Is anyone out there STILL a Republican?

[michaeledward]

My phone is taped, doubtful. Do you honestly think that every American’s phone is taped? And do you realize the manpower, technology and equipment that would take.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/1,70908-0.html

Former AT&T technician Mark Klein is the key witness in the Electronic Frontier Foundation's class-action lawsuit against the company, which alleges that AT&T illegally cooperated in an illegal National Security Agency domestic-surveillance program.
In this recently surfaced statement, Klein details his discovery of an alleged surveillance operation in an AT&T office in San Francisco, and offers his interpretation of company documents that he believes support his case.
For its part, AT&T is asking a federal judge to keep those documents out of court, and to order the EFF to return them to the company. Here Wired News presents Klein's statement in its entirety, along with select pages from the AT&T documents.
​

I am not arguing a point here I am asking for clarification – Which law?

1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

By who?

United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/21/AR2006052100348.html

Which reinforces previous question, who is threatening them?

The Attorney General of the United States of America.

They are huge businesses and contribute to a lot of political campaigns. Newspapers today are, and to be honest the majority of the news media, influenced by the Dollar and that is it. If it is not going to produce high ratings and get sponsors they want nothing to do with it.

I remind you that the airwaves used to transmit media are owned by the citizens of the United States and operated in trust to them. That broadcast corporations now own newspapers creates some complicated synergies. If printing unfriendly facts could have ramifications on airwave rights, the Free Press becomes less free.

This is why international terrorism is reported and domestic terrorism is not. This is why you have sensationalized News. The days of Walter Cronkite are long dead; the media today is a business that that is all. Welcome to capitalism, sad but true.

We do not have sensationalized news. We have sensationalized opinion. The media conglomerates recognize that have talking head spout 'opinion', frees them from any civic obligation we are due to their use of our airwaves.

Habeas corpus
Lat. "you have the body" Prisoners often seek release by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. Habeas corpus petitions are usually filed by persons serving prison sentences.
You are making a blanket statement here and applying it to everyone in the nation by saying “You have no right of habeas corpus.” There a lot of court officials that would disagree with you.

Jose Padilla
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/056396R1.P.pdf

And you won’t. Washington was against political parties. My point here is this; if someone is a democrat generally they will vote for the democrat agenda and attack the republican agenda. If you are a republican you will vote for the republican agenda and attack the democrat agenda, regardless of the fact as to what may or may not be good for the country.

Same thing here if you start a post with “Is anyone out there STILL a Republican?” If you are a democrat you are going to use this to attack the republicans, if you are a republican you are going to defend republicans. The first line of the post is inflammatory and forces people to take up sides based on politics and does not look for an actual solution to the concerns posted. If in fact the worry is right to privacy, what are the Democrats currently doing to really protect it? What should we do to protect it?

The Democrats are doing very little to address these constitutional abuses. Much of that is because they are similarly paralyzed by their campaign free speech contributions. But much is also due to the restructuring of Congress after the Newt Gingrich revolution. Again, right now, the Democratic party is impotent, not because of their own actions, but actions by the 'Permanent Republican Majority' train of thought (K Street - Gingrich, Delay, Rove)

One who has paid attention would have noticed that committee chairs in Congress have stonewalled any bipartisan actions that should be properly undertaken ... such as:

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/15/phase-ii-stonewall/

And if you are using the Bill of rights as your basis both sides have violated it far beyond any intension the founding fathers had. Republicans are in power now, the Democrats will probably be in power next and they too will violate them in some way.

And if they do, and they do to the extent the Republicans are doing now, my vote will (again) go to Ralph Nader --- as it went in 2000.


The Frame of the Argument, in my opinion is ... not any of that.

The Republican Control of the Federal Government is transforming our Constitutional Republic into a Facsist State.

How did Queen Amidala put it?

 

[Makalakumu]

How did Queen Amidala put it?

"So that is how freedom dies...
...with applause."

 

[michaeledward]

You honestly don't know if there were abuses by Democrats? I'm not sure if that gets a or a :rofl:.

