New USATODAY report shows NSA had collected Tens of Millions of Phone Calls

Does the NSA have the right to collect Millions of Conversations without a warrent?


  • Total voters
    24
mmarsh said:
IG, I think you are misinterpreting Franklin. Franklin is saying all liberty in and of itself is essential, not specific parts of liberty. All of it is essential.

Mmmh, not sure. I read "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security...".
An is an indeterminate article and it seems to indicate one of several. In fact Franklin uses the word "liberty" without article further on and this means he would make a difference between them. Maybe. I'm just not sure.
 
mmarsh said:
Lt. Henderson

Ben Franklin worried about British Redcoats who were a greater threat to American Security than abunch of muslim fanatics. Whats more worrying,? Being frightened to death that you might be involved in a terror attack (about 10 Million to 1 odds) or fighting against the full military occupation of an enemy thats far better equipped, far better trained, far more numerous than you. Franklins statement rings even more true.
Franklin didn't know terrorism would be an issue. How could he have? Besides, we aren't fighting a war against full military occupation...We are fighting those 10 Million to 1 odds. Im sure the families of all those people who died in the 9-11 attacks would be greatful to hear you take that attitude.

mmarsh said:
But, we arn't in Iraq. Nobody has declared Martial law, There arnt any car bombs going off daily, or random bursts of indiscrimate small arms fire. You are letting yourself be governed by your fear, and the government for us to sacrifice democracy because of it (thats what terrorists want). By sacrificing our freedoms by allowing fear to take control you are letting the terrorists win.
Car bombs are going off quite frequently. Insurgents continue to fire at our troops as we advance through cities.I can show you numerous articles from the past few weeks, even days, from newspapers where soldiers have been killed by bombs, or insurgency fire. I am letting myself be governed by the fact that terrorism is HERE. Its alive and well and we need to protect ourselves from it. Sure there are small odds that I personally will be affected by terrorism directly, but what about those people who did die? Surely they were thinking that nothing bad would happen to them on the day they boarded those planes. http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/ap/2006/05/14/ap2744546.html
like this one for example...it may not be directed at our troops but it is still happening.

"By sacrificing our freedoms by allowing fear to take control you are letting the terrorists win."-Number one, I dont let fear take control. Im flying up to Pennsylvania to be an usher at my cousin's wedding. That is not I repeat not letting the terrorists win. Being afraid to live normally would be letting the terrorists win.Terrorists want to cause nationwide panic and to watch our government crumble. Terrorists didn't know that the attack on our country would simply unite us further. They dont care if the government takes our rights, they care that they scared us into hiding. Terrorists are nothing more than bullies. If the scare tactic doesn't work, then all they can do is try their best to try to fight.

mmarsh said:
Would limiting the civil liberties of all 280 Million Americans just because al-Qaeda (less than 18000 members) might do something. Thats like bringing your own parachaute on a airliner just in case the plane might crash. Again, thats fear, if not paranoia talking (no insult intended). You cannot live your life on what *MIGHT* happen. If you do, then al Qaeda wins. Remember what Winston Churchill said "We have Nothing to fear but fear itself". Fear is the most potent weapon the terrorists have.
What are you asking here? All I see is a statement...Do you mean,"Would limiting the civil liberties of all 280 million Americans just because Al-Qaeda (less than 18000 members) might do something be justified?" if that is what you mean then let me respond thus: YES. It is justified because, unless you are a terrorist,it doesn't effect you. If you live your life on what might happen, you are not letting Al-Qaeda win, you are simply a cautious individual. There were people before 9-11 that were afraid of flying...That doesn't mean they let the terrorists win there does it? As to the Churchill quote, he is right, only because fear is the only thing we DO fear. Fear of flying just means fear. Fear of death just means fear. Fear is the only thing we can fear because all fears trace back to a basic FEAR. Do you get what Im saying?

mmarsh said:
We can hardly compare Star Wars to President Bush.
Oh but you can. For example, use Fear in order to control the masses and silence dissent. Ring any bells? How about the DHS color coded threat level system? Usefulness to stop terrorists = 0, usefulness to scare Mom and Dad = priceless. Or how about Cheney stating in the 2004 election that the only way to stop another 9/11 attack is to vote for Bush.
The threat level was to put Americans on alert...It was simply to us on our guard...If we knew something might happen, then we were less likely to do things that would put us in danger. Usefulness to stop terrorists=0, usefulness to decrease the odds of terrorists inflicting harm GREATLY!=priceless.I never heard Cheney say that...Could you post a citation for that? And if he did say it, then he was right wasnt he...We voted Bush in, and nothing else happened to the US directly...Now, if we had voted for Senator Kerry, he probably would have pulled troops out of the Middle East, then the terrorists could have taken the offensive...

mmarsh said:
IG

I think you are misinterpreting Franklin. Franklin is saying all liberty in and of itself is essential, not specific parts of liberty. All of it is essential.

