Third state jumps on the impeachment bandwagon. And this might stick!

[Rodeo]

I fixed your assertion.

Nothing in the Constitution forbidding the government from secretly listening in on our international phone calls without obtaining a warrant.

Comfortable with it? I'm not

[914GT]

I'm comfortable with it. They've been doing it for years, long before Bush II. I couldn't care less if they listened in on an international call, I have nothing to hide. They have a legal right to open my mail in and out of the country too. Small price to pay for the added security of living in this country without worrying about a bomb going off somewhere. I'm more concerned with other people, not the government, intercepting my personal calls and mail to rip me off.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by Rodeo
[B]Yea, we all know it's a "hard left" position to not want to be spied on by your own government in violation of the Constitution.

I actually wasn't even talking about anything to do with wiretaps, although these days the wiretap issue is like a Tourette's tic with you...you might yell out "Warrantless Wiretaps!!" at any moment.

I was more referring to her near 100% agreement with the ACLU in her votes over the last 4 years.

[DaveE]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
I actually wasn't even talking about anything to do with wiretaps, although these days the wiretap issue is like a Tourette's tic with you...you might yell out "Warrantless Wiretaps!!" at any moment.

I was more referring to her near 100% agreement with the ACLU in her votes over the last 4 years.

I looked at Project Vote Smart and didn't see a reference to ACLU anywhere. What am I missing?

[Nathans_Dad]

Whoops. I meant AFL-CIO. sorry bout that.

also was against the NRA almost 100% of the time, endorsed by NOW several times, etc etc etc...

[Tim Hancock]

Originally posted by 914GT
I'm comfortable with it. They've been doing it for years, long before Bush II. I couldn't care less if they listened in on an international call, I have nothing to hide. They have a legal right to open my mail in and out of the country too. Small price to pay for the added security of living in this country without worrying about a bomb going off somewhere. I'm more concerned with other people, not the government, intercepting my personal calls and mail to rip me off.

I am ok with it also, as I hate the terrorists more than I hate our govt.

Not to worry though Rodehard, at least the terrorists agree with you (come to think of it, they share quite few of your views... imagine that! ).

[DaveE]

Our founding fathers would be so proud of how easily we throw away the rights they fought for.

[Tim Hancock]

Originally posted by DaveE
Our founding fathers would be so proud of how easily we throw away the rights they fought for.

Our founding fathers would have done whatever it took to defeat an enemy who was determined to attack them.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by 914GT
I'm comfortable with it. They've been doing it for years, long before Bush II. I couldn't care less if they listened in on an international call, I have nothing to hide. They have a legal right to open my mail in and out of the country too. Small price to pay for the added security of living in this country without worrying about a bomb going off somewhere. I'm more concerned with other people, not the government, intercepting my personal calls and mail to rip me off.

When did "conservatism" get so upside down that it embraces government intrusion into our private lives? That it not only tolerates but welcomes secret monitoring of our communications with others?

Small price to pay? Our constitution is a small price to pay for safety? All I can say is WOW!

How about the government paying the "small price" and getting a warrant before doing all this? How about, let's not trust the government, let's have checks and balances?

This is how totalitarian states get off the ground I suppose. Peope get scared and give them too much power.

Are you really that scared that you will tear down the checks and balances that have served America for over 200 years? So they don't have to spend a few minutes getting a warrant?

[DaveE]

They were not so weak-minded as to trash a Constitution they had just written.

[EdT82SC]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759)

[EdT82SC]

I think Jeff hit the nail on the head. WTF are the libs thinking? President Cheney? Some no-load dip-dunk ***** for brains democrat spooged himself over the notoriety he'd gain by introducing an impeachment resolution.

[Rodeo]

The point is the force Congress to do its job as an independent branch of goverment, not act like the administration's lap dog. This forces Congress to start the process, and will throw some sunlight on the illegal activities of the White House. We will never get to President Cheney.

[dhoward]

Legion knows what he's talking about.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by DaveE
Our founding fathers would be so proud of how easily we throw away the rights they fought for.

True, and they allowed the enemy within (US citizens) the right to arm themselves against the government if needed.

[Tim Hancock]

Originally posted by Rodeo
When did "conservatism" get so upside down that it embraces government intrusion into our private lives? That it not only tolerates but welcomes secret monitoring of our communications with others?

Small price to pay? Our constitution is a small price to pay for safety? All I can say is WOW!

I am sorry, I do not have the constitution memorized or in front of me. Where in it does it say our govt cannot electronically listen to potential terrorist calls overseas? Oh and how exactly does it say to deal with mass deadly attacks on our soil by terrorist organizations? Does it say to just sit back and take it instead of trying to prevent it?

[DaveE]

Tim, It basically says get a warrant and that process is in place. The problem we have with not using a warrant is the government is unaccountable to anyone, can spy on ANYONE. This may be fine for you now. When Hillary is President do you want to leave her that option?

[speeder]

I'm not afraid of the "President Cheney" thing; by that time he'll probably be indicted for Plamegate or at the least his job approval ratings would be in the single digits and a gallon of gas will cost $8.00 to pay for his ancestors' golden parachutes 300 years from now. There would be the quietest, most bloodless revolution in history as the citizens escort him from the WH and into a waiting paddy wagon.

I honestly think that we would have been better off w/ no govt. at all then these last 6 years. They rode in on a fraudulent election, allowed the biggest terrorist attack in history to occur under their noses, started a war under false pretenses and looted the US treasury while making their friends a lot richer. All while convincing a percentage of voters, (at one time fairly large), that they were competent and looking out for the country's interests.

Murderous, thieving dictators in Africa and Latin America will have pictures of W and Cheney on their walls for generations as heros of an impossible ideal that they can never achieve as criminals.

[Tim Hancock]

I have nothing to hide from Hillary, if she were to overhear me plotting to kill thousands of people, then maybe.

Do all surveillance camera's require a federal warrant? What is the difference?

[kach22i]

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
were to overhear me plotting to kill thousands of people, then maybe.

Then you would be Dick Cheney planning to invade Iraq the first day of office.