Hold them all responsible! Not just the other guy's party.

Honestly?
What difference does that make today?

What, exactly, do you think the Democrats are responsible for today?

(Not the sins of the fathers)

 

[Don Roley]

Duke Cunningham.

Katherine Harris.

Tom Delay.

Robert Ney.

Edit * * *

And this just in ... Dennis Hastert

What a silly list.

I see that people are still trying to present Katherine Harris as someone who abused her power to give Bush the election. Despite a lot of inverstigation and spotlight, and a lot of international news groups like the Yomiuri Shinbun saying that she just did her job, there will always be those that try to repeat over and over again that the election should have gone to Gore.

And remember I asked for names of people who abused the post 9-11 laws to personally benifit? Where does DeLay, etc fall into that. If you want to avoid an entire party because some of its members are slime, then how can you vote democrat after that guy was caught this week on tape taking wads of cash from undercover FBI agents?

Again, given that the Clintons pretty much run the Democratic party, there is no way I am going to support them. There are some local democrats that seem to differ with the anti- second ammendment and anti-freedom pro PC platform that most democrats seem to embrace. So I may vote for them. But not the party as a whole while Clinton is being banded around as the front runner for the presidential candidate. Bush's moves gives me pause about the potential for abuse- the Clintons are proven abusers and the democrfatic party supports them.

 

[crushing]

Honestly?
What difference does that make today?

What, exactly, do you think the Democrats are responsible for today?

(Not the sins of the fathers)

My apologies, I don't know statute of limitation is being imposed for such behaviors. Hopefully you consider William Jefferson's abuses as being recent enough.

Unfortunately but not surprisingly, I usually don't get much support from the staunch partisans, Republican or Democrat, on the whole 'hold them all responsible for their actions' request.

 

[michaeledward]

What a silly list.

I see that people are still trying to present Katherine Harris as someone who abused her power to give Bush the election. Despite a lot of inverstigation and spotlight, and a lot of international news groups like the Yomiuri Shinbun saying that she just did her job, there will always be those that try to repeat over and over again that the election should have gone to Gore.

Don Roley, please catch up with current events.

Representative Harris is currently under investigation for illegal campaign contributions from Mitchell Wade. I'ld just love to know what one buys for dinner that cost $2,800.00

And remember I asked for names of people who abused the post 9-11 laws to personally benifit? Where does DeLay, etc fall into that. If you want to avoid an entire party because some of its members are slime, then how can you vote democrat after that guy was caught this week on tape taking wads of cash from undercover FBI agents?

Don Roley, I appreciate your attempts to play the 'We're At War' card and frame the discussion as 'We're abusing you civil liberties for your own protection'. I do not accept the argument framed in that manner. The argument was never put forth in that manner. The questions I am looking to address is who is supporting the current destruction of the Bill of Rights.

Remember .. Only Cowards think we are at War.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zack-exley/message-for-08-dems-onl_b_21425.html

Again, given that the Clintons pretty much run the Democratic party, there is no way I am going to support them. There are some local democrats that seem to differ with the anti- second ammendment and anti-freedom pro PC platform that most democrats seem to embrace. So I may vote for them. But not the party as a whole while Clinton is being banded around as the front runner for the presidential candidate. Bush's moves gives me pause about the potential for abuse- the Clintons are proven abusers and the democrfatic party supports them.

Wonderful statements pulled right off right-wing radio. Richard Scaiffe would be proud.

For the record, I remind you, that Senator Clinton is currently the Junior Senator for New York. Controlling 1/100th of nothing in a Republican controlled Senate.

 

[michaeledward]

My apologies, I don't know statute of limitation is being imposed for such behaviors. Hopefully you consider William Jefferson's abuses as being recent enough.

Unfortunately but not surprisingly, I usually don't get much support from the staunch partisans, Republican or Democrat, on the whole 'hold them all responsible for their actions' request.

Let's get this straight ... the right wing had their shot at 'William Jefferson' (I certainly am not on first name terms with the former President).

Blow Job - Guilty

Impeached before the United States Senate - Not Guilty.