Phoenix

You shouldnt be worried if you are not doing any thing wrong.

Ever read George Orwells '1984'? That was just the justification of 'Big Brother' and of all dictators everywhere. Just because you might not be doing anything illegal doesnt mean 'Big Brother' is not going to collect data on you. Remember Tom Delay? He used the FAA communication systems to track the personal aircraft of several prominent Texas Democrats. A prime example of how easy it is to abuse power.

Now then. Im going to go stretch my fingers because of the cramping...
 
Last edited:
bulldogg said:
Why are you worried when you are not American and don't live in the United States?

I am an American citizen and regardless of where I live this is my concern and hardly any of yours.

How about the soldiers in Iraq? By your logic they shouldn't give a damn either.

Did you honestly think about this before you said it?

Yep. Well, I should be more worried since I am of the Iranian origin, I have too many American friends calling me here and I do call them and we TALK about politics on the phone and almost every thing related to Iran and terrorism and democracy and almost every other thing you imagine.... AND I am not worried at all. My friends in the States are not worried at all too.
But I believe Bush knows how to fight terrorism and DemocRATs are too coward to fight the terrorists.

marsh says:
Ever read George Orwells '1984'? That was just the justification of 'Big Brother' and of all dictators everywhere. Just because you might not be doing anything illegal doesnt mean 'Big Brother' is not going to collect data on you. Remember Tom Delay? He used the FAA communication systems to track the personal aircraft of several prominent Texas Democrats. A prime example of how easy it is to abuse power.

Orwell's 1984 applies to State run by Leftist/Socialist governments not the USA
 
Last edited:
Lt. Henderson

1. I'm not making that arguement, I'm saying that Franklin during his time faced an enemy for more dangerous then terrorists. So if Franklin told us not to sacrifice our liberty in order to gain a small bit of security (in reference to the British Army) then we should not do it either, 230 years for al Qaeda which is a lesser threat.

2. I was referring to what is happening in the United States, not Iraq. Even if we were to accept the fact that they government may spy on its citizenry in the direst of situations, there is no justification within the USA of right now. 9/11 might have been considered justification, but it was 5 Years ago. If you want to keep spying on ordinary Americans for something that happened 5 years ago you might as well start spying on Japanese-Americans as well, just in case they are planning another Pearl Harbor.

YES. It is justified because, unless you are a terrorist,it doesn't effect you.

3. Your mistaken on both counts, it is not justified (no martial law declared in the US) as I pointed out above, and it DOES effect me, because their are certain details about my private life that are not illegal, but are private. And I absolutely don't want the government sticking its nose into it. Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and the PRC are all examples of countries that regular monitor its citizens. Do you really want to follow their example? Just talk to Bulldogg (he lives in the PRC), he'll tell you all about what its like living with the Chinese eyes that are constantly monitoring his internet activities. Do you really want to go there just to make ourselves feel better about a very distant threat? Like the old saying goes, "we had to destroy the village in order to save it".

Another point, if this ability to monitor calls is so necessary, how come the FBI, CIA or NSA never requested it? Nor has ANY of them complained about FISA. Not one of these agencies ever requested the ability to superceed FISA. Bush has admitted (and tried to justify) that HE was the one who gave the order for them to spy on Americans, not the other way around. This makes me deeply suspicous about the Presidents motives. Since when has the president granted extra powers to the security agencies without a formal request by them? This is why I think this secret wiretapping (like Iraq) has absolutely nothing to do with fighting terrorism. Sounds more like the president (whom has a well known reputation for secrecy and paranoia) wanting to keep tabs on what is said behind his back, a throwback to the Nixon era.

