NY Times: Spying on citizens by Clinton Administration just fine

[longhorngunman]

Yeah, that'll solve the problem, vote Democrat! I mean come on we know John Kerry would have upheld the constitution. Actually he would have probably given free phones to Al Queda and just eavesdropped on Republicans. Really some of you just amaze me, you get spied on by other people, companies, city government, federal government, each and every day and it has been going on for quite awhile and it will only get more abundant as technology increases. If you want total secrecy maybe Osama will rent you a cave somewhere in Pakistan . Bush doing this just reaffirms why myself and apparently a majority of people voted for him. Because he WILL do what it takes to find and stop Al Queda.

 

[xd9fan]

I'm 100% behind the Constitution.

This means we're at odds with each other.

+1

Both parties are a joke

 

[Waitone]

The jury hasn't even been formed on whether or not Bush had the authority . . . . The realization that Bush did a constitutional nasty is a little late in the game, ain't it? After all, he signed Campaign Finance Control after admitting it was "probably unconstitutional". I said it at the beginning of Bush's first term and I say it again. To Bush the constitution and bill or rights is a pile of poker chips to be used in play his game of Governance Stud. He will sacrifice anything to get what he wants. Get used to it. The dood needs to be watched at all times and called out on loud and clear when he pulls one of his famous boners (c.f Meiers for SCOTUS).

 

[Herself]

Yeah, that'll solve the problem, vote Democrat!

As it turns out, there are other options besides elephants and donkeys. The Founders were quite doubtful of political parties altogether, and made no provision at all for them in the Constitution.

--Herself

 

[Boogyman]

Yeah, that'll solve the problem, vote Democrat!

Heaven forbid, since the republicans are doing such a great job... screwing everything up!

I mean come on we know John Kerry would have upheld the constitution.

Of course... he actually fought for it.

Actually he would have probably given free phones to Al Queda

Yeah, sure, that's what he woulda done...

and just eavesdropped on Republicans.

That was Nixon eavesdropping on Democrats, remember?

Really some of you just amaze me, you get spied on by other people, companies, city government, federal government, each and every day and it has been going on for quite awhile and it will only get more abundant as technology increases.

So I should just shut up, sit down, and get used to it, huh?

Bush doing this just reaffirms why myself and apparently a majority of people voted for him. Because he WILL do what it takes to find and stop Al Queda.

Except focusing our attention and forces on Afghanistan where we had Al Queda and Bin Laden cornered. Instead we invaded Iraq and now it is a breeding ground for Al Queda, which is bigger and more dangerous than it ever was before, and Bin Laden is still out there. And this is why you voted for him?

Oh yeah, I forgot, it's all the Democrats fault...

 

[PCGS65]

Yeah, that'll solve the problem, vote Democrat! I mean come on we know John Kerry would have upheld the constitution. Actually he would have probably given free phones to Al Queda and just eavesdropped on Republicans. Really some of you just amaze me, you get spied on by other people, companies, city government, federal government, each and every day and it has been going on for quite awhile and it will only get more abundant as technology increases. If you want total secrecy maybe Osama will rent you a cave somewhere in Pakistan . Bush doing this just reaffirms why myself and apparently a majority of people voted for him. Because he WILL do what it takes to find and stop Al Queda.

+1, Your absolutely right. Don't let anybody tell you different.
The rest of these guys just want another terrorist attack so they can say "Bush lied", when he took office he swore to protect this country and look what happened. They still want to "get even" for Clinton lying under oath.

 

[Khornet]

I'm with Art

the jury is still out, so I'll save my outrage for a real outrage.

Interesting that Clinton let the Brits monitor US domestic traffic and then feed it to the NSA. So he followed the letter while violating the spirit of the law (a law which may or may not be applicable anyway). Very Clintonesque. But W did the dirty work himself--IF it was actually dirty work, which we don't know yet.

Even more interesting is the NYT double standard. And no, the 'biased mainstream media' concept is not old hat, not by a long shot. Most of America still gets its news that way. And most don't get past the headlines. So when the NYT shouts 'domestic spying' in the headlines, it matters. All too few Americans spend the time to delve into the issue the way the debaters on this forum do.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

I have nothing to hide. What are they going to do?, haul my @$$ in because I talk to my mom.

Let's see... Where have I seen this logic before? Ever heard of Crystal Night? While many Germans were appalled, most kept silent because they had nothing to hide. They weren't Jews and the pograms were only taking place in the ghettos, so what were the Brownshirts going to do to them?

From what I've read it's starting to look like Bush didn't violate the Constitution, at least not as it is interpreted in today's courts, but that he may have violated FISA, which would qualify as a felony. If this is the case, he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

I don't believe the Democrats are going to offer any kind of alternative to the mess we're in. I listened to John Kerry on the radio the other night and he was spouting the same oil industry-driven rhetoric about Iran as the Bush administration. Ultimately Democrats and Republicans alike are whores for the same corporate pimps and when they give us the political clap, it's not the Republican or Democratic political clap.

