Is anyone out there STILL a Republican?

[michaeledward]

Oh, and for those who are curious about the photos that don't seem to exist of Dear Leader, oops, I mean President Bush and Mr. Abramoff (did you know he pleaded guilty to several felonies?), they can be found here....

[SIZE=+1]http://server3.pictiger.com/ img/ 161731/ picture-hosting/ colage-2.php[/SIZE]

Although the President states he doesn't remember meeting Mr. Abramoff, they are both, apparently, the father of twins. That, one would think, would be a common ground item that would be easy to recall, even if you can't recall one raised over one hundred thousand dollars for your campaign.

 

[michaeledward]

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It came to light in December that President Bush had authorized wiretaps on United States citizens without the warrants called for in the Fourth Amendment. Further, the President did not seek an expansion of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Survaillence Act (FISA), that allows monitoring within the territorial United States.

Yesterday, the Senate Intelligence Committee, headed by Republican Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), has put off any investigation into this survaillance program. He stated that he may revisit the issue in March, but claims the Administration is being forthcoming.

The Republican controlled Senate has given a pass to the President on this apparent violation of the Fourth Amendment. They are turning our Constitutional Republic in to a Dictatorship.

 

[michaeledward]

Senate Majority Leader Frist has threatened to change the way the Senate Intelligence Committee is organized to prevent a review of the NSA warrantless spying program.

For President Bush ... one word ... "Nice!"

 

[michaeledward]

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The Associated Press today is reporting an significant increase in the number of private, sealed, and otherwise hidded trials being held in the United States Courts.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060305/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/secret_justice;_ylt=ArQ1UsyabAvP8XjzqR2H7vms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

WASHINGTON - Despite the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of public trials, nearly all records are being kept secret for more than 5,000 defendants who completed their journey through the federal courts over the last three years. Instances of such secrecy more than doubled from 2003 to 2005.

In some cases, records of a trial are not available.

For hundreds of such defendants over the past few years in this city, should someone acquire the actual case number for them and enter it in the U.S. District Court's computerized record system, the computer will falsely reply, "no such case" — rather than acknowledging that it is a sealed case.

In other cases, with the verdict sealed, cooperating witnesses get significantly reduced sentences ... all private.

"Cooperating witnesses are pleading guilty to six or seven murders, and the jury doesn't know they'll be sitting on the Metro (subway) next to them a year later. It's a really, really ugly system,"

With each passing day, the wisdom of that First Congressional Delegation seems more clear, and in more jeapardy.

 

[michaeledward]

In light of yesterday's publication that the NSA telephone spying program was much broader than originally described, that all the major telephony companies (except Qwest) received payment from the government for granting access and information to the NSA, and the President's rigorous defense of this program; a program that is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, does anyone want to take a stab at defending this authoritarian administration?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-11-nsa-reax_x.htm

Oh, yeah, and don't forget, the guy who originally put this warrantless spying on American citizen idea to paper, is now nominated for the directorship of the Central Intelligence Agency.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/12/hayden.ap/index.html

 

[Ray]

A database of phone numbers called by us in the hands of gov't? And the gov't claiming to be looking for people who are calling known terrorists? The phone company isn't protecting their customers? All good questions...and maybe cause for concern.

It kind of reminds me of electric company records being used to catch people who grow dope.

If I had a habit of calling known terrorists and you knew about it, would you be suspicious - would you call the authorites? Is phoning a terrorist a crime (I don't know if it is)? If it is, then phone companies have no legal obligation to protect their customers.

Heck, I'm still a Republican and not worried if the gov't knows who I'm calling.

 

[mrhnau]

Lets complain about the government monitoring financial transactions over 10k. We have been over this before michael...

so what exactly are they looking for michael... are they tracking phone calls between me and my wife? are they looking for me calling my mother? or repeat calls to suspect terrorists? repeats calls to baghdad or afghanistan terror training camps?

its simple... if they monitor anything, you are going to complain.

1) If they don't monitor and an attack happens, you are going to complain.
2) If they do monitor and an attack happens, you will complain that they are not doing enough to keep us safe.
3) If they do monitor and an attack does not happen, you are going to complain about privacy.
4) If they don't monitor and an attack does not happen, you will find something else to complain about

will this monitoring fix problems? I hope we never have to find out.

you are never going to be happy.

 

[shesulsa]

Okay, let's take a look at something here:

FBI gets realistic, fairly reliable information on people KNOWN to be faithful to Islam and have terrorist connections, have the tools to VERIFY that their visas have expired long ago and don't ... they look the other way.

Let's not look at viable suspiscious characters or enforce visa expirations, let's just spy on EVERYONE! Yeah! that's the ticket - because it's more expensive and we can blame it on the tax-and-spend Democrats!