4. How many terrorist attacks has the DHS threat assement actually stopped? Answer, ZERO. We know thats true because if it had stopped a single one Bush would be bragging about it nonstop. Most (if not all) of the alerts were in fact false alarms based on very flismy, non-substiatated evidence. Al-Qaeda must be laughing its ass at us as we jump at our own shadows. I know someone is going to ask the question of why then we havent had a repeat of 9/11? The answer is because al-Qaida has changed its strategy, it wants to isolate us by attacking our Allies.

Finally (my fingers are numb too) You asked for a Citation from Cheney:

Speech from September 8 2004, Des Moines Iowa:

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again ... that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind-set, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we are not really at war.

Right there, he says if we chose wrong (meaning Kerry) we will get hit again. Dont you think thats fear mongering?

'Fear is the path to the Dark Side'... - Jedi Master Yoda
 
1. I'm not making that arguement, I'm saying that Franklin during his time faced an enemy for more dangerous then terrorists. So if Franklin told us not to sacrifice our liberty in order to gain a small bit of security (in reference to the British Army) then we should not do it either, 230 years for al Qaeda which is a lesser threat.

So you are willing to ignore your own logic, brain and feelings for the sake of an old and outdated Franklin's argument?

I see!
 
phoenix80 said:
So you are willing to ignore your own logic, brain and feelings for the sake of an old and outdated Franklin's argument?

Phoenix! :eek:
The arguments of the Founding Fathers are never old and outdated. They may at the most be "misinterpreted".
 
Italian Guy said:
Phoenix! :eek:
The arguments of the Founding Fathers are never old and outdated. They may at the most be "misinterpreted".

LoL

I just wanted to clarify things for a french based American with little info on who his real enemy is... Terrorists or Pres. Bush
 
mmarsh said:
Lt. Henderson

1. I'm not making that arguement, I'm saying that Franklin during his time faced an enemy for more dangerous then terrorists. So if Franklin told us not to sacrifice our liberty in order to gain a small bit of security (in reference to the British Army) then we should not do it either, 230 years for al Qaeda which is a lesser threat.
Franklin knew his enemy. Like I said in my first dissection of your posts,Franklin didnt have to worry about attacks like this...Franklin had to worry about torching..I dunno if rifles then were more dangerous than bombs now btw...

mmarsh said:
2. I was referring to what is happening in the United States, not Iraq. Even if we were to accept the fact that they government may spy on its citizenry in the direst of situations, there is no justification within the USA of right now. 9/11 might have been considered justification, but it was 5 Years ago. If you want to keep spying on ordinary Americans for something that happened 5 years ago you might as well start spying on Japanese-Americans as well, just in case they are planning another Pearl Harbor.
Yes, it was 5 years ago, but we are still fighting the war are we not? 5 years doesn't change the threat. It is still alive and kicking.

YES. It is justified because, unless you are a terrorist,it doesn't effect you.

mmarsh said:
3. Your mistaken on both counts, it is not justified (no martial law declared in the US) as I pointed out above, and it DOES effect me, because their are certain details about my private life that are not illegal, but are private. And I absolutely don't want the government sticking its nose into it. Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and the PRC are all examples of countries that regular monitor its citizens. Do you really want to follow their example? Just talk to Bulldogg (he lives in the PRC), he'll tell you all about what its like living with the Chinese eyes that are constantly monitoring his internet activities. Do you really want to go there just to make ourselves feel better about a very distant threat? Like the old saying goes, "we had to destroy the village in order to save it".
It is justified because we are still at war. Of course we don't know how we are being surveyed, so we don't know if your privacy is being invaded by humans...If it is selective screening by computer, and the computer only picks up on conversations using key words in key patterns, then your private life is safe no? Unless your private life includes the words "al-queda, terrorist, attack, pentagon, white house. etc...Like I said before, if you dont have anything to hide, you dont have anything to worry about. And if the thing you want to tell someone is so important, just write em a letter...

mmarsh said:
Another point, if this ability to monitor calls is so necessary, how come the FBI, CIA or NSA never requested it? Nor has ANY of them complained about FISA. Not one of these agencies ever requested the ability to superceed FISA. Bush has admitted (and tried to justify) that HE was the one who gave the order for them to spy on Americans, not the other way around. This makes me deeply suspicous about the Presidents motives. Since when has the president granted extra powers to the security agencies without a formal request by them? This is why I think this secret wiretapping (like Iraq) has absolutely nothing to do with fighting terrorism. Sounds more like the president (whom has a well known reputation for secrecy and paranoia) wanting to keep tabs on what is said behind his back, a throwback to the Nixon era.
I couldn't tell you. Not without knowing EVERY SINGLE FACT that the President and all above mentioned agencies know. I don't criticize the man on the ground without knowing all the facts first. They may know something neither of us do that changes opinions...I highly doubt that the President, even President Bush, would stoop to wiretapping to hear what others say. He already knows his approval rating is in the toilet, so why would he need to know further?

