|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2009 : 09:30:04 [Permalink]
|
But, what exactly would it cost Obama to come back to the pre-Bush situation?
I agree that closing Guantanamo logically pose several technical problems and take a bit of time, but saying to agents: 'Don't do that anymore' does not seem nearly as difficult.
|
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
 |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 04/13/2009 : 10:48:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
But, what exactly would it cost Obama to come back to the pre-Bush situation?
I agree that closing Guantanamo logically pose several technical problems and take a bit of time, but saying to agents: 'Don't do that anymore' does not seem nearly as difficult.
|
What is his motive to give the power back?
He has already renewed it, with the added clause of immunity, and not hardly a peep from anyone.
So now he can either continue to warrantless tap, or restart up warrantless taping anytime in the future, and nobody can ask a thing about it. He now has more power to operate in secret then even King Bush did.
It's a done deal. There is nothing left now but the crying. The lack of concern and outrage over this was/is deafening.
|
"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 10:50:18 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2009 : 11:50:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| 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. |
Yeh, I got a chuckle out of it, too.
That is nothing but your assumption.
And that is nothing but a mined quote.
What quote mine? |
It was one of mine that you cut off in mid-sentence. Classic example. Tsk.
| 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. |
Well you certainly don't sound like it.
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? |
Unfortunately my ACLU membership has expired and I can't afford to renew it 'till next month, thank you Mr. Bush. I think I have been pretty vocal on the topic.
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? |
I don't recall, but probably. The dems remain as big a bunch of pathetic wussies as ever.
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. |
I am not accpting it. I loathed it when Bush/Cheney came up with it and I loath it even more now.
| 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 he |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2009 : 12:16:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy |
| It was one of mine that you cut off in mid-sentence. Classic example. Tsk. |
I missed that. I apologize.
Well you certainly don't sound like it. |
Why? I mean I am coming down on the same side as the ACLU here.
| Unfortunately my ACLU membership has expired and I can't afford to renew it 'till next month, thank you Mr. Bush. I think I have been pretty vocal on the topic. |
I don't follow. Why thank Bush? And when you say that "you have been pretty vocal" are your refereeing to the post where you said this "pisses you off" that was in my respounce to my thread, or was there more?
| 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. |
I am not accpting it. I loathed it when Bush/Cheney came up with it and I loath it even more now. |
Was "I am pissed" all that you said for the initial warrantless wiretaps?
| 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?!?!? |
And I am here to tell you that I agree. |
Good.
| But I must remind you of who concieved it and who enabled it. |
A moot point as the sitting president now has more ability to operate in secret and immunability (if that is a word) then even King George did. And he didn't even have to spend any political capital for the secret power, Bush had already taken the hit for that. And once Obama got it many of the leftwing zealots were not going to bash him for it, even if he has more power to operate in secret then even Bush did, which drove the left wing completly bonkers.
|
"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 12:29:34 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2009 : 14:58:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| 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."? |
Apparently, you just don't understand what "national security" means and how lawsuits work. Or maybe you're just so naive as to think that it's possible to "prove" that something which had been done secretly is no longer being done at all.
Of course, it's tough to get through your outraged incoherence on these issues. As best I can figure, you are saying that whenever any President claims a state secret, we should assume he is lying in order to cover someone's butt, and that national security should take a backseat to your personal estimation of Obama's public image.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". |
I didn't "call BS" on Bush calling them a matter of national security. I called BS on Congress giving him the power to do them. Once Congress let the cat out of the bag, it was all over but the crying. Secrecy should have been assumed, and state secrets remain state secrets for a looooong time.| 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. |
Thus assuming your conclusion. Bravo on your circular argument, Bill. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2009 : 16:04:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| It was one of mine that you cut off in mid-sentence. Classic example. Tsk. |
| I missed that. I apologize. |
Accepted, thank you.
Well you certainly don't sound like it. |
| Why? I mean I am coming down on the same side as the ACLU here. |
I didn't get that impression -- I too, apologize.
| Unfortunately my ACLU membership has expired and I can't afford to renew it 'till next month, thank you Mr. Bush. I think I have been pretty vocal on the topic. |
| I don't follow. Why thank Bush? And when you say that "you have been pretty vocal" are your refereeing to the post where you said this "pisses you off" that was in my respounce to my thread, or was there more? |
I "thank Bush" for destroying the economy of this country. I have been ranting viciously about the Patriot Act almost from the moment of it's inception, here and elsewhere.
| 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.
I am not accpting it. I loathed it when Bush/Cheney came up with it and I loath it even more now. |
| Was "I am pissed" all that you said for the initial warrantless wiretaps? |
That is all I said n this particular thread. Would you prefer one of my profane, primal screams; the ones that have gotten me some very interesting, private communications?
| 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?!?!? |
| And I am here to tell you that I agree. |
| But I must remind you of who concieved it and who enabled it. |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2009 : 17:30:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
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.
|
Bulloney! As pointed out to you the bill was originally passed in November 2001. Very few democrats voted against it and the media was essentially emasculated. All dessention was effectively cowed by the administration as unpatriotic. It took the media a while to regrow a pair.
By the time Bush signed the Patriot Act renewal, March 2006 we had begun reading stories such as Bush lets US spy on Callers without Courts. Once these type of abuses started coming to the publics attention serious question had to be asked about the overall merits of this law.
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by moakley
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.
|
Abscense of evidence is evidence of abuse?
Originally posted by Bill scott
Then how do you know, or what makes you so sure that Bush abused powers then?
|
Did you read the NY Times article linked to above?
While many details about the program remain secret, officials familiar with it say the N.S.A. eavesdrops without warrants on up to 500 people in the United States at any given time.
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Blind trust because he is your man reeks of indoctrination.
|
I have not drank the Obama Koolaid.
Careful one might acuse you of exhibiting an abnormal excitement and emotional disturbance.
|
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 - 04/17/2009 : 18:18:35 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by filthy |
Look here big boy. It's not over just yet.
http://tinyurl.com/dzw8zk |
"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.-
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2009 : 18:34:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Originally posted by filthy |
Look here big boy. It's not over just yet.
http://tinyurl.com/dzw8zk
|
I truly hope President Obama loses this one.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2009 : 12:57:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
The problem ... is that judges are not allowed to know state secrets.... |
I don't see how a judge who has the jurisdiction to rule on a case involving privacy (4th Amendment rights) would not have the clearance and the need to know.
Anybody have some knowledge of this kind of thing? |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2009 : 17:17:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Boron10
Originally posted by Machi4velli
The problem ... is that judges are not allowed to know state secrets.... |
I don't see how a judge who has the jurisdiction to rule on a case involving privacy (4th Amendment rights) would not have the clearance and the need to know.
Anybody have some knowledge of this kind of thing?
|
I am sure some judges have some level of security clearance, but I don't think any judge has clearance to see everything. Therefore, the person on the inside could claim whatever parts they choose contain information outside the judge's clearance.
For that reason, I think an internal arbiter is necessary, though there may be some mechanisms, interagency or internal, to ensure more honesty from the arbiter. |
"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 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Read my lips…
