quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Mr. Opus; So what is your suggestion? That we keep it "business as usual" when it comes to how we gather intel? Because it worked so well prior to 9-11?

That's an honestly good question that needs an honestly good and very simple answer:

Follow the law.

If I recall, the President did swear to follow the law, did he not?

When you have a President who believes he can seriously do this with a straight face:

quote:

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...ndreds_of_laws/

Well then I think it stands to reason we have a serious problem with the rationality of our President.

So I think first and foremost we need to have a President who follows the laws, and that means ALL laws, not just the ones he see fit. If, however, he does not agree with a given law passed forth by Congress, then he should take such matters with Congress to revise such laws as needed. But as the Boston.com article makes abundantly clear, this simply does not happen with Bush.

Second, we need oversight from our Lawmakers to ensure that our President actually follows the laws.

Neither the first or the second points are being addressed at this time.

I do believe that we can fight terrorism both here domestically and abroad by following the laws. It is a vital necessity for credibility both domestically and internationally. As stated previously, we become the slime we are trying to fight and destroy if we cannot follow our own moral high ground set forth by our values of democracy.

Also, I think we can do a much better job at strengthening our hand abroad in fighting terrorism. It's no secret that this Administration is absolutely diplomatically fucking clueless, and the shoot-from-the-hip bullshit does not wash with anyone including our closest allies as well as potential allies. This must be quelled and turned in a different direction.

So there's a few basic ideas to munch on.

quote:

They're not even listening in on calls yet when it comes to this issue. This is simply a matter of looking for suspicious call patterns. THEN they would act on that info.

I'm not arguing on whether or not they are listening pertaining to this specific data mining case. It's still highly legally and ethically suspect regardless as I've pointed out earlier.

quote:

By your own admission, you don't even know what you're worried about when it comes to this tool of the intel community, which to me, makes your argument pointless.

Perhaps you could point out where exactly I admitted this. I did mention that there are many unanswered questions regarding this program that have been stonewalled at every turn by this Administration, and combined with the questions of legality on this issue as well as other very similar issues regarding Bush and the NSA I would say I feel there's plenty already known to be worried about.

quote:

If the administrations argument is that they need it to fight terrorism (which is 100% completely believable) and you have no real argument at all to refute this claim, then it's kind of a no-brainer as to who I'm going to side with on this one.

Well it was pretty obvious from the getgo who's side you were on regardless of how many citations and refutations were given to you, so I guess it's a no brainer as to which side you were choosing no matter what.

quote:

I don't want to die for some collegiate, theoretical, liberal idealisms.

What does collegiate have to do with it?

What is theoretical about anything I've stated?

And "liberal idealisms"? You do realize there are a good healthy portion of Conservatives coming out on this, don't you?:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060511...ecords_quotes_1

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060511...hone_records_19

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/e...t_id=1002501664

quote:

This is a real world, war-time scenario we have here, and this wouldn't be the first time that peace-time philosophies were usurped during times of strife for the safety of the people as a whole in the long run.

Who the fuck said anything about peace-time philosophies?

BTW, have you seen Osama lately? Would it be okay if we were to actually fucking nail the bastard that attacked us, rather than invade other countries that have nothing to do with 9/11?

quote:

There are times that you just have to put your trust in your government. Who else are you going to put it in? Al Queda?

Well like I said, have you seen their leader lately? Seems to me that it would actually be nice to go after the guy who attacked us, rather than perform tedious phone sweeps that take up both a shitload of time, money, and manpower that go nowhere:

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002399.html

and

quote:

“F.B.I. field agents, who were not told of the domestic surveillance programs, complained that they often were given no information about why names or numbers had come under suspicion. A former senior prosecutor who was familiar with the eavesdropping programs said intelligence officials turning over the tips ‘would always say that we had information whose source we can’t share, but it indicates that this person has been communicating with a suspected Qaeda operative.’ He said, ‘I would always wonder, what does “suspected” mean?’ ‘The information was so thin,’ he said, ‘and the connections were so remote, that they never led to anything, and I never heard any follow-up.’” ...“In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month. […] ‘We’d chase a number, find it’s a schoolteacher with no indication they’ve ever been involved in international terrorism - case closed,’ said one former F.B.I. official, who was aware of the program and the data it generated for the bureau. ‘After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration.’” http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/p...agewanted=print

