Guess Who Wants The NSA Spying To Continue

[dilloduck]

Silly boy! The subtleties simply escape you. Let me spell it out for you. Stupid, misguided policies create more terrorists...More terrorists justify a perpetual 'war on terror'...Perpetual 'war on terror' is used to justify and increasingly imperious presidency...An imperial president is a law unto himself, and is answerable to no one. All rights are gift of the leader, not the inalienable rights as laid out in the Declaration of Independence.

SO, you just put on your rose-colored glasses, take your meds and lay your head back to think happy thoughts. Don't worry about the facts, you'll only get confused.

I thought that those who published cartoons created more terrorists----rag on them for awhile.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Remember why Nixon was forced out? He didn't have a warrant to search the DNC at Watergate! It is NOT ok.

Anyway...

As Ben Franklin said, "Those that trade liberty for security deserve neither"

Ah yes, the pet quote among Liberals for several weeks now. I think the thing that bothers me the most about it is nobody EVER gets it right. the quote is: "Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty or security."

There could be a debate over what an essential liberty is, but I think even old Ben would agree that things like communicating with terrorists would not fall under an essential liberty. Plus, I don't think anybody is saying anything about temporary security. The goal is to make it permanent.

Finally, I hate to burst your bubble.... Ok, that's not true. I'll actually like bursting your bubble. Point is, that quote is not from Franklin to begin with. It's a quote that was used on the cover of "An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania", which was orginally published by Franklin, however the quote is not his. The quote was excerpted from a letter from the Assembly to the Governor of Pennsylvania in 1755.

Thank you for your support,
:sausage:

 

[MtnBiker]

Yeah, I already pointed that out to him twice. He as yet to respond to the fact.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Yeah, I already pointed that out to him twice. He as yet to respond to the fact.

And he probably won't. It's a shame I don't live in Pennsylvania. I'd like the opprotunity to officially not vote for him.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Conley, you try so hard, but are still unconvincing. NONE of our rights are designed to protect overseas terrorists. The confounding fact that half of the conversation may be domestic is not something we should pretzelize ourselves over. Why are you libs so against winning the war on terror? We know you don't REALLY care about rights. Or are you so mentally vacant that you just go against Bush regardless of any deeper sense or reasoning?

Oh rightwing, you've done it again. Your post doesn't relate to mine at all.

Where did you get the idea I want to protect the rights of overseas terrorists?

When on Earth have I said I want to lose the War of Terror?

How can you call me a liberal when you don't even know what my views are?

What I'm talking about is warrents, and whether domestic spy programs should be required to obtain them, not whether I want to lose a war or what I would do with a terrorist. Please, if your going to address my position, make sure its my position you are assaulting. If you want, I'll help you and GunnyL right now. Here is my position.

I believe that any US domestic spying program should be required to obtain a warrent before wiretapping the conversation of a US citizen. This has been US policy for over two decades and is easily maintained through the FISA court. If there is an urgent need and immediant action is required, then the warrent can be obtained within the next 72 hours, just like the law says now. I don't feel that getting the warrent is an unnessicary procedure because it checks the executive and because it allows independent oversight of a program that could easily go beyond its established purpose.

I hope this helps you

 

[Bonnie]

They do hypocrisy better than anyone. The more one-sided it is the better.

They do it shamelessly without any apology!!

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Oh rightwing, you've done it again. Your post doesn't relate to mine at all.

Where did you get the idea I want to protect the rights of overseas terrorists?

When on Earth have I said I want to lose the War of Terror?

How can you call me a liberal when you don't even know what my views are?

What I'm talking about is warrents, and whether domestic spy programs should be required to obtain them, not whether I want to lose a war or what I would do with a terrorist. Please, if your going to address my position, make sure its my position you are assaulting. If you want, I'll help you and GunnyL right now. Here is my position.

I believe that any US domestic spying program should be required to obtain a warrent before wiretapping the conversation of a US citizen. This has been US policy for over two decades and is easily maintained through the FISA court. If there is an urgent need and immediant action is required, then the warrent can be obtained within the next 72 hours, just like the law says now. I don't feel that getting the warrent is an unnessicary procedure because it checks the executive and because it allows independent oversight of a program that could easily go beyond its established purpose.

I hope this helps you

I find it quite amusing this is even an issue. And the reason why is, other than the war, which the left has already drained to its limit, they really dont have anything to attack Bush on. And make no mistake about it, attack is all they can do. They are void of ideas, and falling back on the old socialist ideas of the 60's aint cutting it anymore.
Remember when Kerry was running against Bush, and he and other lefties were screaming about how Bush's tax cuts were gonna be devastating to the economy, along with his other economic policies. Kerry tried bashing the economy as it was going and where it was headed. ONLY PROBLEM IS HE WAS DEAD WRONG. The economy is going quite strong and they cant attack Bush on that, the war is old and worn as an issue, so they must now sniff out this petty crap for the dogs.

 

[Mr.Conley]

A possible violations of the Constitution is "petty crap for the dogs?"

 

[LuvRPgrl]

A possible violations of the Constitution is "petty crap for the dogs?"

You mean that worthless piece of paper the Democrats have been crapping all over the last 60 years? Funny how "strictly" they want to read it in cases like this, but when the supreme court is "making" law, suddenly its a living and breathing document. Well, if it lives and breathes and changes with the times, then these times more than any call for the use of eavesdropping, unrestricted on phone calls.

Hmmm, yea, phones, that little thing that hadnt been invented yet when the COTUS was written, PRECISELY the type of issue the high court IS SUPPOSE TO CREATE LAW on, not abortion, death penalty, etc etc, which were all issues at hand when it was written, unlike phone tapping, which the founding fathers could not have addressed.
As usual, the liberal concepts have it backwards.