9 replies to this topic

[FlyFish]

I seem to remember that when the Pubs passed the Patriot Act Democrats in the House and Senate squealed like little liberal pigs. THey said it was an abuse of power, they said it violated the Constitution, they had nothing but bad things to say about it.


So, yesterday they took the bull by the horns and showed the nation that now that they are in charge they have the strength of their convictions. They stood as a body and..................................extended it. It seems that the fear of being painted as soft on terrorism outweighs the sheer EVIL of the act itself.


Well done Dems, your motives are as sleezy as ever, but by sheer accident you have finally done something right.

[GGinSF]

FlyFish, on 25 February 2010 - 10:37 AM, said:

I seem to remember that when the Pubs passed the Patriot Act Democrats in the House and Senate squealed like little liberal pigs. THey said it was an abuse of power, they said it violated the Constitution, they had nothing but bad things to say about it.


So, yesterday they took the bull by the horns and showed the nation that now that they are in charge they have the strength of their convictions. They stood as a body and..................................extended it. It seems that the fear of being painted as soft on terrorism outweighs the sheer EVIL of the act itself.


Well done Dems, your motives are as sleezy as ever, but by sheer accident you have finally done something right.

I read that they voted to extend 3 provisions of the act, not the entire thing. One of those 3 provisions is the court-approved roving wire tap. Sadly, the prior administration chose to ignore the requirement of the secret court approval.

[Carl Spackler]

GGinSF, on 28 February 2010 - 10:46 AM, said:

I read that they voted to extend 3 provisions of the act, not the entire thing. One of those 3 provisions is the court-approved roving wire tap. Sadly, the prior administration chose to ignore the requirement of the secret court approval.

Cite please.

My understanding of the objections by the Dems way back when was they (the Dem) were ignoring the FACT that the roving wiretap had to be court approved. If you have a cite to a news article where your assertion that roving wiretaps were being used without prior court approval I would truly like to see the article.

IIRC, the Dems were also objecting, rightly so I might add, to an attempt to allow search warrant approval by the SACA of field office instead of a judge. That lame-brained idea was clearly unconstitutional.

[GGinSF]

There are many articles on the Al Haramain v. Bush case. Here's one: http://jolt.law.harv...undation-v-bush

Here's one that mention's Bush's own admission that they didn't seek FISA warrents: http://www.usatoday....8-nsa-70s_x.htm

Here FISA is asking the Bush administration for details about how and why they circumvented FISA warrents: http://www.washingto...5122102326.html

I'm not pleased that Obama's administration has continued the fight to get related lawsuits dismissed because of "security" reasons.

[GGinSF]

Here is part of the 12/19/05 transcript from Bush's year-end news conference Q&A:

QUESTION: Why did you skip the basic safeguards of asking courts for permission for the intercepts?

BUSH: First of all, right after September the 11th, I knew we were fighting a different kind of war. And so I asked people in my administration to analyze how best for me and our government to do the job people expect us to do, which is to detect and prevent a possible attack. That's what the American people want.

We looked at the possible scenarios. And the people responsible for helping us protect and defend came forth with the current program, because it enables us to move faster and quicker, and that's important. We've got to be fast on our feet, quick to detect and prevent.

We use FISA still. You're referring to the FISA accord in your question. Of course we use FISAs.

But FISAs is for long-term monitoring. What is needed in order to protect the American people is the ability to move quickly to detect.

And having suggested this idea, I then, obviously, went to the question, is it legal to do so? I swore to uphold the laws. Do I have the legal authority to do this? And the answer is, absolutely.

As I mentioned in my remarks, the legal authority is derived from the Constitution, as well as the authorization of force by the United States Congress.
----------------------------------------------

A lot of people have disagreed about the legality of that, even though he stated he had that authority. Also, the idea of FISA taking too long was BS. The FISA rules allow the survelance to start without the warrent, but gives a time period in which one must present the case to the court. Bush acted as if they would have to wait for the court to approve a tap before starting it, which wasn't the case.

[AmbassadorMark]

Do any of you really think there is more difference between the Pubs and Dems than there is common? If so, seek help, please. What they have in common is they are all selfish, Narcissistic, egotistical scumbags without a single fiber of moral standing. They can chant bullshit all they want but at the end of the day, every one of these motherfuckers is only interested in maintaining their position of power funded by the US Taxpayers. And we pay them to fuck us. Amazing. Our Forefathers, who wrote the Constitution, must all be puking in their graves.

[Prizetek]

AmbassadorMark, on 04 March 2010 - 04:01 PM, said:

Do any of you really think there is more difference between the Pubs and Dems than there is common? If so, seek help, please. What they have in common is they are all selfish, Narcissistic, egotistical scumbags without a single fiber of moral standing. They can chant bullshit all they want but at the end of the day, every one of these motherfuckers is only interested in maintaining their position of power funded by the US Taxpayers. And we pay them to fuck us. Amazing. Our Forefathers, who wrote the Constitution, must all be puking in their graves.

+1

[Max Power]

AmbassadorMark, on 04 March 2010 - 04:01 PM, said:

Do any of you really think there is more difference between the Pubs and Dems than there is common? If so, seek help, please. What they have in common is they are all selfish, Narcissistic, egotistical scumbags without a single fiber of moral standing. They can chant bullshit all they want but at the end of the day, every one of these motherfuckers is only interested in maintaining their position of power funded by the US Taxpayers. And we pay them to fuck us. Amazing. Our Forefathers, who wrote the Constitution, must all be puking in their graves.

Exactly.

And while it has recently been deemed unconstitutional, this is exactly why I am in favor of campaign finance reform. These people don't turn bad when they get to Washington, they have to be bad to get there. The favors they will have to curry for massive campaign contributions and publicity to get them there are EXACTLY what is wrong with DC.

I know it's a pipe dream to think any real reform will ever occur, but I will go to my fucking grave believing that it is a worthy pursuit.

[ChiTown_Huck]

+1 for both Mark and Max

[pk!]

AmbassadorMark, on 04 March 2010 - 04:01 PM, said:

Do any of you really think there is more difference between the Pubs and Dems than there is common? If so, seek help, please. What they have in common is they are all selfish, Narcissistic, egotistical scumbags without a single fiber of moral standing. They can chant bullshit all they want but at the end of the day, every one of these motherfuckers is only interested in maintaining their position of power funded by the US Taxpayers. And we pay them to fuck us. Amazing. Our Forefathers, who wrote the Constitution, must all be puking in their graves.

You're right about the two political parties, but it's really the corporations that are paying and lobbying politicians to legislate more regulations or lack thereof, to siphon more money from the taxpayers to the corporations. At this point, the only purpose of taxes is to ensure a minimum level of services for the workers to allow corporations to further maximize their profits. Politicians don't gain wealth from office through their benefits and salary, which is s pittance compared to what they get it in the form of campaign financing, various perks, rolodexes, and outright bribery.