Trust is earned, not given. I'd be more than happy to trust this President if he actually earned a little bit of it. There's very little in his record that has demonstrated he is a trustworthy individual.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Trust is earned, not given. I'd be more than happy to trust this President if he actually earned a little bit of it. There's very little in his record that has demonstrated he is a trustworthy individual.

No different than any other president...there is always an air of secrecy.

___________________
Bring back 1994 NYC clubbing nights, cus the sh*t today is filled with junk parties and DJs that play sh*t House.....Zabiela, Sander, or Howells and all the rest suck and couldnt throw a night like it was in the early 90s in NYC!!!...Screw Twilo - give me Limelight circa 1993!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i guess you can call me a FDR apologist too. (that term is getting played btw) if any president did the same, i would defend it. same can't be said for you only because it would be your party's president and i think you would lack the moral courage to be so indignant if that were the case.

Ya know, it's interesting. If I recall correctly on the timeline of events pertaining to this NSA scandal, I believe the first Democratic president you Bush apologists went running to for comparison was Clinton.

Well that blew up in your face because it was demonstrated that although Clinton's actions on physical searches were ethically questionable, they were not illegal. So then you drew up Carter, which also blew up in your face because what he did was before the FISA courts were created in '79.

So now you reach back into your pocket for another Democratic president, FDR. I just want to make sure you haven't skipped other Dem. Presidents in that timeline, because just in case you were wondering, there are a few in between.

I will admit that I am not as big of a historian as Occ on those times around WWII, and I will concede any statements he makes in regards to FDR and civil liberties. One little thought does come to mind, however:

When was FISA created?

And with that thought, another thought comes up,

Why are we talking about past presidents and whether or not they violated any laws and liberties?

This is usually when your argument begins to crumble when you have to resort to the actions of others to justify the very suspicious actions of your dear leader.

quote:

it's a matter of ideology, not demagoguery. it seems demagoguery is the only thing you are good at. keep it up.

Straw man. This has nothing to do with either one. It has everything to do with breaking current FISA and telecommunications laws, those same laws that this President swore to uphold. What past presidents have or haven't done to uphold that swear is irrelevant to the argument at hand.

quote:

no stupid. what you fail to recognize, being a liberal, is that you and your lost party want us to "connect the dots, without us being able to collect the dots." to quote James Lileks. dangerously thinking that the dots will miraculously show themselves to us and say "hey! i'm right here."

Tell ya what, champ, when you actually address the specific points I made previously, then I think we'll actually be holding a worthwhile conversation. I just pointed out to you specific laws that were broken by both this Administration and the phone companies for their complicit actions. You jumped right over those points as if they didn't exist.

Do us all a favor and address the points given to you, rather than tango your way out with ad hominems.

quote:

oh please i've told you before. let the the big boys handle the big jobs.

Well when I see "big boys" actually handling the jobs given to them, believe me sweetie, you'll be the first to know.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 No different than any other president...there is always an air of secrecy.

The air of secrecy with this President goes way beyond any other that I've ever seen or known, and much of it does not even tie to terrorism as they would love to claim.

And that is what worries me greatly.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 The air of secrecy with this President goes way beyond any other that I've ever seen or known, and much of it does not even tie to terrorism as they would love to claim. And that is what worries me greatly.

What about Clinton? And his ties to Mena? That didnt worry you? And just for kicks..lol...the Clinton death trail

All politicians are corrupt...each and everyone.

You know what i would absolutley love...and would even paypal you to do? Call Rush Limbaugh (since he is the only radio host who actually lets his callers talk unlike Oreilly and Hannity) and debate him on this and any other issue u have....

