Pacifica55 wrote:
I'm working from memory but I'll give it a go: After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Bush authorized the NSA to monitor, without warrants, phone calls, e-mails, Internet activity, and text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lies within the U.S. It went further, even to monitoring communications from American servicemen in the war zone to their families back in the US.
Why is this important to us? Because the right to privacy is a basic right and one of the cornerstones of our democracy: freedom from the prying eyes of the Government unless their is probable cause for the action.
Pac, if that's all you can come up with then they didn't hurt us much. Like I said, I'm more worried about them stealing- all of them- than I am tapping a few phone lines. Besides, have we been attacked again? Perhaps we should have been much more on top of this during the Clinton years? Just a thought.
But lets pretend for the sake of argument that this action affirmed by the Courts(in and of itself not proof it's a good thing) was troublesome, even destructive to our rights. Do you have any knowledge of any law abiding US Citizen whose rights have been damaged? Further, why then did the Senate vote to extend this egregious act if it's so bad?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 02x2083328Quote:
The 95-1 Senate vote late yesterday follows the approval of the same extension by the House on Feb. 1. The extension needs the approval of President George W. Bush, who in December signed legislation to extend the law until today.
The reason is likely because it didn't effect negatively the rights US Citizens are afforded under the Constitution. In order then to say Bush trampled the Constitution you have to also acknowledge the overwhelming majority of Democrat Senators did also and I don't believe they did either, just that what you allege is an abuse of the Constitution by Bush either wasn't or that the Democrats were overwhelmingly complicit in that and if so, lets blame them all and just be honest about it.
NYG wrote:
Tica Fan:
Not being defensive bro. Your thoughts are wack
Yeah, I'm just a crazy guy.
Quote:
If the man was saying one thing and doing another your words would have some merit. But he has been in office for less than a month and you already have hime pegged
I dunno about that really. I would say he's doing about exactly as many predicted, little of which is "change" in my opinion unless you consider outright stealing change you can believe in.
Quote:
Compromise with who
Bushes party was jamming bills down our throat for 6 years
It's really hard to understand someone making this assertion about Bush yet not acknowledging we just had an $800 billion dollar scheme shoved down our throats with the old "if we don't do this we're all gonna die" thing again. Seems pretty "Bush" league to me. Not to mention, like I already pointed out, they have designs on trillions more.
Quote:
You are more mistrustful of a smart fellow That says alot
No, it's not that, it's that smart people who are really good at conning you are more dangerous. Bush wasn't dangerous anymore, at least he wasn't smart enough to be. Obama knows exactly what he's doing, who he's doing it to, and what the outcome will be. You either don't, can't, or see it and are ok with it.
Quote:
You keep quoting the constitution but have hardly read it :If you have 1 drop of black blood in you, you are black so says the constitution. BTW Obama calls himself a black man why should we argue with that
Please show me that in the Constitution.
As for Obama, anyone that would argue he isn't exceptionally smart is exceptionally dumb. But as for his being a Constitutional Law Professor:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/w ... l_law.htmlQuote:
Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a constitutional law professor," most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when he said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution." A spokesman for the Republican National Committee immediately took exception to Obama’s remarks, pointing out that Obama’s title at the University of Chicago was "senior lecturer" and not "professor."
Most importantly, as to your point earlier about saying one thing and doing another, lets take another look at Obama from 2001 "respecting" The Constitution shall we:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck
"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issue of redistribution of wealth(duh)..... I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts(duh).... any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for redistributive change through the courts(
)" Obviously the guy has very little respect for the Constitution, but a keen eye for legislative larceny.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Calendar