Approval Rating on Day of Impeachment 66%

Oh, yeah, and how many dead soldiers did he get in Iraq?
What was the deficit our children are going to be paying off for years to come?

How about abuses of power today? How about crimes against citizens in this country, now?

 

[crushing]

Let's get this straight ...

Blow Job - Guilty

Impeached before the United States Senate - Not Guilty.

What in the world are you talking about and why to loyal Democrats always bring up BJs when discussing politics?

Oh wait. I think I know the problem. The whole William Jefferson thing isn't getting much coverage in the press, is it?

http://www.2theadvocate.com/hottopics/2865161.html

http://www.kpho.com/Global/story.asp?S=4944516&nav=23Ku

 

[Don Roley]

Don Roley, please catch up with current events.

Oh, and could you please tell me how any of these folks have used the post 9-11 laws and abused them? Abuses by politicians are old news. There are democrats under investigation by the FBI too you know. It does not matter that Hillary is only 1/100th of the senate, she is still a person who abused her power to persoanlly benefit. If she is what the democrats are putting forward as a potential president, then I am voting republican just to try to keep her out.

 

[Don Roley]

Let's get this straight ... the right wing had their shot at 'William Jefferson' (I certainly am not on first name terms with the former President).

Blow Job - Guilty

It is not that he got some oral sex that upsets me. It is the fact that he lied about it under oath, a crime known as perjury, and that no one from the democratic party seems to think that the laws that the rest of us have to follow or go to jail applied to him.

That scares me. You have to believe that he was honest when he said that it all came down to a definition of the word 'is' to let him off. Either that or you believe that a democratic president is above the laws of the land. People talk about the oral sex and not the lying under oath. I talk about the perjury as what disturbs me.

 

[michaeledward]

What in the world are you talking about and why to loyal Democrats always bring up BJs when discussing politics?

Oh wait. I think I know the problem. The whole William Jefferson thing isn't getting much coverage in the press, is it?

http://www.2theadvocate.com/hottopics/2865161.html

http://www.kpho.com/Global/story.asp?S=4944516&nav=23Ku

Representative Jefferson from New Orleans should be run out of Washington DC by FEMA water tankers. Tar and Feathers, if you will.

He should be prosecuted under state and federal law. This is why, I use titles when addressing people who have them. This is way I address users on this board by their complete handles. Anyone with a lick of sense might recognize the Representative's name bears an uncanny resemblence to a former President of the United States.

Whom is more popular, do you think?

 

[michaeledward]

It is not that he got some oral sex that upsets me. It is the fact that he lied about it under oath, a crime known as perjury, and that no one from the democratic party seems to think that the laws that the rest of us have to follow or go to jail applied to him.

That scares me. You have to believe that he was honest when he said that it all came down to a definition of the word 'is' to let him off. Either that or you believe that a democratic president is above the laws of the land. People talk about the oral sex and not the lying under oath. I talk about the perjury as what disturbs me.

Don Roley ... lying under oath should be taken seriously. It was. The President was impeached and tried for that infraction. That you don't like the result is what bothers you.

But, that doesn't change the fact that it was a Witch Hunt.

The current President lied to the entire country in the State of the Union address. Any consequences for that?

The current President would not give testimony under oath in an Congressional investigation of the deadliest attack on this country in a half of century. You're not pissed off about that yet?

The current President would not even sit with Congressional members for that inquiry (an inquiry which is Congresses responsibility, by the way) without the Vice President sitting by his side? Something doesn't stink about that?

Nope ... we'll just keep kick up the dust with ancient irrelevancies.

 

[crushing]

This is why, I use titles when addressing people who have them. This is way I address users on this board by their complete handles.

There are many instances in this thread alone where you did not use the titles of representatives and senators.

I apologize for not being clear about who the corrupt politican and that it was assumed that it would be the former president.

Also, michaeledward, if you get the chance to catch Mr. Ray McGovern on the speech circuit, please do. It is very enlightening and he would reinforce many of the things you have said.

 

[michaeledward]

There are many instances in this thread alone where you did not use the titles of representatives and senators.

