The March on washington crowd est.

[Liability]

Yeah, I remember all these teabaggers bitching about Bush's spending run amok. Or how warrentless wiretaps were a threat to liberty. O wait... no, that never happened.

There are no warrantless wiretaps.

And lots of peole expressed opposition to President Bush's profligate spending.

Ok, so where are all of the warrants then?

Warrants for what?

 

[eagleseven]

Years

Yeah, I remember all these teabaggers bitching about Bush's spending run amok. Or how warrentless wiretaps were a threat to liberty. O wait... no, that never happened.

Actually it did, among the libertarians. There has been a tea party movement for years. But much smaller without the GOP taking it over, and unless you are in touch with what the Libs are doing you wouldn't have heard about it.

Indeed. Nobody really cared to listen to us, until now.

 

[Liability]

Yeah, I remember all these teabaggers bitching about Bush's spending run amok. Or how warrentless wiretaps were a threat to liberty. O wait... no, that never happened.

There are no warrantless wiretaps.

And lots of peole expressed opposition to President Bush's profligate spending.

If there weren't warrantless wiretaps, why did the Bush administration argue they had the legal authority to conduct them and telecommunication companies were given immunity from civil judgments for aiding with them?

That is not the topic of the Bush Administration's arguments, as you know.

And what was sought, in terms of some immunity for telecommunication companies, was immunity for complying with certain requests for information about calling RECORDS.

Like many libs, you speak with grandiose imprecision on this topic.

 

[Polk]

There are no warrantless wiretaps.

And lots of peole expressed opposition to President Bush's profligate spending.

If there weren't warrantless wiretaps, why did the Bush administration argue they had the legal authority to conduct them and telecommunication companies were given immunity from civil judgments for aiding with them?

That is not the topic of the Bush Administration's arguments, as you know.

And what was sought, in terms of some immunity for telecommunication companies, was immunity for complying with certain requests for information about calling RECORDS.

Like many libs, you speak with grandiose imprecision on this topic.

Sorry, the irony meter is pinging out.

 

[Si modo]

Years

Yeah, I remember all these teabaggers bitching about Bush's spending run amok. Or how warrentless wiretaps were a threat to liberty. O wait... no, that never happened.

Actually it did, among the libertarians. There has been a tea party movement for years. But much smaller without the GOP taking it over, and unless you are in touch with what the Libs are doing you wouldn't have heard about it.

Excellent point! Although, I look at it with a bit of a different angle. The GOP lost its way whenever they allowed the RR to take it over. There is a huge voice within the GOP that are Goldwater Republicans. Our voice just hasn't been heard for eight years. Now it's our time to take the GOP back. And we are.

 

[eagleseven]

Yeah, I remember all these teabaggers bitching about Bush's spending run amok. Or how warrentless wiretaps were a threat to liberty. O wait... no, that never happened.

Actually it did, among the libertarians. There has been a tea party movement for years. But much smaller without the GOP taking it over, and unless you are in touch with what the Libs are doing you wouldn't have heard about it.

Excellent point! Although, I look at it with a bit of a different angle. The GOP lost its way whenever they allowed the RR to take it over. There is a huge voice within the GOP that are Goldwater Republicans. Our voice just hasn't been heard for eight years. Now it's our time to take the GOP back. And we are.

In other words, Compassionate Conservatism is dead, bitches!

 

[Liability]

If there weren't warrantless wiretaps, why did the Bush administration argue they had the legal authority to conduct them and telecommunication companies were given immunity from civil judgments for aiding with them?

That is not the topic of the Bush Administration's arguments, as you know.

And what was sought, in terms of some immunity for telecommunication companies, was immunity for complying with certain requests for information about calling RECORDS.

Like many libs, you speak with grandiose imprecision on this topic.

Sorry, the irony meter is pinging out.

No it's not. That's the alarm you hear when your bullshit is getting called-out.

Change the batteries in your hearing aid.

 

[Si modo]

Actually it did, among the libertarians. There has been a tea party movement for years. But much smaller without the GOP taking it over, and unless you are in touch with what the Libs are doing you wouldn't have heard about it.

Excellent point! Although, I look at it with a bit of a different angle. The GOP lost its way whenever they allowed the RR to take it over. There is a huge voice within the GOP that are Goldwater Republicans. Our voice just hasn't been heard for eight years. Now it's our time to take the GOP back. And we are.

In other words, Compassionate Conservatism is dead, bitches!

Political conservatism is most compassionate. We like rights and individual choice.

 

[Polk]

That is not the topic of the Bush Administration's arguments, as you know.

And what was sought, in terms of some immunity for telecommunication companies, was immunity for complying with certain requests for information about calling RECORDS.

Like many libs, you speak with grandiose imprecision on this topic.

Sorry, the irony meter is pinging out.

No it's not. That's the alarm you hear when your bullshit is getting called-out.

Change the batteries in your hearing aid.

That was the topic of the Bush administration's arguments. The fact that you're too ignorant to understand that isn't my problem.

 

[Liability]

Sorry, the irony meter is pinging out.

No it's not. That's the alarm you hear when your bullshit is getting called-out.

Change the batteries in your hearing aid.