mmarsh said:
4. How many terrorist attacks has the DHS threat assement actually stopped? Answer, ZERO. We know thats true because if it had stopped a single one Bush would be bragging about it nonstop. Most (if not all) of the alerts were in fact false alarms based on very flismy, non-substiatated evidence. Al-Qaeda must be laughing its ass at us as we jump at our own shadows. I know someone is going to ask the question of why then we havent had a repeat of 9/11? The answer is because al-Qaida has changed its strategy, it wants to isolate us by attacking our Allies.
Sure, because when we know about the possible attacks before they happen, we tend to be a little less careless...Its a possible attack. Not a guaraunteed attack. Who else has Al-Qaeda attacked directly? If you haven't noticed, we aren't too popular right now...We really don't have many allies...I would like to know who all Al-Qaeda has attacked full front...

mmarsh said:
Finally (my fingers are numb too) You asked for a Citation from Cheney:

Speech from September 8 2004, Des Moines Iowa:

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again ... that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind-set, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we are not really at war.

Right there, he says if we chose wrong (meaning Kerry) we will get hit again. Dont you think thats fear mongering?

'Fear is the path to the Dark Side'... - Jedi Master Yoda
He's probably right...Kerry wanted to pull the troops out of Iraq, correct? That would put Al-Qaeda on the offensive and could have made the US vulnerable to an attack.Everyone has fear...Yoda had fear(I cant believe Im discussing a fictional green midget on a military forum)he just didn't show it.
 
Lt. Henderson (and to people that think this wiretapping is a good idea)

I was going to reply to you, but I happen to be reading the NY Times and editor Bob Herbert wrote today by coincidence on this very subject. He hits the nail right on the head. You need a subscription so I took the liberty of pasting it below. I highlighted parts i think are important,pay particular attention to the last paragraph I bolded.

One final point because it relates. In 2004 John Kerry did not want to remove the troops, he wanted to send more of them in. Cheney statements were designed to scare you into voting for them, and it worked. As Herbert says below, FEAR is the only asset the president has.

America the Fearful


By BOB HERBERT
Published: May 15, 2006

In the dark days of the Depression, Franklin Roosevelt counseled Americans to avoid fear. George W. Bush is his polar opposite. The public's fear is this president's most potent political asset. Perhaps his only asset.


Herbert's Heroes

Mr. Bush wants ordinary Americans to remain in a perpetual state of fear — so terrified, in fact, that they will not object to the steady erosion of their rights and liberties, and will not notice the many ways in which their fear is being manipulated to feed an unconscionable expansion of presidential power.

If voters can be kept frightened enough of terrorism, they might even overlook the monumental incompetence of one of the worst administrations the nation has ever known.

