|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 04/10/2009 : 14:21:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
And, really, we should not just repeal the entire Patriot Act because it does actually do some good in improving law enforcement's ability to prevent terrorism in ways that do not harm civil rights. We could certainly repeal large parts of it which are undoubtedly unconstitutional without removing more useful things. |
That's a good point. I typed in haste. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2009 : 15:49:14 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by filthy |
| So no other politicians use teleprompters, and if they did, none would make mistakes? Does that cover reading from notes as well? |
Good point about Bush. It was still funny to see Barack read the wrong words on his telepromter and thank himself on St. Patties Day.
| That is nothing but your assumption. |
And that is nothing but a mined quote. |
What quote mine?
| and the Republicans in Congress acting like the Three Stooges on meth, his task has become a lot more difficult. |
Can you give some examples? |
There's plenty of examples around; all you have to do is read something besides right-wing blogs and listen to Rush. |
I do neither.
He should let those who deserve hanging be hanged, and get on with the country's business.
I have only a suspicion of the why of it. He is still trying to get some Republican coopration for his programs. It ain't gonna happen. |
Then why pizz off much of your base and not repeal the warrantless wiretaps instead of defending them, and then offering them immunity on top of it? Would you be OK if it was Bush making these calls? Why do you accept this slap in the face now you ACLU card caring, civil liberties loving, SOB, just because it is now your man ramming this BS down your mouth?
| And names: Cronyn, Bohner, Inhofe, and Bachmann, among many others are doing everything they can to cause Obama to fail. And if he fails, the country fails. To me, this smacks of treason. |
I thought we had this same conversation over Bush and the congressional dems?
| But that still won't ever get me to support the sort of wretched leadership shown by the Republicans, |
I never said that you had to support the Repub's. I simply want to know why your accepting this type of illegal activity and blunt violation of civil liberties now without even a peep? We should never accept this BS no matter who is trying to ram it through. It's ultimately we the people vs. them.
| Indeed. But in the meantime, I shall continue to enjoy what is looking like the beginning of the ecshaton of the Republican Party. |
And I am here to tell you that both parties are failing us miserably. Can you imagine the fury in the press if Bush/Chenny passed this immunity on the warrantless wiretaps? Yet we barley hear a peep of this with the Messiah now running the controls?!?!?
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2009 : 06:08:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Bill scott
Why expand the untouchable status? |
I don't see them "expanding" anything. They're saying that the lawsuit cannot go forward because of national security interests. This has a long precedent.| Then there would be no reason to watch them like a hawk, now would there? |
So are you assuming that they are not wire tapping based simply on his campaign pledge? |
Again, Bill, if I were to make such assumptions, I would see no need to watch the administration carefully. You've asked this same thing twice now, and I've given you the same answer twice now.| And how are we to watch them like a hawk when they calim "state security" and imunitiy? Your "watch them like a hawk" is much easier said then done. |
The wonderful thing about human beings is that they generally suck at keeping secrets. Unless you're willing to concede that Obama's people are going to be more competent than Bush's - something I won't concede - then what we watch for are the accidental leaks. Because once a secret is out, it's no longer a secret, and the state can't claim it is.| What evidence do you have that team Obama has stopped the warrantless wiretaps, besides his campaign pledge and "I hope he has."? |
I don't have any evidence that you aren't beating your wife, either, Bill. Shall I assume, because of my lack of evidence, that you are?| And what evidence do you have that this this is just a ploy to protect Bush? |
I never suggested any such thing.I already did. There's more at stake than just some Bush administration officials.| And, so are you then willing to pass this new privilege on to the next administration, even if a hard right administration gets in? |
This isn't a "new privilege," and the next administration is going to use it, too, regardless of their political leanings. The only way the privilege will vanish is if we decide to stop doing anything that requires secrecy, including (but not limited to) legal counterterrorism intelligence gathering.
|
I guess my original point/question still remains. We will never know if Obama is still wiretapping. If we ask they will claim State Secrets. If we sue them they claim immunity. I know you want to watch them like hawk but what will that do? As you say they are untouchable anyway. The only way we can ever send these people a message is at the polls. But with just the two parties to choose from and both of them more then willing to push the interest of the people far to the side in the name of partisan politics and personal gain the average voter feels hamstrung.
