Government spying

[t951]

He didnt dodge the draft, he just didnt show up for his shift.

The only thing he is trying to liberate is oil. Dont kid yourself.

He should focus on al-qaeda and osama, the rest is just for oil.

Where did you hear that he was smarter? He had his family get him into yale, where he was a c- student. (im sure those were gifts due to his family connections).


Anyway, I guess we cant really blame bush totally. He is a puppet for cheney, rumsfeld, exxon, chevron, etc. He is too dumb to make decisions. So there it is. I concede. Its not bush's fault. He is too dumb. Its his cabinet's fault.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by t951
He should focus on al-qaeda and osama, the rest is just for oil.

He is. Osama is not worldwide terrorism. He is a player. Where is al qaeda concentrated?

Where did you hear that he was smarter? He had his family get him into yale, where he was a c- student. (im sure those were gifts due to his family connections).

It doesn't get much coverage, but Bush's grades surpassed Gore's and Kerry's...It is not suprising that you did not know this. In fact you are emblematic of the information deficiency that the left chronically suffers from.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
It is not illegal "pure and simple."...The power Bush is wielding falls far short of those used by wartime Presidents of the past.

Also not relevant, most of the actions of presidents (typically you're probably thinking of America's great fascist Roosevelt) were illegal when practiced, and illegal now. Activities of past criminals do not excuse a person currently committing criminal acts, president of not.

Remember those wartime Presidents weren't dealing with a terrorist situation, they were dealing with defined enemies (save Lincoln)...The problem we have is liberals.

Garbage. There are many genuine conservatives or paleo-libertarians such as Thomas Fleming, Pat Buchanan, Lew Rockwell, Joseph Sobran and myself that have pointed out Bush's war crimes and other unconstitutional acts. Painting those of us that demand lawful government as other than what we are is the act of the scurrilous coward that can't defend these crimes.

All this money and monkey-dust that was thrown up in the air by the 9-11 Commission was apparently an effort in political drama. Sitting on the Commission was Jamie Goerlick who was in charge of hamstringing intelligence sharing. Now we have a plan and are implementing the plan, to cripple and capture terrorist, and now we demonize GW?

The 911 Commission was government investigating itself, that alone is enough to tar it with the stench of illegitimacy. You're playing the "your team - my team" game, which is childish nonsense. The fact is that it's government itself that's the problem, it matters not who the current criminal labels himself; either an R or a D.

The problem is liberals. If they were "loyal" , which they are not, and wouldn't stab Bush in the back with the knife of blame (if another attack occured as we preserved our towel-headed friends' civil rights) if another attack occured, then I would join this call to allowing terrorists to communicate with impugnity. That is not the case. The Democrats and their media friends would drag Bush through the streets and hang him from the Capitol with piano wire if that happened.

As it stands Bush has not abused his power. Bush hasn't entered within a mile of the powers previous wartime Presidents have exercised.

You are damned if you do, you are dead if you don't.

More childish nonsense. The government's colossal failure in preventing the 911 event is mind boggling. All the money spent by federal agencies provided nothing.

By the way, George W. Bush is not a conservative; he's a flaming liberal by any known standard.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by fastpat
Garbage. There are many genuine conservatives or paleo-libertarians such as Thomas Fleming, Pat Buchanan, Lew Rockwell, Joseph Sobran and myself that have pointed out Bush's war crimes and other unconstitutional acts. Painting those of us that demand lawful government as other than what we are is the act of the scurrilous coward that can't defend these crimes.

What crimes?...Defending the nation?...Killing terrorists?...Defying the one world order?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
Neither is true...Bush will go down as the greatest liberator of oppressed people since Ronald Reagan.

Neither man liberated anyone, in fact I don't know of a single president, alive or dead; that liberated anyone other than individuals from their lives and livelihoods.

Your high schoolish view of global politics is rather thin, young man.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by fastpat
The government's colossal failure in preventing the 911 event is mind boggling.

You had your way, so did Clinton. Wiretapping was minimalized and terrorists' rights were protected...Back to the drawing board it was. When you hear of an abuse case by a Republican, let me know...These extraordinary powers should NEVER be in the hands of a Ted Kennedy, a Nancy Pelosi, a Clinton or a Schmuckler...any Democrat for that matter.

The pre-9-11 failure was not dealing with Osama and terrorism more aggressively. Clinton dropped the ball. The media fed the nation a ***** sandwich gussied up to look like a gourmet meal. We opened the bun and found not only a big turd, but a ***** storm to boot....Unfortunately desparate times require desparate measures; Bush's have been much more sober (to our nationa security detriment) and limp-wristed than what would be most effective.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by fastpat
Neither man liberated anyone, in fact I don't know of a single president, alive or dead; that liberated anyone other than individuals from their lives and livelihoods.

Your high schoolish view of global politics is rather thin, young man.

What do you call it when a tyrant is unseated and the reign of terror of that tyrant has ended?...Liberation. Reagan did it in South America and the former Soviet Union. Bush did it in Afghanistan and Iraq.