I'll be happy when people do their job right instead of creating excuses to lean towards fascism and totalitarianism and call it patriotism of the democracy and faithfulness to the Republic.

 

[Shaolin Bushido]

heh, Colin Powell finally busted on the President and this administration for trotting him out there to be their fall guy leading up to the Iraq invasion since THEY HAD WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND ALL ... Condeleeza Rice's response was the political equivalent of baby talk. I guess that makes sense when you know he's telling the truth and he is cognizant enough in hindsight to call you on all your lies.

I knew he had to be sore about gettin used like that. He's a general, for God's sake! They're not used to taking ****! Now, if he were a non-comm ...

KEEP GIVING EM HELL, MICHAEL!!!

 

[michaeledward]

Lets complain about the government monitoring financial transactions over 10k. We have been over this before michael...

so what exactly are they looking for michael... are they tracking phone calls between me and my wife? are they looking for me calling my mother? or repeat calls to suspect terrorists? repeats calls to baghdad or afghanistan terror training camps?

its simple... if they monitor anything, you are going to complain.

1) If they don't monitor and an attack happens, you are going to complain.
2) If they do monitor and an attack happens, you will complain that they are not doing enough to keep us safe.
3) If they do monitor and an attack does not happen, you are going to complain about privacy.
4) If they don't monitor and an attack does not happen, you will find something else to complain about

will this monitoring fix problems? I hope we never have to find out.

you are never going to be happy.

That you presupose to know what action I will or will not take in the event of some unknown future action that may or may not happen speaks volumes about your prejudices; but says very little (or nothing) about me.

But, I'm glad to see that you so carelessly disregard the Constitution.

Negative props to you for unsubstantiated assertions of the actions of others.

 

[michaeledward]

KEEP GIVING EM HELL, MICHAEL!!!

I'm not trying to give anyone hell. Watching the country be destroyed from within offends me. I keep bumping this thread (and others), hopefully to inspire others to think.

 

[Jeff Boler]

I keep bumping this thread (and others), hopefully to inspire others to think.

Do you think that's what your efforts are doing? All it does is convince more people just how wacky the left can be..

 

[mrhnau]

That you presupose to know what action I will or will not take in the event of some unknown future action that may or may not happen speaks volumes about your prejudices; but says very little (or nothing) about me.

But, I'm glad to see that you so carelessly disregard the Constitution.

Negative props to you for unsubstantiated assertions of the actions of others.

My wife has these cool sunglasses. Pleasant shade of green. Great for bright sunny conditions. Amazingly, you put the glasses on, and everything takes on a shade of green! The bricks, the grass, the sky... just a nice shade of green. Some of the things, like the grass, some of the cars, the trees... they are really green. Some things are not. Discovering the truth of the color depends on taking the glasses off. Just because someone -looks- green does not mean it is. Same can be said of the converse. Just because something -does- look green does not mean it is not... however, when you wear those glasses, its very hard to tell the true color of things...

Same thing works with biases in this situation. You have a very certain bias toward anything coming out of this administration. Its always seen as green. I have certain other biases. I admit that. Please be so kind as to admit yours. The same thing happened when Clinton was in office, and if a Democrat gets back into office it will happen again. One major difference is the media seemed to be in love with Clinton, so the volume was not quite so loud.

We all have biases. I'm just calling yours out. Even the title of this thread spoke to it. This has been mentioned previously in this thread. Regarding "speaking volumes about my prejudices", you have done quite a bit of that yourself. Negative props? If you so wish. Some of us don't have our reps disabled You also did not speak to the veracity of my statements.

The Constitution? Read my quote in my signature. Its quite applicable to today. In the past during times of wars, elements of the constitution have been tread upon. What we -do- need to do is make sure this is not overstepping bounds. congress should be looking into it. If they decide its too much, I'm fine with that. I personally don't care for Uncle Sam to know what kind of pizza I'm calling in. The Constitution is a critical part of our country. When/if things are resolved, the norm should return. We still don't keep Southern sympathizers in prisons w/out just cause. We still don't keep Japanese Americans in internment camps. The only thing I'm afraid of is that the enemy we are fighting is going to stick around for a long time. No discrete nation to bomb, rather a deeply ingrained ideal we are fighting. Thats alot tougher than a nation in my opinion.

I don't -enjoy- having the constitution tread upon. I don't enjoy having NYC attacked. I would not enjoy having LA bombed or DC in flames. Which poison do I prefer? Millions potentially dead or someone potentially listening to me order a pizza? I'd rather have an eavesdropper. How about you? Lets ask some of the relatives of 9/11 victims. WTC bombing, Oklahoma City, 7/7 in London, the train in spain... I don't want this becoming the norm. If listening to a phone call or two would potentially stop it, I'd be a fan of it. There needs to be some kind of controlling authority to make sure noone ever oversteps their bounds. I'd like that. some independant auditing of their practices....



ok, now that is out of the way... since you did not deal with -anything- I made a point of, I will repeat myself and ask for a response.