Four marines drowned Thursday when their 60-ton tank rolled off a bridge and sank in a canal about 50 miles west of Baghdad. Three American soldiers in Iraq were killed by roadside bombs the same day. But those tragic and wholly unnecessary deaths were not the big news. The big news was the latest leak of yet another presidential power grab: the administration's collection of the telephone records of tens of millions of American citizens.
The Bush crowd, which gets together each morning to participate in a highly secret ritual of formalized ineptitude, is trying to get its creepy hands on all the telephone records of everybody in the entire country. It supposedly wants these records, which contain crucial documentation of calls for Chinese takeout in Terre Haute, Ind., and birthday greetings to Grandma in Talladega, Ala., to help in the search for Osama bin Laden.
Hey, the president has made it clear that when Al Qaeda is calling, he wants to be listening, and you never know where that lead may turn up.
The problem (besides the fact that the president has been as effective hunting bin Laden as Dick Cheney was in hunting quail) is that in its fearmongering and power-grabbing the Bush administration has trampled all over the Constitution, the democratic process and the hallowed American tradition of government checks and balances.
Short of having them taken away from us, there is probably no way to fully appreciate the wonder and the glory of our rights and liberties here in the United States, including the right to privacy.
The Constitution and the elaborate system of checks and balances were meant to protect us against the possibility of a clownish gang of small men and women amassing excessive power and behaving like tyrants or kings. But the normal safeguards have not been working since the Bush crowd came to power, starting with the hijacked presidential election in 2000.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, all bets were off. John Kennedy once said, "The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war." But George W. Bush, employing an outrageous propaganda campaign ("Shock and awe," "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"), started an utterly pointless war in Iraq that he still doesn't know how to win or how to end.
If you listen to the Bush version of reality, the president is all powerful. In that version, we are fighting a war against terrorism, which is a war that will never end. And as long as we are at war (forever), there is no limit to the war-fighting powers the president can claim as commander in chief.
So we've kidnapped people and sent them off to be tortured in the extraordinary rendition program; and we've incarcerated people at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere without trial or even the right to know the charges against them; and we're allowing the C.I.A. to operate super-secret prisons where God-knows-what-all is going on; and we're listening in on the phone calls and reading the e-mail of innocent Americans without warrants; and on and on and on.
The Bushies will tell you that it is dangerous and even against the law to inquire into these nefarious activities. We just have to trust the king.
Well, I give you fair warning. This is a road map to totalitarianism. Hallmarks of totalitarian regimes have always included an excessive reliance on secrecy, the deliberate stoking of fear in the general population, a preference for military rather than diplomatic solutions in foreign policy, the promotion of blind patriotism, the denial of human rights, the curtailment of the rule of law, hostility to a free press and the systematic invasion of the privacy of ordinary people.
There are not enough pretty words in all the world to cover up the damage that George W. Bush has done to his country. If the United States could look at itself in a mirror, it would be both alarmed and ashamed at what it saw.
 
Last edited:
This is just like the gay marriage issue, I finally said yes to gay marriage just to get everyone to shut up about it, would that make you happy here?

Besides, I have no sway over either issue.
 
my dissections are in bold italics and underlined. Im getting tired of re-quoting you, if another huge article comes up, I will head to your side out of pure exhaustion. Obviously, you are a fanatic.

mmarsh said:
Lt. Henderson (and to people that think this wiretapping is a good idea)

I was going to reply to you, but I happen to be reading the NY Times and editor Bob Herbert wrote today by coincidence on this very subject. He hits the nail right on the head. You need a subscription so I took the liberty of pasting it below. I highlighted parts i think are important,pay particular attention to the last paragraph I bolded.

One final point because it relates. In 2004 John Kerry did not want to remove the troops, he wanted to send more of them in. Cheney statements were designed to scare you into voting for them, and it worked. As Herbert says below, FEAR is the only asset the president has.

America the Fearful


By BOB HERBERT
Published: May 15, 2006

In the dark days of the Depression, Franklin Roosevelt counseled Americans to avoid fear. George W. Bush is his polar opposite. The public's fear is this president's most potent political asset. Perhaps his only asset.


Herbert's Heroes

Mr. Bush wants ordinary Americans to remain in a perpetual state of fear — so terrified, in fact, that they will not object to the steady erosion of their rights and liberties, and will not notice the many ways in which their fear is being manipulated to feed an unconscionable expansion of presidential power.We dont object because we choose not to. The people have too much power to not stand up if they feel violated.The majority feel it is necessary in a time of war, and majority rules.

If voters can be kept frightened enough of terrorism, they might even overlook the monumental incompetence of one of the worst administrations the nation has ever known.Terrorism. Look at the first six letters of the word. We are frightened because they kill with randomness, they attack where it hurts politically and socially, not militarily. They have no order. CHAOS. Thats what they thrive on, not orderly attacks...