You can do it next Friday when he has open mic day, which is every Friday, and u can tlak about anything u like. I am so serious...i will record it and paypal you...cus no offense i know u can smoke me debating any day...but i would pay to listen to Rush kick your dick in the dirt...lol..no offense...i like ya Opus...but i would really pay to see that...and that offer goes to Occrider also...i will paypal either one of you $50....have the balls? Can u debate it without having the internet at your fingertips?

So lets see what u got.

___________________
Bring back 1994 NYC clubbing nights, cus the sh*t today is filled with junk parties and DJs that play sh*t House.....Zabiela, Sander, or Howells and all the rest suck and couldnt throw a night like it was in the early 90s in NYC!!!...Screw Twilo - give me Limelight circa 1993!!!

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 What about Clinton? And his ties to Mena? That didnt worry you? And just for kicks..lol...the Clinton death trail

Yeah, ol' Rich Scaife sure is a lovely chap funding those investigations, wasn't he?:

http://www.salon.com/news/1998/03/26news.html

Believe me, Clinton had numerous faults, and I don't doubt he was corrupt as you alluded to earlier just like most politicians, but what concerns me is the present here and now. Again, let's see if we can remain focused on the present rather than attempt to quell the shitstorm with comparisons to the past.

If you wish to discuss Clinton's involvements with the NSA and wiretapping, then it would be more pertinent.

quote:

You know what i would absolutley love...and would even paypal you to do? Call Rush Limbaugh (since he is the only radio host who actually lets his callers talk unlike Oreilly and Hannity) and debate him on this and any other issue u have.... You can do it next Friday when he has open mic day, which is every Friday, and u can tlak about anything u like. I am so serious...i will record it and paypal you...cus no offense i know u can smoke me debating any day...but i would pay to listen to Rush kick your dick in the dirt...lol..no offense...i like ya Opus...but i would really pay to see that...and that offer goes to Occrider also...i will paypal either one of you $50....have the balls? Can u debate it without having the internet at your fingertips?

I have about as much desire to debate pill-popping Limbaugh on his radio show as I do catching cancer. I really do try to spend more time away from the AM dial as much as possible given that it is entirely dominated by Right Wing blowhards that control all the decks and time control on their own turf.

If, perhaps, Limbaugh would be willing to debate me in a neutral venue somewhere with a neutral crowd at hand, then I might be interested. Would that suffice to you and him?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 If, perhaps, Limbaugh would be willing to debate me in a neutral venue somewhere with a neutral crowd at hand, then I might be interested. Would that suffice to you and him?

We both know that wont happen...calling his show is the best that can be done.

Shall i up the price?

Come on - u guys can school me and every other right winger...lets see u school the master.

___________________
Bring back 1994 NYC clubbing nights, cus the sh*t today is filled with junk parties and DJs that play sh*t House.....Zabiela, Sander, or Howells and all the rest suck and couldnt throw a night like it was in the early 90s in NYC!!!...Screw Twilo - give me Limelight circa 1993!!!

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 What about Clinton? And his ties to Mena? That didnt worry you? And just for kicks..lol...the Clinton death trail All politicians are corrupt...each and everyone.

The fact that many (there's no way I'm saying all) politicians are corrupt isn't an excuse for the sort of corruption and law-breaking we've been hearing about lately. As for Clinton, you do realize that a lot of us aren't as old as you are and we in junior high or high school when half of this was going on. The 2000 election was the 1st presidential one I could vote in. What concerns me isn't what happened in the past and how corrupt people were then, but what is happening NOW, in the time when I am an adult and more affected by their policies than when I was a child.

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 You know what i would absolutley love...and would even paypal you to do? Call Rush Limbaugh (since he is the only radio host who actually lets his callers talk unlike Oreilly and Hannity) and debate him on this and any other issue u have.... You can do it next Friday when he has open mic day, which is every Friday, and u can tlak about anything u like. I am so serious...i will record it and paypal you...cus no offense i know u can smoke me debating any day...but i would pay to listen to Rush kick your dick in the dirt...lol..no offense...i like ya Opus...but i would really pay to see that...and that offer goes to Occrider also...i will paypal either one of you $50....have the balls? Can u debate it without having the internet at your fingertips? So lets see what u got.