1) I gave you four specific scenarios with two binary variables. Please comment on them. Give me scenarios in which Bush is still in office and you would be praising him for his job in dealing with terrorism. Then I will retract my statement about you complaining about him. Until that is done, I stand behind my statements. One by one would be appropriate if you like. You bash me about my suppositions regarding your opinions, prove me wrong! I'll be man enough to admit my error.

2) Money transactions are being tracked. Your opinions on this? This has been in effect for a long time to track money laundering. How is this different? Exchanging cash rather than words? Were you upset when/if you made a downpayment for a house/car? transfered over 10k in cash? Made a big commission?

3) They monitor international calls sometimes. Do you have a problem with this? If some guy is calling Afghanistan and a known terrorist cell phone, shouldn't we be listening? Your opinions?

4) If this caller (from 3)) starts making alot of calls inside of the US, wouldn't that raise some flags?

Sincerely, the blue colored sunglass man.

 

[crushing]

I'm not trying to convert anyone.

I am just witnessing what to my eyes is the self-destruction of the Republican Party.

When did these things become OK for a Republican?

Democrat corruption helped put Republicans in power (remember 1990s DNC fundraising scandals with John Huang, Terry McCauliff's Global Crossing deal, Chuck Schumer, Sandy Berger, any number of Kennedys, Barney Frank's prostitute, Gary Condit, Rostenkowski, Traficant, Jerry Springer, etc., ). Now the Republicans are returning the favor with a series of their own scandals. It swings back and forth between the two major parties. Meanwhile the people are getting chipped away at from both sides. Which is why I'm all for groups like the ACLU and the NRA.

Maybe a more appropriate question would be, "Is anyone out there STILL associating themselves with Republicans/Democrats?"

 

[Marginal]

1) I gave you four specific scenarios with two binary variables. Please comment on them. Give me scenarios in which Bush is still in office and you would be praising him for his job in dealing with terrorism.

Just speaking for myself, but Bush stopping at Afghanistan would've been a good one.

3) They monitor international calls sometimes. Do you have a problem with this? If some guy is calling Afghanistan and a known terrorist cell phone, shouldn't we be listening? Your opinions?

They apparently also monitor all the domestic calls they can as well. At what point does this become unacceptable?

It's also interesting that Bush has seen fit to issue 700+ signing statements. Who needs vetos or line item power when you can just imagine what any bill signed into law kinda says then claim that's what it really says?

 

[michaeledward]

Do you think that's what your efforts are doing? All it does is convince more people just how wacky the left can be..

I'm wondering, Jeff Boler, if you would go to your next door neighbor's house, take the mail from their mailbox, open it, read it, and then put it back?

 

[michaeledward]

JMJ ... today we learn how our satellite program has been used to spy on Americans on American Soil.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-13-spy-eyes_x.htm

Had you ever even heard of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency? Apparently, for the past five years, it has been run by a retired Air Force General. He has used satellites to spy on large sporting events and politcal conventions.

Nevermind, that according to Ronald Reagan, you know the Republican President, restricted spy agencies from turning their face toward American Citizens on American soil.

How about they point those ****ing things at the Peshmurga region of Pakistan? You think that might be useful?

 

[Rich Parsons]

JMJ ... today we learn how our satellite program has been used to spy on Americans on American Soil.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-13-spy-eyes_x.htm

Had you ever even heard of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency? Apparently, for the past five years, it has been run by a retired Air Force General. He has used satellites to spy on large sporting events and politcal conventions.

Nevermind, that according to Ronald Reagan, you know the Republican President, restricted spy agencies from turning their face toward American Citizens on American soil.

How about they point those ****ing things at the Peshmurga region of Pakistan? You think that might be useful?

I think all the politicians are not sure what to do.

So, they make statements to make people afraid of something.

They then try to point to the opposite party and state they will take this away from you or the will do this which will cost you, etcetera.

I agree in the US Constitution.

I agree that the Bill of Rights were put there for a reason as the first ten Admendments as things people took for grnated that they wanted to spell out.

I think that there has been violations of our civil rights based upon "Safety" for Nation.

 

[michaeledward]

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This weekend, the Attorney General of the United States, referenced law enforcement prosecuting journalists. He said:

"There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility,"

Another amendment goes down to this Republican administration.

 

[Phil Elmore]

I wish leftists were as zealous in their defense of the other Amendments to the US Constitution as they are in their defense of the First. The Second comes readily to mind...

Do you think that's what your efforts are doing? All it does is convince more people just how wacky the left can be..

Indeed.