Four marines drowned Thursday when their 60-ton tank rolled off a bridge and sank in a canal about 50 miles west of Baghdad. Three American soldiers in Iraq were killed by roadside bombs the same day. But those tragic and wholly unnecessary deaths were not the big news. The big news was the latest leak of yet another presidential power grab: the administration's collection of the telephone records of tens of millions of American citizens.Because scandal sells. Look at the Lewinski(sp?) incident...Troops could have been killed by the thousands but her face would still be plastered on the screen...
The Bush crowd, which gets together each morning to participate in a highly secret ritual of formalized ineptitude, is trying to get its creepy hands on all the telephone records of everybody in the entire country.A reporter would know?? It supposedly wants these records, which contain crucial documentation of calls for Chinese takeout in Terre Haute, Ind., and birthday greetings to Grandma in Talladega, Ala., to help in the search for Osama bin Laden.It wants those records because a terrorist could simply give it that name. it could be addressed to "Grandma" and really be headquarters to a southern terrorist organization planning to attack Miami...In order to be effective, the screening has to cover EVERYTHING.
Hey, the president has made it clear that when Al Qaeda is calling, he wants to be listening, and you never know where that lead may turn up.
The problem (besides the fact that the president has been as effective hunting bin Laden as Dick Cheney was in hunting quail) is that in its fearmongering and power-grabbing the Bush administration has trampled all over the Constitution, the democratic process and the hallowed American tradition of government checks and balances.And a reporter could do a much better job at hunting Bin Ladin...sure. lets see him run. Thats what you call scared. They talk and talk, but they cant walk the walk. All the Congress has to do is impeach him...Apparently, he is doing something right...
Short of having them taken away from us, there is probably no way to fully appreciate the wonder and the glory of our rights and liberties here in the United States, including the right to privacy.All the people need to do is speak up...
The Constitution and the elaborate system of checks and balances were meant to protect us against the possibility of a clownish gang of small men and women amassing excessive power and behaving like tyrants or kings.Once again, all power lies in the Congress, but they arent doing anything because voters dont tell them to. But the normal safeguards have not been working since the Bush crowd came to power, starting with the hijacked presidential election in 2000.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, all bets were off. John Kennedy once said, "The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war." He had no grounds to say that, considering he doesn't know what the Americans think.This proves my point about John Kerry being against the war by the way. If the US isn't going to start a war, why would we need troops...FLIP-FLOPPER.But George W. Bush, employing an outrageous propaganda campaign ("Shock and awe," "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"), started an utterly pointless war in Iraq that he still doesn't know how to win or how to end.Pointless? So he would let the terrorists get away with attacking our nation? Interesting...
If you listen to the Bush version of reality, the president is all powerful. In that version, we are fighting a war against terrorism, which is a war that will never end. And as long as we are at war (forever), there is no limit to the war-fighting powers the president can claim as commander in chief.There is a limit. Its called re-election. President only serves two 4-year terms...D*OH!
So we've kidnapped people and sent them off to be tortured in the extraordinary rendition program; and we've incarcerated people at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere without trial or even the right to know the charges against them.Ya know, President Lincoln suspended the writs of habeas corpus too...Why isn't this man writing articles on him too?; and we're allowing the C.I.A. to operate super-secret prisons where God-knows-what-all is going on; and we're listening in on the phone calls and reading the e-mail of innocent Americans without warrants; and on and on and on.Read above. Cover stories aren't that hard to come up with. In order to be effective...etc.
The Bushies will tell you that it is dangerous and even against the law to inquire into these nefarious activities. We just have to trust the king.
Well, I give you fair warning. This is a road map to totalitarianism. Hallmarks of totalitarian regimes have always included an excessive reliance on secrecy, the deliberate stoking of fear in the general population, a preference for military rather than diplomatic solutions in foreign policy.Did we not attempt diplomatic solutions?Did we not attempt to send the usless UN to try to talk with Hussen?, the promotion of blind patriotism.Patriotism is never blind. You dont have to be at war to have patriotism. In fact, I consider patriotism a wonderful trait to have. We should always support the flag, what it stands for, and who is standing for it., the denial of human rights. God forbid we can't talk on the phone without computers with no emotions or judgements hearing us..., the curtailment of the rule of law, hostility to a free press and the systematic invasion of the privacy of ordinary people.See above.
There are not enough pretty words in all the world to cover up the damage that George W. Bush has done to his country. If the United States could look at itself in a mirror, it would be both alarmed and ashamed at what it saw.
Sure, Bush has messed up. But what would anyone who criticizes him do in his position? Without knowing what he did and just saying," I would do the opposite than he did." What would you do? Seriously, think about it. If you just knew that the terrorists attacked the country, what would you do? Sit around and watch your people suffer in vain? If that is your view, then you really shouldn't be discussing this, you should be getting psychologically tested for lack of morals...
 