I apologize for not being clear about who the corrupt politican and that it was assumed that it would be the former president.

Also, michaeledward, if you get the chance to catch Mr. Ray McGovern on the speech circuit, please do. It is very enlightening and he would reinforce many of the things you have said.

There are times when using the honorific becomes a hinderence to reading of the thoughts put down in a posts. In those times, and especially in rapid fire conversational sequences like this, I may, at times, not address a person with their apporpriate title. I do hope it is not, truly, "many times". (Bad on me).

I also try to address other users by their complete handle, something which, I believe, some interpret as my being rude. <<shrugg>>. rmcroberston, used to have an interesting insight into how he should be addressed.

As for me, michealedward is fine. Mike, mike, Michael, or even Mr. Atkinson are always welcomed. Edward is my middle name, and many years ago, I produced an album with under the name 'michaeledward'.

 

[Phoenix44]

Just an observation, but, have you noticed that Democrats and progressives always seem to get tripped up by the "Oh, yeah, well Bill Clinton did THIS..." approach?

My viewpoint? If Bill Clinton broke the law, then he should be indicted and tried, too! I wouldn't defend him just because he's a Democrat!

Bottom line, Clinton has been out of office for 5 years.

 

[Don Roley]

The current President lied to the entire country in the State of the Union address. Any consequences for that?

Oh really? You know for a fact that he did not believe what he was saying? I was just reading an exerpt from Foriegn Affairs magazine that detailed how Hussein tried very hard to convince the Arab world that he had WMDs. With that, it is not hard to believe that there were real concerns and mistakes were made. Not lies, mistakes. Guess what, it happens. Where was the concern when Clinton bombed the Chinese embassy or that asprin factory- partly to divert attention away from the Monica Lewinsky trial.

Clinton lied under oath and anyone who supports his wife now supports the idea that the law should be different for democratic presidents.

If they drop her and bring in someone who respects the second ammendmant and my right to do what I want (even smoke) without being controlled by a bunch of self important creeps I may vote democratic in the future.

 

[Xue Sheng]

We do not have sensationalized news. We have sensationalized opinion. The media conglomerates recognize that have talking head spout 'opinion', frees them from any civic obligation we are due to their use of our airwaves. ?

You have got to be kidding, and I will leave it at that.

One who has paid attention would have noticed that committee chairs in Congress have stonewalled any bipartisan actions that should be properly undertaken ... such as:

I love these little jabs you throw out in defense to belittle those that do not agree with you.

But all that aside as previously stated - I leave you to your Republican bashing.

And although I have nothing personally for or against Ralph Nader. His original claim to fame "Unsafe at any speed" was not all that honest an assessment of the corvair. What does that say for his level of honesty?

Don't get me wrong, he is probably far above the Bush and Clinton types when it comes to honesty, but then nobody is perfect.

Have a nice day.

 

[jazkiljok]

And although I have nothing personally for or against Ralph Nader. His original claim to fame "Unsafe at any speed" was not all that honest an assessment of the corvair. What does that say for his level of honesty?

Don't get me wrong, he is probably far above the Bush and Clinton types when it comes to honesty, but then nobody is perfect.

Have a nice day.

oxymorons:

jumbo shrimp
wise ***
honest politician

 

[michaeledward]

But all that aside as previously stated - I leave you to your Republican bashing.

You keep threatening ... Still waiting.

 

[Marginal]

Oh really? You know for a fact that he did not believe what he was saying? I was just reading an exerpt from Foriegn Affairs magazine that detailed how Hussein tried very hard to convince the Arab world that he had WMDs. With that, it is not hard to believe that there were real concerns and mistakes were made. Not lies, mistakes. Guess what, it happens. Where was the concern when Clinton bombed the Chinese embassy or that asprin factory- partly to divert attention away from the Monica Lewinsky trial.

But... I'm sure Clinton honestly beleived with his resolute decider (he heard the voices, he saw the headlines....) fueled heart that he was not ordering a strike against an asprin factory. Therefore, he should be held blameless for the destruction of the asprin factory.