Originally Posted By TomSawyer If I could ask for something 20,000 times and only be turned down for it less than ten times, I don't think I'd consider that thing I'm asking for difficult to get.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I've been addressing the important issues all along through this thread, Joe. What O'Reilly says doesn't matter nearly as much as what the court and the prosecutor in this case have said. I still haven't seen any evidence that you've read or understood the court documents I linked to.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Tom I'm not sure what you mean as I've checked back and can't figure out which post you mean.??? I think you have been doing an excellent job here of addressing the topic and I think Bill's program has put pressure on the court and the prosecutor and that is why his program is so important. As said this morning by another poster, Bill has made many mistakes, but so has everyone and he is trying to change the laws to get the sexual deviants off the streets.
Originally Posted By bboisvert RE 181... They had the same problem with Judicial nominees. All but about 10 or so were just run through, but the Plantation owners wanted an up or down vote on all of them without debate.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Look how many times she uses the word "career" as an adjective.> I count twice, and both times she seems to be implying that they were therefore experienced on these matters.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<The problem is in the refusal to seek warrants that are so easily given by FISA. Why bypass that?> Because the warrants aren't so easily given by FISA. Here's an editorial that explains some of the problems by someone who has knowledge of them -> Quite apart from that slanted piece, the fact remains that FISA only turned down a handful of requests over more than 20 years, while granting many thousands. Under Bush it seems they turned down 3% while granting 97%. Still seems like an overwhelming percentage and if anything it makes me wonder, if they're so willing to grant them normally, what was different about those 3 percent they turned down? Were they not legitimate targets? Were they akin to the Quaker and "kiss-in" groups we know Bush has investigated that are obviously no danger to the country but simply oppose Bush policies? Is this why they want to bypass FISA entirely?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh The writer explained the problems with going to the FISA court. If you want to ignore them, go ahead. But spare us the liberal paranoia.
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 Dabob2 <The writer explained the problems with going to the FISA court. If you want to ignore them, go ahead. But spare us the liberal paranoia.> You're confusing "ignore" with "agree with." And it's not just "liberal paranoia." Plenty of Republicans (particularly of the libertarian stripe) are concerned with this. Bob Barr, for one, has specifically talked about not wanting a future Democratic president to have this sort of power. Even if Bush is a completely clean, angelic, non-partisan saint (cough), doesn't mean that all future presidents will be.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Even if Bush is a completely clean, angelic, non-partisan saint (cough),<< I need to go and barf now. Thanks. ;-)
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 DouglasDubh <You're confusing "ignore" with "agree with."> Well, you certainly didn't refute any of her points. <And it's not just "liberal paranoia."> Fine, liberal and libertarian paranoia.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<You're confusing "ignore" with "agree with.">> <Well, you certainly didn't refute any of her points.> That's too easy. She brought up one case she was involved with and projected it on to all others. That doesn't work logically. Particularly since the laws have changed since 2001 and the "wall" she talked about is no longer there. <<And it's not just "liberal paranoia.">> <Fine, liberal and libertarian paranoia.> Concern for privacy and what is constitutional is not paranoia. "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." - Jefferson "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. " - Franklin "Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction were our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." - Lincoln You know, all those liberal or libertarian paranoids.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <She brought up one case she was involved with and projected it on to all others.> She did more than that. "Ben Franklin understood the need for secrecy in matters of national security." <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110007823" target="_blank">http://www.opinionjournal.com/ columnists/pdupont/?id=110007823</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<She brought up one case she was involved with and projected it on to all others.>> <She did more than that.> Not really, of substance. <"Ben Franklin understood the need for secrecy in matters of national security." <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/" target="_blank">http://www.opinionjournal.com/</a> columnists/pdupont/?id=110007823> That talks about a committee Franklin was on in 1776. Before the constitution, and indeed before we had a president.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh She explained why FISA warrants don't work so well in the age of cell phones.
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 Dabob2 <She explained why FISA warrants don't work so well in the age of cell phones.> No she didn't. She mentions that we didn't have cell phones when FISA was written, but doesn't really elaborate. Nor is that surprising. Cell phones can often be listened to more easily than land lines (they are, essentially, radio transmissions), and they even store other people's numbers, for instance, if an agent is captured.
Originally Posted By woody "What a laugh. You posted the DOJ argument as though it was what the supreme court decided - as though you weren't even aware that it was talking points rather than an actual decision." How would you know what I was thinking? You don't. More nothingness from you. I posted a valid argument. And you reject it out of hand. WOW. You're so deep. Keep bothering. More nothingness from you.