Last edited:
Damien435 said:
This is just like the gay marriage issue, I finally said yes to gay marriage just to get everyone to shut up about it, would that make you happy here?

Besides, I have no sway over either issue.

You shouldnt give up so easy.
 
phoenix80 said:
You shouldnt give up so easy.

Why not? This isn't something affects me. I know, you're going to say "this is something that affects every American." but it just doesn't, whether you like it or not I have NOT done anything wrong, plus my cousin is regional director for the FBI, I feel pretty safe that he can vouch for me.
 
LT.Henderson

I see I'm a fanatic because I'm protecting my Civil Rights? I guess the Founding Fathers were fanatics too? Well Ok I accept this, but here's a question. Doesnt that (by your own definition) make you a facist? I mean after all, your're on the side the wants to to take my civil liberties away, which is precisely what facisist governments do you know. Speak to Pheonix he comes from Iran, he'll tell what its like when Big Government starts to crush the civil liberties of its people. Isnt that right Pheonix?

You failed to answer my question about why the NSA needs this power and you also failed to explain why the FBI simply cannot obtain a warrant from FISA. But I forgot to mention the 72 hour rule, which is a court order (easy to obtain, all they need is Probable Cause) from FISA that allows wiretapping for up to 72 hours without a warrant. How come the government cannot use that? No the government wants total power, complete access to wiretapping with no limitations whatsoever.

But here's another question. Despite almost all lawyers (including the presidents own lawyers), Judges and even politicans saying its illegal, lets assume for a sec warrentless wiretaps are legal like Bush says.

Why is there no provision for any oversight? If this was only to be used in counter-terrorism as you claim, then surely the President would have no objection to having an oversight commitee just in case some bureaucrat decided to use a government system to spy on political advereries. You know, like Tom Delay did with the FAA in 2004 in Texas Redistricting.

Well lookee here. Surprise, surprise, THERE IS NO OVERSIGHT COMMITEE. This is what makes Arlen Spector so angry. The NSA reports directly to the president, which means only the President and his cronies would have access to it. Why is there no oversight? Why do you think? The president whose reputation for secrecy surpasses even Nixon doesn't want anyone to know what he is really using that datamine for. I can assure it has nothing to do with terrorists. BTW al-Qaida rarely use phones anymore, its too risky due to satallite intercepts. They use messengers or pre-recorded audio/video transmissions. Another reason why this is BS.

Incidently, Do you remember the last time a president sent his own cronies to spy on American citizens? It was called WATERGATE.
 
Last edited:
Mmarsh. Do not ever call me a facist. OK? Lets get that damned straight right now.Wether or not you are my senior, I will not tolerate being called facist.I cannot even recall defining a facist...could you repost that for me?And yes, the Founding Fathers were fanatics. Ill be the first person to say it, because its true. They killed for freedom. If thats not fanatical then I dont know what is.Now, Damien is right, it doesn't effect me, and I don't have a cousin in the FBI, and I still don't care. I have nothing to hide and anything worth keeping private, I keep to myself.I'm frankly quite tired of debating with a fanatic,one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.I cannot recall the name but someone on these forums has that definition in his/her sig. It's a moot point because I don't care. I give up. In the immortal word of the great boxer Oscar de La Hoya,"No mas. No mas." Translation: No more. No more. Im tired of fighting a brick wall.

I still agree that it is neccessary in time of war and that the President has done what he has deemed neccessary. Boo hoo if we can't call someone without, as I said a thousand times before, a computer with no judgements listening. All the "civil rights" issues, thats bologna. Civil rights are women getting the right to vote. Civil rights are blacks being able to go to the same schools as whites. Those, my friend, are civil rights. Now making a phone call and having a computer intercept it, thats just whining.
 
Last edited:
Damien435 said:
Why not? This isn't something affects me. I know, you're going to say "this is something that affects every American." but it just doesn't, whether you like it or not I have NOT done anything wrong, plus my cousin is regional director for the FBI, I feel pretty safe that he can vouch for me.

LoL

I understand what you mean but you should stick to your convictions and beliefs no matter what.

mmarsh said:
LT.Henderson

I see I'm a fanatic because I'm protecting my Civil Rights? I guess the Founding Fathers were fanatics too? Well Ok I accept this, but here's a question. Doesnt that (by your own definition) make you a facist? I mean after all, your're on the side the wants to to take my civil liberties away, which is precisely what facisist governments do you know. Speak to Pheonix he comes from Iran, he'll tell what its like when Big Government starts to crush the civil liberties of its people. Isnt that right Pheonix?