Anyway my question is why did King Bush get lambasted in the press, blog world, etc… for initiating the warantless wiretaps, but we hear not even a peep from the same press, blog world, etc… when the Messiah defends the wiretaps, and then he goes even further and insists on immunity from any recours |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2009 : 06:52:23 [Permalink]
|
Billy said:
Anyway my question is why did King Bush get lambasted in the press, blog world, etc… for initiating the warantless wiretaps, but we hear not even a peep from the same press, blog world, etc… when the Messiah defends the wiretaps, and then he goes even further and insists on immunity from any recourse for those who spy using illegal warrantless wiretaps, simply given the untouchables more untouchability? Now don't go on about James Bond 007 or Obama said in his campaign that he would not tap, I don't care. I just want to now where all the ACLU card caring members are here? Where is the outrage? The lack of outrage over this expansion of the untouchable status from those that raged over the initial Patriot Act is deafening.
|
This is funny as hell! You, yourself, said that ultra-liberal Keith Olberman spent a good bit of time smacking down Obama over this! Get real man. You are making a fool of yourself.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2009 : 07:32:35 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dude |
| This is funny as hell! You, yourself, said that ultra-liberal Keith Olberman spent a good bit of time smacking down Obama over this! Get real man. You are making a fool of yourself. |
I said he talked negative about the president ONE TIME. Up untill then it had been ZERO. And if I had not caught it there I would have missed it all together. It's a little bit of work to goggle the story. Not hardly the rage the initial Patriot Act generated, wouldn't you say? And that was all before the immunity was thrown in?!?! I thought for sure SFN would be talking about it, but nothing. I highly doubt Keith Olberman spent ¼ of one show discussing the Patriot Act, and I highly doubt as well that this forum passed on the subject all together. Please try to pay attention.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2009 : 08:49:01 [Permalink]
|
Bill, if it were President McCain saying "no" to the lawsuits, I'd be expressing the same amount of outrage: none.
State secrets don't stop being state secrets just because the party in power changes.
Am I disappointed that Obama can't snap his fingers and bring the truly guilty to justice without compromising national security? Sure, but I never thought he was a messiah, anyway. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2009 : 22:26:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Originally posted by Dude |
| This is funny as hell! You, yourself, said that ultra-liberal Keith Olberman spent a good bit of time smacking down Obama over this! Get real man. You are making a fool of yourself. |
I said he talked negative about the president ONE TIME. Up untill then it had been ZERO. And if I had not caught it there I would have missed it all together. It's a little bit of work to goggle the story. Not hardly the rage the initial Patriot Act generated, wouldn't you say? And that was all before the immunity was thrown in?!?! I thought for sure SFN would be talking about it, but nothing. I highly doubt Keith Olberman spent ¼ of one show discussing the Patriot Act, and I highly doubt as well that this forum passed on the subject all together. Please try to pay attention.
|
You'd be 100% correct. Because Olberman didn't have a political TV show until March 2003. Long after the unPatriotAct was law. He has criticized that bit of legislation extensively however, and given those on the left who voted for it a good deal of grief.
But you are wrong if you think he (Olberman) will give Obama a free pass. The left differs significantly from the right-wing in this regard. Lefties don't line up and kiss their leader's ass, rubber stamp his whole legislative agenda and ram it through congress. Though the current crop of congressional dems may prove me wrong in the coming months.
So really, its you who needs to pay attention. I'm glad you are watching something other than Hannity the manatee or Bill Orally though. Good for you.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2009 : 22:49:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
He has criticized that bit of legislation extensively however, and given those on the left who voted for it a good deal of grief. |
It is, perhaps, important to note that the USA PATRIOT Act was passed less than two months after 9/11, and only a single Senator voted against it (a Democrat), and only 62 Democratic Representatives voted against it (out of 211).
The "outrage" Bill is looking for was almost all about 9/11 at the time, not the act itself. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2009 : 23:14:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Dude
He has criticized that bit of legislation extensively however, and given those on the left who voted for it a good deal of grief. |
It is, perhaps, important to note that the USA PATRIOT Act was passed less than two months after 9/11, and only a single Senator voted against it (a Democrat), and only 62 Democratic Representatives voted against it (out of 211).
The "outrage" Bill is looking for was almost all about 9/11 at the time, not the act itself.
|
The re-authorization in 2006 was not a very close vote either, particularly in the Senate. Democrats did vote pretty strongly against it in the House though.
89-10-1 in the Senate (all nays and abstentions were by Democrats) with 45 total Democrats. 66-124-11 by Democrats, 214-13-3 by Republicans in the House (280-138-14 total). |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2009 : 05:07:52 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dude |
| You'd be 100% correct. Because Olberman didn't have a political TV show until March 2003. Long after the unPatriotAct was law. He has criticized that bit of legislation extensively however, and given those on the left who voted for it a good deal of grief. |
That was the first time I heard KO really critic the president hard since he came to office. Now I gave Keith his props for moving his praise Obama percentage points down from 100% to 99%, but let's not get over excited here, jr.
| The left differs significantly from the right-wing in this regard. Lefties don't line up and kiss their leader's ass, rubber stamp his whole legislative agenda and ram it through congress. |
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You my friend are indoctrinated.
How many dems do you think even read the stimulas bill? Most addmitted they didn't when the AIG bonus flap hit the media. In order to distance themself from that flap they fully admitted they did not know what was all in the bill. And the fact is the sheer size of the bill and amount of time they gave for review and debate made it impossable for anyone to read it. This is a silly statment by you.
