, please present evidence. Otherwise its just make belief.//

Here's your link, Sweetie.
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2005/12/21/20051221_030601_flash8.htm

//In one of the largest responses to a NewsMax poll ever//

Oooh, NewsMax polls. Very wide sample of America there. NewsMax is an obviously conservative website, and one that can't be all that dependable since the biggest ad on the site (one of dozens) is for their leading study into male libido products. Clearly an unbiased academic authority.

Truth is, I could post a poll like that on a liberal website and get the opposite results. In fact, at MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/#survey):

Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? * 208855 responses
Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial : 86%
No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors." : 4%
No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching. : 8%
I don't know. : 2%

I guess Zogbys is off too, Stevie Mac? You're right, you'll never get a true poll, but you know what? It doesn't matter, the mainstream America doesn't give a flying flip so long as something doesn't get blown up here in the US....though I'm sure if it did you libs would be all "Whhhhyyyyy weren't they checking up on those guys?!" and "Whhhhyyyy didn't Bush do more to protect us!?!?" meanwhile just having a regular Faitwa party to see more Americans killed. Yeah we know how you are "Oh no! look out number 3000 coming up!!!" just hoping as you do, practicing your dance moves, the Electric slide of death....

Good Will -

You can call it illegal all you like, but it doesn't make it so. And you can say "we don't know who he's really spying on" in one breath and assert that he's spying on millions of Americans in another breath all you want. Other than your obvious contempt for Bush, there is no reason to believe that he said to the NSA "while you're at it, tracking down and listening to 7,000 terrorists, how about adding a million random American citizens to your efforts and send me the transcripts so I can have a good chuckle."

Regarding Carter and Clinton:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm

Clinton even used warrantless wiretaps on domestic American citizens.

TJ and Steven - citing online polls (even if they are to counter arguments made to criticize mine) is useless. Like Steven noted, they provide a lop-sided sampling. In fact online polls are often stacked by one side. In 2000 all the online polls said, overwhelmingly, that Alan Keyes was the favorite for the Republican nomination.

Invader:
A.
You seem to think I would not want to impeach Clinton or some other president, Democratinc or Republican for illegally spying on Americans. Let me make it clear!!! I WOULD!!!

B.
>And you can say "we don't know who he's really spying on" in one breath and assert that he's spying on millions of Americans in another breath all you want.

Prove me wrong! History is full of examples of governments abusign their authority. I mean just literally full of it. Pick any decade and you will find tens if not hundred of governments who abused their authority for political gains. US in no exception (may I please remind you that Nixon had Libby and others litteraly commit felony of breaking, entering and copying Democrats documents and then using his presidential authority to cover it up). This adminstration has been caught in lies before.

As for proof. Give it time...it will all come out one day. Hopefully sooner and not later.

> how about adding a million random American citizens to your efforts and send me the transcripts so I can have a good chuckle."
FOIA requests have been submitted to the NSA. Though I suspect they will vacuum their records before handign stuff over.

// Give it time...it will all come out one day.//

Will you hold your breath? <smirk>

Why?

I want to hear about the pretty shade of blue you turn while you're waiting. You can do it a couple of times, we'll be patient....

But then I want match the color of my room. Have you tried this yet?

I am sittign here lookign at my phone at work wondering if its bugged. Now I do nto knwo what it is but hey maybe the NSA thinks there are terrorists everywhere. Now I would nto say had I known for sure who NSA was spying on. Maybe if there was some sort of judicial record of that I might found that out from (it does not have to be now, maybe later when NSA investigation are done and over) But alas since FISA court never been notified we will probably never know...tsk...tsk...tsk...

Prove you wrong, Good Will? Sorry, but you made the claim. You have to prove yourself right.

I err on the side of government corruption. It happens more then not. Since warrantless wiretapping has not checks in it seems its a good reason to suspect foul play. There is ample precident for that. Hence my assumption NSA has done something illegal. I do not trust any president who claims he is doing something without check and balances does not deserve trust.

As for the proof. If the only proof that executive branch did something wrong is in the hands of the executive branch, its sort of like asking the fox to testify that it did not go into a hen house.
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

The Times story mentioned a number of officials who said they believe he the wiretapping is illegal.

More over this kind abuse is exactly the reason why there should be a LOT of investigation.

In conclusion, the proof is you just know it to be so?

In this case, this is a wartime activity monitoring enemy communications overseas, where some of the overseas communications are actually to domestic locations. The rules are different in war. But in this case the rule still applies that monitoring purely domestic communications requires a warrant. Communications with terrorists overseas is fair game.

I am not a fan of big government either, and I am a firm believer in protecting constitutional rights. But consitutional rights don't apply to our enemies in wartime. Our soldiers don't have to read them their rights before they shoot them on the battlefield.

Sure, anything is possible. If they have the capability to spy on our enemies, they can spy on us, too. I don't trust the government on many things - bureaucrats have no accountability, as they don't have to compete with anyone or answer directly to voters. But fighting wars is one of the things I tend to give the governement credit. Their accountability is that they have to win wars and protect the country.

Just because you say Bush is spying on the average person doesn't make it so. The NSA's efforts are targeted on identified terrorists, as I wrote about a few days ago.

I wouldn't be shocked if there is a dud or two in the agency, listening to their ex-wives. But until you show some evidence that Bush is listening to millions of law-abiding American citizens, your claims are simply irresponsible. Period.

//It doesn't matter, the mainstream America doesn't give a flying flip so long as something doesn't get blown up here in the US//

First, define mainstream. People who happen to agree with you? Second, I would not hold Bush in the wrong for not doing illegal things to keep Americans safe. I strongly believe that it is better to risk attack than sacrifice the values that make this country great, and before you ask, yes, I would die in that attack myself. Third, what the heck is up with "Stevie Mac" and "sweetie," anyway?

>But fighting wars is one of the things I tend to give the governement credit

Never ending war on terror eh? So when is it over? There is always going to be people who do bad things to US. ALWAYS!!!! We can not be in a perpetual state of war and use it to justify letting the government do what ever it wants.

>But consitutional rights don't apply to our enemies in wartime.

How do you know NSA is spying JUST on enemies. There is no way to check it.