Originally Posted By oc_dean And while one particular poster is off hers/his rocker with some strange interpretation of America .. may I remind them about this: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F ourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution</a>
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< This is terrible. Bush is almost violating as many civil rights by doing this as - oh, say, Franklin Roosevelt during WWII. What hypocrirsy. The Dems who are speaking against this all approved it long ago. >>> I'm not sure if I follow you. Are you saying that the Dems are hypocritical for opposing the collection of telephone records today because of what FDR did during WWII?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Just put on FOX news. Now there's a place full of hatred. I personally call it: The Hate Factor>> Dean, have you even watched Fox news? There is a reason Fox News and Rush are killing their liberal competition in the ratings and it's not hate. The people who hate are on the left. All they offer is hate for George Bush. Hate doesn't win elections as we have seen. It's not going to win the next election either... or the next.
Originally Posted By Shooba >>Why do the libs hate my country so much?<< Why are blanket insults against groups of people allowed but responses to them are not? I guess if I said "Why are all Conservatives such spiteful, hateful, and ignorant morons?" it would be allowed?
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Why are blanket insults against groups of people allowed but responses to them are not?" You noticed that too, eh?
Originally Posted By JohnS1 I just used Roosevelt as an example to point out that the democrat who is most revered by that party used wiretaps and all sorts of spying techiniques on Americans during WWII. Which is fine with me, incidentally. As for democrats implementing and approving the law that Bush has now used and which they are now in a (fake) uproar over, here's a newspaper op-ed(one of many) which explains: Dialing and the Democrats New York Sun Editorial May 12, 2006 No sooner had the man who ran the National Security Agency for years been nominated to head the CIA than USA Today rushed out details of our efforts to use technical means to find terrorists using the phones. And no sooner had USA Today disclosed details of an apparent attempt by the National Security Agency to defend Americans from terrorists than the Democratic Party and its leading politicians and interest groups went on the attack. Not against the terrorists but against President Bush. "This is another example of the Bush Administration misleading the American people," said a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, Stacie Paxton. Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts called the program "abusive" and said "Today's shocking disclosures make it more important than ever for the Republican Congress to end its complicity in the White House cover up of its massive domestic surveillance program. When three major telephone companies are supplying the administration with records of all Americans regardless of any hint of wrongdoing, Congress can't look the other way." Rep. Harold Ford Jr., a Democrat of Tennessee, went on Fox News Channel to call the news "disturbing." Senator Clinton pronounced herself "deeply disturbed." Mrs. Clinton might want to have a talk with her husband. It was President Clinton who signed into law the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994, after it was passed in both the House and Senate by a voice vote. That law is an act "to make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes, and for other purposes." The act made clear that a court order isn't the only lawful way of obtaining call information, saying, "A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization." The law that President Clinton signed into law and that was approved by voice votes in 1994 by a Democrat-majority House and a Democrat-majority Senate not only made clear the phone companies' "duty" to cooperate, it authorized $500 million in taxpayer funds to reimburse the phone companies for equipment "enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to access call-identifying information that is reasonably available to the carrier." Again, the law, by referring to "other lawful authorization," states clearly that a court order isn't the only form of lawful authorization possible. President Bush struck exactly the right notes yesterday. "So far we've been very successful in preventing another attack on our soil," Mr. Bush said. "As a general matter, every time sensitive intelligence is leaked, it hurts our ability to defeat this enemy. Our most important job is to protect the American people from another attack, and we will do so within the laws of our country." If he seemed calm about the latest disclosures, we can't help wondering whether it's because he recognizes that when Americans go to sleep at night, they're less worried about the "danger" that the government is looking for terrorists than they are about the danger that terrorists are looking for them. This is the issue that the Democrats of the Howard-Dean-John-Kerry era just don't seem to prepared to credit. The Democrats who controlled the White House and both houses of Congress in 1994 showed signs of understanding the national security issues at stake here when they passed the law. Their understanding seems to have eroded since then. It can't be that they feel America faces less of a threat - if anything, the attacks of September 11, 2001, make the case for such programs even stronger. What's changed isn't the enemy threat but the party that now controls the White House. Which explains why Mrs. Clinton is "deeply disturbed" about activities legal under a law her husband signed.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder You know, I've said it before, and despite some troglodyte's protestations to the contrary, I'm not a Democrat but a Republican. However, this Administration has done more to drive away moderates than any other, ever. For me, it isn't a Dem v. Rep issue no matter who wants to try and paint it that way. It's a right v. wrong issue. And while we can trot out 9/11 all we want, and how "successful" we've been since, if they have to trample the Constitution to do it then I've got a problem, especially since we'll never really know if the results would have been different had this Administration behaved differently. There are many, many, many people just like me who are damn sick and tired of hearing excuses like "well, if you don't have anything to hide, let 'em snoop" or some other such drivel. That isn't the point here. We have laws for a reason, and they're all fairly well crafted to work together to allow us to properly defend ourselves, without circumventing the process. If the best response advocates for Bush can come up with is calling people traitors and liars, I'd offer that is exactly what they are to the Constitution, because nobody is doing it better right now than them. November, 2006 is fast approaching, and there will be hell to pay.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Why are blanket insults against groups of people allowed but responses to them are not?>> I have asked the same thing from my side.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<And while we can trot out 9/11 all we want, and how "successful" we've been since, if they have to trample the Constitution to do it then I've got a problem.>> Tell us a single right you have lost because we have " trampled " on the constitution? The constitution is not a suicide pact. Some of us would rather live than be killed by the crazed jihadist who is in some mosque as we speak in this country. <<We have laws for a reason, and they're all fairly well crafted to work together to allow us to properly defend ourselves, without circumventing the process. If the best response advocates for Bush can come up with is calling people traitors and liars,>> What laws have been broken?? None. And yes, giving the enemy our national security secrets and rooting for us to lose the war because you hate this president is traitorous.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Realistically we are NOT living in Ben's era. I love Ben Franklin but he did NOT have terrorists who don't value their own lives let alone others. He did NOT have nuclear weapons that Iran is plotting to use imho if they have the slightest provocation. Ben't age did not have all these myriad twenty-first century issues to deal with. That's why it all boils down to WHO we elect and have faith in. As Pass said> Nov 06 is fast approaching so we WILL see. There's a LONG way to go and between the baseball season and the political season this is going to be a historic summer for sure.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Beau, I'll give you a right that I have lost: The right to privacy.>> First off, there is no right to privacy. Second, if your right to privacy has been violated as you and others on here suggest ( you know who you are ), can you tell us some cases that have come up where people have had their rights violated by being spyed on? You must have many examples of people being violated by the evil GW Bush and his spying regime.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<But the wackos on Fox lie, twist, and distort the news to their own liking.>> We are going to need a few examples if we are going to take you as serious Dean.