 

[gm]

yup..I support the constitution as well,I also voted for georgie last time because of the moral issues he raised,seems things have gone somewhat downhill since then...now I am wondering.


spying on citizens?yup everones done it..doesnt make it right in my book.specially for someone who is SUPPOSED to follow the constitution and support it.

 

[Molon Labe]

yup..I support the constitution as well,I also voted for georgie last time because of the moral issues he raised,seems things have gone somewhat downhill since then...now I am wondering.

Right.

It is impossible for a person to support George Bush and the Constitution.

 

[Biker]

Right.

It is impossible for a person to support George Bush and the Constitution.

It is beginning, just a bit, to look that way.
Biker

 

[longhorngunman]

I'm sure the same people here would be rushing to Bush's defense if he had not allowed these taps to take place and because of that failed to stop a major attack within this country. yeah I'm sure you all would be calling the TV stations writing the newspapers that although we lost millions of lives give kudos to George for "upholding the Constitution".

 

[Biker]

I'm sure the same people here would be rushing to Bush's defense if he had not allowed these taps to take place and because of that failed to stop a major attack within this country. yeah I'm sure you all would be calling the TV stations writing the newspapers that although we lost millions of lives give kudos to George for "upholding the Constitution".

If you're trying to speak for me, you're wrong. Life without liberty is no life at all.
Biker

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

I'm sure the same people here would be rushing to Bush's defense if he had not allowed these taps to take place and because of that failed to stop a major attack within this country. yeah I'm sure you all would be calling the TV stations writing the newspapers that although we lost millions of lives give kudos to George for "upholding the Constitution".

There is no greater sign that the Bush apologists have lost this debate than the fact that they can't debate the issue without changing the issure. The issue is not that Bush "allowed these taps to take place" (that's another issue entirely); the issue is that he did so without following the FISA regulations, which is illegal. Whether or not the FISA act is Constitutionally legal is a different debate altogether, though the Supreme Court has ruled it is Constitutional.

I am sick and tired of Bush apologists squawking like trained parrots about how our fearless leader is under attack for wiretaps on U.S. citizens. He's not, though many believe he should be. He's under attack for having the incredible hubris to claim he didn't need to even go through the empty motions of obtaining FISA warrants for these wiretaps. The good lord made you men, not sheep. He stuck brains in those heads of yours--use them instead of squawking like a bunch of empty-headed animals.

 

[Flyboy]

If this is the case, he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Counter point: as much as I'd like to see him prosecuted for violating the law, do you really want to see an incumbent Cheney?

Unfortunately, there's not going to be a changing of the guard any time soon, regardless of which offices change hands.

 

[Byron Quick]

I voted for Bush with my eyes wide open in 2000 and 2004. What we've gotten so far is about what I expected. The problem with voting Democratic was the candidates, as usual.

I'm not a Republican. I don't care for Republican policies. I believe Republican policies will lead to catastrophe for America. So why do I vote for Republicans? Simple. I believe that the Republican policies will lead to catastrophe a few decades later than the Democratic policies will lead to catastrophe.

I've hope that something fundamental will change in those few decades.

But I will tell the Democrats something: Jumping up and down, pointing at Republicans, and shouting,"Look at what they've done, you should have voted for Al Gore, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Hilary Clinton, and Bill Clinton, etc. ad nauseum," is a mighty thin damn reed on which to hang your hopes of election.

The Republican Party makes me nauseous; the Democratic Party invokes active vomiting.

The only things that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party disagree on is which areas of our lives should be controlled by government and by how much. Not much of a choice.

I don't vote for Republicans as such. Rather, I vote against Democrats. I would quite happily campaign for, donate money to, and vote for "none of the above." Unfortunately, I don't have that choice.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Counter point: as much as I'd like to see him prosecuted for violating the law, do you really want to see an incumbent Cheney?

I agree that three years of a Cheney presidency is not a very attractive proposition, but I still believe that justice needs to be served.

I'm old enough to remember Watergate and the events leading up to it. Ever since I heard about the Valerie Plame case I've expected the Bush administration to unravel like the Nixon administration. Remember that that is still under active investigation, even though we haven't heard much lately. I wouldn't be surprised if that still came back and pulled an Agnew on Cheney. Either that or the pig valve in his bionic heart will stick open or something and he'll resign for health reasons. I think that by the time Bush is tried and convicted of violating FISA, if he is, Cheney will be out of the picture and whoever Bush chooses to replace him will be the next president.

I believe that the Republican policies will lead to catastrophe a few decades later than the Democratic policies will lead to catastrophe.

That more or less summarizes my political philosophy.

 

[longhorngunman]

Empty headed animals? Sure sign of a lost debate is when a liberal starts up with the namecalling . The President wasn't stupid, he had his lawyers check and came to the conclusion that he indeed has the powers to do what he did and thank God for it. Don't give me the BS about when Hillary gets in power. Guess what if the American people are dumb enough to vote her in, so be it. You libs are just upset because instead of having your impeachment orgasm you just had a premature ejacualation! Sorry Bush ain't going anywhere till 2009 so just keep on pouting.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Empty headed animals? Sure sign of a lost debate is when a liberal starts up with the namecalling .