Same in the media.
Media: "We have to pass this bill yesterday or the economy will crash tomorrow"
What's in the bill?
Media: There is no time to read it. Time is that much of the essence.
| So really, its you who needs to pay attention. I'm glad you are watching something other than Hannity the manatee or Bill Orally though. Good for you. |
That's the neat thing, I watch an even amount of Fox, MSNBC and CNN to protect myself from indoctrination. Your notion that the far left never spins or plays partisan politics is beyond laughable. Don't worry, I am not now going to claim the far right does not spin, I would never be so foolish as that. That would be a statement an indoctrinated person would make. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 04/13/2009 06:23:47 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2009 : 05:22:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Bill, if it were President McCain saying "no" to the lawsuits, I'd be expressing the same amount of outrage: none.
State secrets don't stop being state secrets just because the party in power changes.
Am I disappointed that Obama can't snap his fingers and bring the truly guilty to justice without compromising national security? Sure, but I never thought he was a messiah, anyway.
|
If you did not express or harbor anger, rage or even concern at the Bush move for warrantless wiretaps, and if you are sincere in your claim that if President McCain had renewed the ability to warrantless wiretap, and he gave immunity to those tapping without a warrant, that you would have no outrage here then my point/question is not aimed at you.
My question is for the leftwing bloggers, the mainstream media, the George Soros and Michael Moore crowds, the card caring ACLU civil liberties lovers, and those on forums such as this, who went into a frenzy of fury over the elimination of even more checks and balances by the Bush team, in the name of National Security, with the passing of the Patriot Act.
Where is the same frenzy over the renewal of this ability and the newly added clause of immunity given by Team Obama?
I mean GWB pisses all over the ACLU with the warrantless wiretaps and the left and fat left go into a frenzy.
BHO says I'll do you one better then that and I will give the warranrtless wiretaps immunity from prosecution and barley a peep from anybody?!?!?!?
GWB claimed this was for "national security" and the far left told him to go XXXX himself.
BHO makes the same "national security" claim and the far left loons, such as Pelosi, say we just need to "trust the President." ?!?!?!?!?!!?!
Like I said the lack of outrage by the hard left over this pissing contest by Team Obama on the ACLU as apposed to those same hard left's who raged over the Bush pissing contest is deafening. And I believe is evidence for my notion that WHO is driving policy is more important to these people then the policy itself. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2009 : 05:37:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Originally posted by moakleyTo suggest that he is expanding warrantless wiretapping is well ... without warrant. |
I think you misunderstood. When I said he was expanding the warnantless wiretapping I meant that in the sense that not only is Obama setting the stage so the government can continue the tapping, if so desired, but now they are immune from recourse. And the expanding is the fact that Obama even took it a step further then Bush and he gave the federal government immunity form any prosecution if and when the government does more tapping. Whether or not team Obama actually has continued the tapping is not the main point! The man point is that Team Obama set the stage so they could, and then went a step further and gave themselves immunity if they did.
Again, would you feel comfortable to pass this privilege on to the next administration if a hard right candidate was elected to office? If you say yes then the ACLU and I will have serious problems with that.
|
Only when the trampling of civil liberties become apparent. At this point there is no evidence that warrantless wire tapping is continuing under the Obama administration. And we still do not know what state secrets are being protected and we are not likely to. All we are doing is projecting a worse case scenario and regretting the fact that a prior administration took us down this path to begin with. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2009 : 06:13:30 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by moakley |
| Only when the trampling of civil liberties become apparent. |
Get real fellow! The far left was in a frenzy before the bill ever became law.
| At this point there is no evidence that warrantless wire tapping is continuing under the Obama administration. |
There is no evidence they have stopped either. Besides if we ask they claim "State Secrets" just as Team Bush did. If we sue they go further then Team Bush and claim "immunity".
Again, whether Obama is or is not still tapping is a secondary issue.
Bush claimed "Natioanl Security" and the far left went into a frenzy anyway, and the frenzy started before the bill was even law.
Now when team Obama claims "national security" and "immunity" madam speaker Pelosi says now that we need to "trust the president"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
After following politics for 25 years now I prefer checks and balances to blind "trust". I think the founding fathers would have agreed.
| And we still do not know what state secrets are being protected and we are not likely to. |
Then how do you know, or what makes you so sure that Bush abused powers then? I thought we are supposed to just "trust the president" in these situations! That is what madam Pelosi said.
| All we are doing is projecting a worse case scenario |
Or in other words I am a little leary when the Speaker tells me we should just blindly "trust the president". These politicians have a long history of not being trustworthy. Blind trust because he is your man reeks of indoctrination.
| and regretting the fact that a prior administration took us down this path to begin with. |
Not at all. I simply want to know why the rage over going down this path with Bush, but a deafening lack of rage when Obama not only renews our ability to stay on this path, but grants immunity for those who put us on this path, and any ventures that go down this path in the future? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2009 : 07:54:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
If you did not express or harbor anger, rage or even concern at the Bush move for warrantless wiretaps, and if you are sincere in your claim that if President McCain had renewed the ability to warrantless wiretap, and he gave immunity to those tapping without a warrant, that you would have no outrage here then my point/question is not aimed at you. |
I see. You want to find out where the outrage is only from the people who are outraged. 