Are you sure he won't be too high on oxycontin to debate. Oh wait, I forgot, he's was a pro at functioning on it, but I hear he's kicked the habit now.

Yeah, I know, that was a cheap shot, but I couldn't resist

EDIT: Guess I should have continued past tiesto14, as Opus1 seemed to hit much of the same info.

___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I'm civil to those who extend me the same courtesy. When you first came here I gave you the benefit of the doubt, however, it quickly became quite clear, after a few arguments, that you were perfectly willing to stoop to ad hominems and the like. As such, I didn't see the need to extend you any such courtesy. So pardon my surprise that you're offended by our current situation. However, I shall refrain from ad hominems in future posts so long as it's mutual. As for not responding to my arguments, well that's your perogative.

Please go back and show me where I've used a personal attack or profane word against you...please?

I don't use name calling or profanity unless it comes at me first.

@Raisin "getting my arse handed to me". Why don't you butt out until I call for your comic relief, ok?

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco By your own admission, you don't even know what you're worried about when it comes to this tool of the intel community, which to me, makes your argument pointless.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Perhaps you could point out where exactly I admitted this. I did mention that there are many unanswered questions regarding this program that have been stonewalled at every turn by this Administration, and combined with the questions of legality on this issue as well as other very similar issues regarding Bush and the NSA I would say I feel there's plenty already known to be worried about.

DUDE! You're changing your posts! You said it a couple of times! I read it back on like page two! I'm quite sure of it.

LOL! That's as funny as it is pathetic.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 The slightest possibility of civil liberties being compromised sets off more civil libertarians than I can count, and you certainly do not demonstrate such behavior as of yet.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN donny donny donny *shakes head* do you listen to yourself sometimes? here you are, once again bashing so-called \"liberal\" idealisms; do you really know anything about libertarian thought at all? theyre much closer than you seem to think!

So let me pose my all-time favorite question to all you supposed defenders of civil liberties, fearful of your government trying to control you;

I know for a fact that most of you liberals don't believe in the right to own assault weapons, or guns of any kind for that matter (the 2nd Am., the right to bear arms).

Yet here you are, all worried about your government abusing you, and yet you are also the first to take away your right to defend yourself from such apocolyptic scenarios, as you are anti-2nd Am.

How do you justify this?

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco So let me pose my all-time favorite question to all you supposed defenders of civil liberties, fearful of your government trying to control you; I know for a fact that most of you liberals don't believe in the right to own assault weapons, or guns of any kind for that matter (the 2nd Am., the right to bear arms). Yet here you are, all worried about your government abusing you, and yet you are also the first to take away your right to defend yourself from such apocolyptic scenarios, as you are anti-2nd Am. How do you justify this?

firstly, as an australian i dont have any rights under your constitution (and, lets face it, your constitution isnt as all-encompassing and protecting as people once thought; check the last 5 pages.)

you and i have had this argument before mate. at the end of the day i believe its a pretty silly argument, because you just have to ask the branch davidians how their right to bear assault rifles went in protecting themselves and their property from your government.

the thought that any group could withstand the special forces in any western democracy is quite simply ridiculous. my argument re the right to bear arms is that the writers of the constituion couldnt have envisaged the technological improvements until the end of time, and that today's weaponry shouldnt be in the hands of your average joe.

if we chalked up the amount of homicides related to citizen versus citizen when compared to citizen versus oppressive government, what exactly does it show eh? if the 2nd amendment isnt protecting a citizen from the actions of its government, and is merely allowing a flood of firearms to exist, i see it as completely counter productive.

now, america is too well fvcked now to ever disarm its populace, but im much happier living in a country where gun-related murders are quite low.

___________________