The March on washington crowd est.

[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?

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

Stupid deflections like that get you no points and cost you (if that's possible) even more credibility!

 

[DavidS]

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?)

Your question is irrelevant because we are not discussing wiretaps in general. We are discussing warantless wiretapping done by the Bush Admin. Please stay on topic.

Any wiretap that has been done is done with a warrant. It's the law and in order to get a warrant, one must prove that whoever is being wiretapped is involved in some kind of crime, i.e. probable cause. Remember that thing called the Fourth Amendment? You can't violate it... well you shouldn't be able to, but somehow Bush found a way to wiretap, without any warrants whatsoever.

This is my source.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?_r=1

As is this.

USATODAY.com - NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls

 

[DavidS]

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.

Stupid deflections like that get you no points and cost you (if that's possible) even more credibility!

Not a deflection at all. Please read the articles, sir.

NSA warrantless surveillance controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
NSA electronic surveillance program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On May 10, 2006, USA Today reported that the NSA has had a separate, previously undisclosed program in place since 9/11 to build a database of information about calls placed within the United States, including phone numbers, and the date and duration of the calls.[6] According to the article, phone companies AT&T, Verizon, and Bell South disclosed the records to the NSA, while Qwest did not. The article quotes an unnamed source that "it's the largest database ever assembled in the world."

You somehow seem to be discussing calls made out of Somolia to Osama himself. I had no idea that we could tap phone lines in foreign countries.

 

[Liability]

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

Stupid deflections like that get you no points and cost you (if that's possible) even more credibility!

Not a deflection at all. Please read the articles, sir.

NSA warrantless surveillance controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
NSA electronic surveillance program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On May 10, 2006, USA Today reported that the NSA has had a separate, previously undisclosed program in place since 9/11 to build a database of information about calls placed within the United States, including phone numbers, and the date and duration of the calls.[6] According to the article, phone companies AT&T, Verizon, and Bell South disclosed the records to the NSA, while Qwest did not. The article quotes an unnamed source that "it's the largest database ever assembled in the world."

You somehow seem to be discussing calls made out of Somolia to Osama himself. I had no idea that we could tap phone lines in foreign countries.

Absolutely a deflection.

I asked the questions about intercepting calls overseas as a point of reference only. If we can, for example, do whatever the fuck we like in terms of violating any hint of any claim of a right to privacy harbored by Osama in his fucking sick perverse mind, the question becomes WHY can we do that. The answer is because the ratfucker HAS no Constitutional rights and we are at war.

We thus have one base line parameter for the discussion -- and the rationale in support of it -- covered. We can then proceed to the next point. That we don't have AT&T over there is irrelvant to the point being made. Pure deflection.

Furthermore, obrtaining records ABOUT CALLS MADE is NOt at all the same thing as a warrantless wiretap. You have your wires crossed. Like Polk. You two just cannot keep the clearly segregable things properly separated.

The phone companies keep those records for billing purposes (and other business purposes) themselves, anyway. The debate about getting them for governmental use in trying to fight a war against the Islamofilth who performed atrocities like those of 9/11/2001 is subject to some debate, but that debate is NOT AT ALL ABOUT any alleged warantless wiretapping.

 

[Sidestreamer]

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?

What I'm suggesting is that the spending has gone on well before Obama and many of these protesters actually had no problem with Bush, and yes, I'm alleging selective outrage.

 

[Liability]

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?

What I'm suggesting is that the spending has gone on well before Obama and many of these protesters actually had no problem with Bush, and yes, I'm alleging selective outrage.

Yes, I know what you are suggesting. The implication is that it is not possible, in your estimation, that the outrage finally reached the boiling point since President Obama has so rapidly and massively increased the spending and the debt problem in so short a time while proposing so much more so fast?

If people were beginning to get alarmed at the spending and the debt problem during the Bush Administration, then why would it not make sense, now, for them to have finally BECOME formally and officially and deeply alarmed given all that has been happening in the relatively brief tenure of President Obama in the White House?

 

[Fatality]

Years

Yeah, I remember all these teabaggers bitching about Bush's spending run amok. Or how warrentless wiretaps were a threat to liberty.

yeah, i remeber it too, in fact they were quite vocal about it

 

[DiveCon]

people, before you start claiming "wiretaps" you really should get up on technology
wiretaps havent happened in DECADES
and if you want to find out what does happen, look up project echelon

 

[Sidestreamer]

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?

What I'm suggesting is that the spending has gone on well before Obama and many of these protesters actually had no problem with Bush, and yes, I'm alleging selective outrage.

Yes, I know what you are suggesting. The implication is that it is not possible, in your estimation, that the outrage finally reached the boiling point since President Obama has so rapidly and massively increased the spending and the debt problem in so short a time while proposing so much more so fast?

Not so much that as much as WHAT it's being spent on. Not all conservatives, but I have ran into many of them that had no gripes about Bush's spending at all. In fact, they defended it because it included tax cuts. I think some of the protester are upset because the money's going to what they think amounts as handouts and welfare instead of, perhaps, the war effort or some other cause.