I didn't call you an empty-headed animal. I gave you a choice between behaving like a reasoning man or behaving like a mindless sheep. Which option you choose is up to you. You have free will, though your argument indicates you have yet to wake up to that fact.

Sorry Bush ain't going anywhere till 2009 so just keep on pouting.

If, in fact, this proves not to be the case, I will be reminding you of this post.

 

[Biker]

Empty headed animals? Sure sign of a lost debate is when a liberal starts up with the namecalling . The President wasn't stupid, he had his lawyers check and came to the conclusion that he indeed has the powers to do what he did and thank God for it. Don't give me the BS about when Hillary gets in power. Guess what if the American people are dumb enough to vote her in, so be it. You libs are just upset because instead of having your impeachment orgasm you just had a premature ejacualation! Sorry Bush ain't going anywhere till 2009 so just keep on pouting.

Another sure sign of a lost debate is when a Bush apologist refers to his opponant as a 'liberal' or 'lib'. For example, I'm quite conservative which is why I no longer support Jorge (sticks in your craw, don't it?
) Bush.
Biker

 

[longhorngunman]

Doesn't stick in my craw at all. I know my President is doing his job and pissing off internet commandos like yourself and ole lib boy, so I'm very happy.

 

[longhorngunman]

Lobo boy, even the media know this is a dead end story and is fishing for new crap to throw at Bush, I know you libs are hoping that is you get the House and Senate you'll get to impeach Bush. Nope, not when the sane people of this country know that he is doing all he can to catch terrorists. If the libs get cocky enough to try it you then WILL see another civil war in this country. No matter though, I'll be very surprised that when the dust clears the GOP doesn't end up gaining seats in the Congress.

 

[Biker]

Doesn't stick in my craw at all. I know my President is doing his job and pissing off internet commandos like yourself and ole lib boy, so I'm very happy.

Internet commando? I served in the US Army, 1/84 FA 9th Inf Div from 1/73 to 9/75. The internet wasn't around back then. How about you? You an "internet commando"?
Biker

 

[progunner1957]

The fantasy that some will not let go of: "Kerry is a war hero"

I mean come on we know John Kerry would have upheld the constitution.

Of course... he actually fought for it.

Boogyman, this has absolutely nothing to do with the original topic - wiretapping - but since you brought it up, I will address it.

Kerry's original assignment as a Swift Boat commander was coastal patrol. Costal patrol on a swift boat was cheesecake duty, as there were no enemies on the coast - they were all inland on the rivers.

When Kerry was ordered inland for river patrol - an assignment where there were actual enemies with actual guns that would actually shoot at him - Kerry threw a sh*tfit. He was unsuccessful at getting reassigned to his original cheesecake duty of coastal patrol.

A tour of duty during the Vietnam war was one year - twelve months. Kerry was a commander of a swift boat for four months. After four months on a swift boat, he was transferred to duty as an Admiral's aide - where he was out of harm's way and could ply his trade of choice - playing political games for personal gain.

According to the men who had to live with him during the four months he was on a swift boat, Kerry was worthless. When he had to patrol the rivers, he would run the boat at full throttle, making the patrol totally ineffective in an effort to avoid taking enemy fire.

According to the men who were there, Kerry did everything possible to avoid closing with and engaging the enemy, the duty which he was under orders to perform.

The men who were there tell us that Kerry's three Purple Heart awards were the result of superficial cuts and scrapes that required minimal medical care and that Kerry applied for the awards himself, knowing that if he received three PH's he would be removed from the war zone.

The men who were there reveal that Kerry's storied Bronze Star award was also applied for (once again) by Kerry himself, was not the result of engaging the enemy, and that Kerry falsified official documents in the application, lying about the events related to the award application.

The bottom line is this: According to the men who were there, Kerry was nothing more than a poser and a "ticket puncher" who did everything possible to avoid closing with and engaging the enemy. Not only was Kerry a ticket puncher, but he was also a coward who shirked his duty and put himself first, not the men under his command.

Boogyman, you may love, adore and cherish John Kerry and the socialist ideology he stands for, and that is certainly your perogative. However, to say that he "fought for the Constitution" is sheer fantasy.

By both his words and actions, John Kerry has made it abundantly and undeniably clear that the concepts of integrity, honor, valor and service to the cause of the Constitution are all concepts that are totally alien to him.

That there are people who continue to parrot the Demosocialist party line that "John Kerry is a war hero" is as feeble and pathetic as it is totally devoid of fact.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

First, the namecalling on either side needs to stop immediately. Not only do you do a disservice to whatever side you are arguing for; you are violating the forum rules.

Second, there are numerous threads relating to John Kerry, swift boats, etc. If you want to discuss that topic, please be courteous enough to revive one of those threads and not take this thread off topic.

If you can't argue the facts on this topic, then take it to PM.