That was the topic of the Bush administration's arguments. The fact that you're too ignorant to understand that isn't my problem.

The fact that you repeat your misinformation (or disinformation) is of no importance, really.

The Bush Adminsitration DID go into court to "defend" the surveillance program, but dopes like you insist (probably by design) to mistakenly refer to it as the "warrantless wiretap [sic] program."

You were wrong at the time.

You still are.

The ignorance is all yours -- or the deliberate distortions.

 

[Polk]

So preforming wiretaps without warrants isn't warrantless wiretapping. That's a pretty dumb argument, so it's not shocking that you'd make it.

 

[Sidestreamer]

2/3's of America could be there and nobody in the news would cover it except for Fox. Sad, huh?

my expectations are low because I think many are too busy, no money, or too far away to go. I hope it's a large turn out but I don't think so.

Even if it is the press won't say so.

...

I saw a image on CNN the crowd was pretty big.

Ha!

 

[Sidestreamer]

Years

Yeah, I remember all these teabaggers bitching about Bush's spending run amok. Or how warrentless wiretaps were a threat to liberty. O wait... no, that never happened.

Many of the teabaggers even defended Bush's spending. They ought to call these TEA parties what they really are: Republican rallies.

 

[Sidestreamer]

Years

Yeah, I remember all these teabaggers bitching about Bush's spending run amok. Or how warrentless wiretaps were a threat to liberty. O wait... no, that never happened.

Actually it did, among the libertarians. There has been a tea party movement for years. But much smaller without the GOP taking it over, and unless you are in touch with what the Libs are doing you wouldn't have heard about it.

Meh. Whatever they were then they were transformed when they were taken over. The only thing missing from these TEA rallies distinguishing them from Republican rallies are the anti-abortion demonstrators.

 

[Sidestreamer]

Years

Yeah, I remember all these teabaggers bitching about Bush's spending run amok. Or how warrentless wiretaps were a threat to liberty. O wait... no, that never happened.

There are no warrantless wiretaps.

And lots of peole expressed opposition to President Bush's profligate spending.

But where were these people marching to Washington right now?

 

[Liability]

So preforming wiretaps without warrants isn't warrantless wiretapping. That's a pretty dumb argument, so it's not shocking that you'd make it.

Do you need a wiretap to intercept a telephone communication between Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and one of his subordinates in -- pick a place --Somalia?

The correct answer of course is no.

So if you DO somehow place a tap on his phone, you could say that it's a warrantless wiretap by very trivial definition. but it would be a meaningless asssertion since warrants do not apply.

Now change it. In time of war, Osama in Afghanistan calls Mohammed Wannabe in Tonawanda, New York. Do you need a fucking warrant, smartass? The correct answer remains NO.

What if Mohammed Wannabe in Tonawanda, NY places along distance call to Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan during a time of war? Is a warrant needed? You might say yes, but up until very recently at least the ONLY correct legal answer would be an emphatic "NO!"

I'll even go a bit further. US Attorney GETS a warrant to wiretap Don Bugsy Mafioso in NYC. Don Bugsy Mafioso (from that NY wiretapped telephone) calls Don Luigi in Philly to discuss some mob criminal business. Don Luigi's part of the conversation is CLEARLY overheard SOLELY because of the lawfully obtained wiretap FOR ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL. Does the US Government have to tell Don Luigi in Philly that his conversation has been overheard? YOU might say "yes." But you'd be wrong.

But the PROGRAM the Bush Administration addressed was the Surveillance Program and the electronic gathering of information (for the most part) involved things OTHER THAN "wiretaps."

It doesn't surprise anybody who is familiar with you that you don't know any of these things.

It is now (as it has long been) your argument which is the dumb one. Dumb and quite ignorant.

 

[DavidS]

There are no warrantless wiretaps.

And lots of peole expressed opposition to President Bush's profligate spending.

Ok, so where are all of the warrants then?

Warrants for what?

All of the wiretaps done on U.S. citizens domestically here in the US.

 

[Liability]

Yeah, I remember all these teabaggers bitching about Bush's spending run amok. Or how warrentless wiretaps were a threat to liberty. O wait... no, that never happened.

There are no warrantless wiretaps.

And lots of peole expressed opposition to President Bush's profligate spending.

But where were these people marching to Washington right now?

What is the point of that so-called "question?"

Are you suggesting that unless folks march to Washington, they don't REALLY oppose profligate spending?

Do you simply negate the possibility that people are now sufficiently alarmed at the enormous tidal surge in such spending?

 

[DavidS]

So preforming wiretaps without warrants isn't warrantless wiretapping. That's a pretty dumb argument, so it's not shocking that you'd make it.

Do you need a wiretap to intercept a telephone communication between Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and one of his subordinates in -- pick a place --Somalia?

I had no idea that AT&T, Verizon, Bell South and Qwest operated in Somalia.

 

[Liability]

Ok, so where are all of the warrants then?

Warrants for what?

All of the wiretaps done on U.S. citizens domestically here in the US.

I realize you think you just made a point; but you didn't.

How many wiretaps have been done domestically here in the U.S.?

You have ANY figures? ANY facts? ANY sources?

(And do you care to differentiate between an actual wiretap and what lots of folks mistakenly refer to as a wiretap?)