Seriously, starting the warrantless wiretaps was something that provoked outrage, even in me. But the mess has been made, and it won't be unmade simply by a change in President.
You know, if a guest in your home smashes your 100-gallon salt-water aquarium, you'll be pretty pissed. If another guest spills his beer in the same room while you're getting the mop, who cares?| And I believe is evidence for my notion that WHO is driving policy is more important to these people then the policy itself. |
Except for those like me who understand what's going on on the surface (and so wouldn't be more outraged by McCain doing it than Obama), whose existence debunks your "notion" and so to whom you're not aiming your questions. I see.
There will always be people (on both sides) for whom the "who" is more important than the "what," Bill. Aiming your questions at only those people will ensure that you obtain a biased sample of batshit craziness data with which to "validate" your hypothesis.
Imagine what would happen if you were to try to judge the average Britney Spears fan's attitudes towards her just by the actions of Chris Crocker. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2009 : 09:06:25 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| I see. You want to find out where the outrage is only from the people who are outraged. |
No, your confused. I want to know where those people are now who went into a frenzy, before the bill ever even became law, over the warrantless wiretaps in the Patriot Act.
There had not been even a chance of abuse of power yet as the bill was not law, but yet when Bush claimed this was in the best interest of national security the left went into a frenzy.
Obama comes out and sets the stage for immunity for those who started the warrantless wiretaps and any future wiretaps and when questioned on this further strike at checks and balances the speaker says we should just "trust the president". HAhahahahaha!
| Seriously, starting the warrantless wiretaps was something that provoked outrage, even in me. |
Well dah!
| But the mess has been made, |
But how do you know this if is all states secrets? Maybe the Bush team gained valuable information with the taps? Don't you "trust the president" here? You can always just "watch him like a hawk".
| and it won't be unmade simply by a change in President. |
Then why not have Obama come out and say "Because of National Security we can not reveal all the evil evil illegal spying and bad bad things that the Bush team did. But, as I promised in my campaign, as of 1-20-09 you have my word that the warrantless wiretaps have ended and are now illegal again. And since the wiretaps are now illegal and I didn't pass any immunity on them as I thought about doing you guys can now sue us and force us into proving the warrantless wiretaps have stopped."?
That would be much better PR then:
Folks: Have you stopped spying illegally as you promised?
Team Obama: That is a state secret.
Folks: We will sue you if your not going to be transparent here.
Team Obama: Go ahead, I have made us immune.
Folks: OK, but beware, we are watching you like a "hawk"!
Team Obama: Ohhh were so scared. (Hahahahahaha)
| You know, if a guest in your home smashes your 100-gallon salt-water aquarium, you'll be pretty pissed. If another guest spills his beer in the same room while you're getting the mop, who cares? |
But what if I ask the other guests in the room at the time, "who smashed my aquarium?" and they tell me it is a secret!?!?!?!?!?!
And then on top of that one of the guests pipes up and says that he is the local judge and if I try to sue on behalf of my smashed aquarium that he will give any and all accused immunity, whether the act was illegal or not?!?!?! But the judge assures me that he will not smash my aquiriam and he points to his campaign promsise as proof.
| Except for those like me who understand what's going on on the surface (and so wouldn't be more outraged by McCain doing it than Obama), whose existence debunks your "notion" and so to whom you're not aiming your questions. I see. |
My notion is that those who railed the warrantless taps proposed by Bush will say nothing or little when Obama renews them and now offers immunity, all because of partisan politics.
When Bush says this is in the name of national security they call BS.
When Obama says it's national security all of a sudden people such as you and Pelosi find this "understandable" and say we need to just "trust the president".
Not me jack.
| There will always be people (on both sides) for whom the "who" is more important than the "what," Bill. |
And I just gave you the perfect example.
| Aiming your questions at only those people will ensure that you obtain a biased sample of batshit craziness data with which to "validate" your hypothesis. |
The biased people are the ones who all of a sudden are now being deafeningly quite on the warrantless taps and the new immunity provided via the federal govornment for the federal government.
| Imagine what would happen if you were to try to judge the average Britney Spears fan's attitudes towards her just by the actions of Chris Crocker. |
I don't touch any subject involving the Britster. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 04/13/2009 10:07:08 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Read my lips…