If people were beginning to get alarmed at the spending and the debt problem during the Bush Administration, then why would it not make sense, now, for them to have finally BECOME formally and officially and deeply alarmed given all that has been happening in the relatively brief tenure of President Obama in the White House?

Because I suspect the motives of the outrage and given the GOP has tried to co-opt the movement with some degree of success, I just think it's about more than just excess spending and taxation by the government.

 

[ncarolinadixie]

"What I'm suggesting is that the spending has gone on well before Obama and many of these protesters actually had no problem with Bush, and yes, I'm alleging selective outrage."

YES, there were protestors and they were just as vocal. The thing is, no one cared that people were protesting the spending during the Bush era because it was Bush. Now that it's the chosen one, if you show any form of dissent at all at the fact that spending has increased more in less than a year than any other President in history it can only mean one thing, you're a racist!

Think Code Pink. They protested daily, yet the left never turned their cause into snidely veiled "sexual" innuendos like they have the "tea parties".

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Tea Parties are irrelevant. They will not influence the outcome of reform legislation in the slightest. They are fun to watch, they give the opportunity to watch the zoo display.

What's a giggle is the teasters think they are serious. They are going to find out what serious truly can be when BHO stops smiling and tells his folks in Congress, "Pull the trigger".

 

[WillowTree]

then you have no worries whatsoever. none!

 

[Lycurgus]

The Tea Parties are irrelevant. They will not influence the outcome of reform legislation in the slightest. They are fun to watch, they give the opportunity to watch the zoo display.

What's a giggle is the teasters think they are serious. They are going to find out what serious truly can be when BHO stops smiling and tells his folks in Congress, "Pull the trigger".

You know, your right!

However, enjoy it now, as BHO is only slowly killing any future reasonable expectations of the Democratic party.

The truth is held in the less often published numbers of the nations core value system and BHO is increasingly walking all over that and his far left Wako's are simply adding fuel to his fire.

So rejoice now, but remember, the damage will be overturned and changed in time and all of the bravado of today will not prevent the suffering of Joe and Jane America in the long run!

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

The Tea Parties are irrelevant. They will not influence the outcome of reform legislation in the slightest. They are fun to watch, they give the opportunity to watch the zoo display.

What's a giggle is the teasters think they are serious. They are going to find out what serious truly can be when BHO stops smiling and tells his folks in Congress, "Pull the trigger".

What trigger is that ?

 

[Ame®icano]

A sea of protesters filled the west lawn of the Capitol and spilled onto the National Mall on Saturday in the largest rally against President Obama since he took office, a culmination of a summer-long season of protests that began with opposition to a health care overhaul and grew into a broader dissatisfaction with government.

Thousands Rally in Capital to Protest Big Government - NY Times.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Tea Parties are irrelevant. They will not influence the outcome of reform legislation in the slightest. They are fun to watch, they give the opportunity to watch the zoo display.

What's a giggle is the teasters think they are serious. They are going to find out what serious truly can be when BHO stops smiling and tells his folks in Congress, "Pull the trigger".

What trigger is that ?

The final roll call votes that will result in overwhelming margins for health care reform and overwhelming public approval.

The red-faced, whining, hating, pouting minority are just that: the minority. You have a say but no power in this matter.

 

[Ame®icano]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwoCJjH4gwQ]YouTube - Timelapse: 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 Tea Party Protesters Washington, D.C. (8:00-11:30)[/ame]

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

THOSE words could ONLY be spoken by a die hard STATIST...

 

[goldcatt]

What I'm suggesting is that the spending has gone on well before Obama and many of these protesters actually had no problem with Bush, and yes, I'm alleging selective outrage.

Yes, I know what you are suggesting. The implication is that it is not possible, in your estimation, that the outrage finally reached the boiling point since President Obama has so rapidly and massively increased the spending and the debt problem in so short a time while proposing so much more so fast?

Not so much that as much as WHAT it's being spent on. Not all conservatives, but I have ran into many of them that had no gripes about Bush's spending at all. In fact, they defended it because it included tax cuts. I think some of the protester are upset because the money's going to what they think amounts as handouts and welfare instead of, perhaps, the war effort or some other cause.

If people were beginning to get alarmed at the spending and the debt problem during the Bush Administration, then why would it not make sense, now, for them to have finally BECOME formally and officially and deeply alarmed given all that has been happening in the relatively brief tenure of President Obama in the White House?

Because I suspect the motives of the outrage and given the GOP has tried to co-opt the movement with some degree of success, I just think it's about more than just excess spending and taxation by the government.

Some of them, yes. No group that large is monolithic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The hard core national values are not found in the activist far-right wingnut agendaists here or at DC.

They are found in the those folks who realized that George and Dick and others took them on a pie-in-the-sky ride for the better part of decade. They support this legislation, it will pass, and the far right wing of the GOP will rise up electorally next fall only to be smashed.

In other words, this debate is over in terms of the future. That is set with health care fulfilled and untouchable, and with the demise of the far-right stoopidcons guaranteed.

They can pout and whine and shout and hate, but they will not avoid their terrible fate.