You cite Patrick Buchanan and I am to take you seriously? Buchanan is an isolationist, in a time when isolationism is no longer a credible or tenable philosophy.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
You had your way, so did Clinton. Wiretapping was minimalized and terrorists' rights were protected...Back to the drawing board it was. When you hear of an abuse case by a Republican, let me know...These extraordinary powers should NEVER be in the hands of a Ted Kennedy, a Nancy Pelosi, a Clinton or a Schmuckler...any Democrat for that matter.

The above is gibberish.

The pre-9-11 failure was not dealing with Osama and terrorism more aggressively. Clinton dropped the ball. The media fed the nation a ***** sandwich gussied up to look like a gourmet meal. We opened the bun and found not only a big turd, but a ***** storm to boot....Unfortunately desparate times require desparate measures; Bush's have been much more sober (to our nationa security detriment) and limp-wristed than what would be most effective.

So, you'd favor a more serious president and actions than the current administration is perpetrating?

Must have sounded better in the original Russian, eh?

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
What crimes?...Defending the nation?...Killing terrorists?...Defying the one world order?

Answer the question Harding!

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by fastpat
Clinton was a war criminal and should have been impeached for abuse of power, but that's no longer relevant since he's not president now.

Bush is currently committing war crimes and abusing power, and should be impeached.

Whooo hooo!!!!

These fanatics don't get it.

Breaking the law is breaking the law is breaking the law. Doesn't matter if Clinton did it or Bush did it....and Clinton doing it doesn't justify Bush doing it.....

Breaking the law is breaking the law is breaking the law....... and people who condone breaking the law think criminally.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by fastpat
So, you'd favor a more serious president and actions than the current administration is perpetrating?

Must have sounded better in the original Russian, eh?

A simple coherent argument would suffice, English preferably.

you said:

The government's colossal failure in preventing the 911 event is mind boggling.

So, my John Birch Society devotee, what praytell should we have done, other than wire-tapping?...So far everything, according to you, Bush has done is either criminal or impeachable; what options were left?

Let me grab some popcorn (please leave out the unsubstantiated cliches and diversionary name-calling).

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by cool_chick
Breaking the law is breaking the law is breaking the law. Doesn't matter if Clinton did it or Bush did it....and Clinton doing it doesn't justify Bush doing it.....

No, but it puts the recent politicization of our national security into historical perspective. Clinton violated the law to save his ass. Bush didn't break the law yet still attempted to save yours.

This recent resurrected non-story is about 2006, undermining the war and driving Bush's poll numbers down...that is all it is about.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
No, but it puts the recent politicization of our national security into historical perspective. Clinton violated the law to save his ass. Bush didn't break the law yet still attempted to save yours.

This recent resurrected non-story is about 2006, undermining the war and driving Bush's poll numbers down...that is all it is about.

That's bull*****, your stupid "reasons." for each. Way clueless...like we'd expect less from you! You're proof of stupid is as stupid does......

You're a FOOL.

Illegal action is illegal action is BREAKING THE LAW


Mul, your morals SUCK! OMG I could never find a selfish way of thinking it's ok to break the law.....only in a neocon's mind can they think it's ok to break the law of the United States. And they call themselves "American?" What a JOKE.

Only a neocon would think breaking the law is "ok."

[t951]

cool_chick,

Its not wise to argue with idiots. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

They aren't getting it.

They think whatever bush does is ok, because he is a republican president.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by cool_chick
That's bull*****, your stupid "reasons." for each. Way clueless...like we'd expect less from you! You're proof of stupid is as stupid does......

You're a FOOL.

Illegal action is illegal action is BREAKING THE LAW


Mul, your morals SUCK! OMG I could never find a selfish way of thinking it's ok to break the law.....only in a neocon's mind can they think it's ok to break the law of the United States. And they call themselves "American?" What a JOKE.

Only a neocon would think breaking the law is "ok."

This is the law...""the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

What illegal action is illegal action is BREAKING THE LAW?

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by cool_chick
Mul, your morals SUCK! OMG I could never find a selfish way of thinking it's ok to break the law.....only in a neocon's mind can they think it's ok to break the law of the United States. And they call themselves "American?" What a JOKE.

Funny coming from a Clinton supporter.

[RoninLB]

mass-media should be regulated under martial law during war time.

[t951]

wow, we are getting eerily close to a regime like hitlers with suggestions like that...

[RoninLB]

The Joint Chiefs follow the Constitution not the NY Times or Wash Post.
That's enough to piss off every lib.

[fintstone]

Give it up Mul. This thread is hopeless. Every liberal talking point that has been brought up and proved false in the last year or so has been posted here. Are the new guys still passing around the same old talking points? I even saw a post that claimed that the President:
"Declared victory in a war that isn't close to being over"...Could that be the old lie about the President annoucing "Mission Accomplished?"...and...
"Is causing soldiers to die for oil." How silly? Not only have we not taken any oil...but if that were really the case...we would have taken it from Canada or Venuzuela instaed. They are both closer...and neither has a military. LOL