You failed to answer my question about why the NSA needs this power and you also failed to explain why the FBI simply cannot obtain a warrant from FISA. But I forgot to mention the 72 hour rule, which is a court order (easy to obtain, all they need is Probable Cause) from FISA that allows wiretapping for up to 72 hours without a warrant. How come the government cannot use that? No the government wants total power, complete access to wiretapping with no limitations whatsoever.

But here's another question. Despite almost all lawyers (including the presidents own lawyers), Judges and even politicans saying its illegal, lets assume for a sec warrentless wiretaps are legal like Bush says.

Why is there no provision for any oversight? If this was only to be used in counter-terrorism as you claim, then surely the President would have no objection to having an oversight commitee just in case some bureaucrat decided to use a government system to spy on political advereries. You know, like Tom Delay did with the FAA in 2004 in Texas Redistricting.

Well lookee here. Surprise, surprise, THERE IS NO OVERSIGHT COMMITEE. This is what makes Arlen Spector so angry. The NSA reports directly to the president, which means only the President and his cronies would have access to it. Why is there no oversight? Why do you think? The president whose reputation for secrecy surpasses even Nixon doesn't want anyone to know what he is really using that datamine for. I can assure it has nothing to do with terrorists. BTW al-Qaida rarely use phones anymore, its too risky due to satallite intercepts. They use messengers or pre-recorded audio/video transmissions. Another reason why this is BS.

Incidently, Do you remember the last time a president sent his own cronies to spy on American citizens? It was called WATERGATE.

Is it not all because you are way anti-Bush and all the rhetoric come from that part of your feeling.

It is your anti-Bush feeling driving you to talk like this!

C/1Lt Henderson said:
Mmarsh. Do not ever call me a facist. OK? Lets get that damned straight right now.Wether or not you are my senior, I will not tolerate being called facist.I cannot even recall defining a facist...could you repost that for me?And yes, the Founding Fathers were fanatics. Ill be the first person to say it, because its true. They killed for freedom. If thats not fanatical then I dont know what is.Now, Damien is right, it doesn't effect me, and I don't have a cousin in the FBI, and I still don't care. I have nothing to hide and anything worth keeping private, I keep to myself.I'm frankly quite tired of debating with a fanatic,one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.I cannot recall the name but someone on these forums has that definition in his/her sig. It's a moot point because I don't care. I give up. In the immortal word of the great boxer Oscar de La Hoya,"No mas. No mas." Translation: No more. No more. Im tired of fighting a brick wall.

I still agree that it is neccessary in time of war and that the President has done what he has deemed neccessary. Boo hoo if we can't call someone without, as I said a thousand times before, a computer with no judgements listening. All the "civil rights" issues, thats bologna. Civil rights are women getting the right to vote. Civil rights are blacks being able to go to the same schools as whites. Those, my friend, are civil rights. Now making a phone call and having a computer intercept it, thats just whining.

Fantastic and well said
 
Last edited:
Pheonix

I hate to break it to you, but the latest Harris Poll had Bush at 29% approval and sliding. He is only 6 points away from beating Nixon as the most unpopular president in US History. Your're certainly entitled to cheerlead Bush if you like, but understand that you are in the VAST minority.

LT Henderson

You really need to read other people post before you make accusations.

I didn't call you a fascist, nowhere did I call you a fascist.

Lets recap:

You called me a fanatic because I am defending my civil rights. Right there, if anyone was namecalling it was you. Not that I'm trying to be a Mod, but I believe there something in the Forum Rules about that. But if thats your definition of fanatic (which is not in the dictionary by the way) then OK, I am a fanatic.

In reply: I asked you the question "if I am a fanatic, doesn't that mean BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION mean that you are a fascist? As fascist are the ones who take people rights way. The exact opposite of a fanatic (according to your definition).

Being Senior has nothing to do with it, reading and understanding other people's post does. Next time read, then comment.

The Founding Fathers were not soldiers, but thinkers. A few were Military Officiers, Most were politicians or lawyers. The Founding fathers were not warriors, but scholars and they are famous not for military exploits but because they created the articles of Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and finally the US Constitution. So I seriously doubt anybody is going to agree that the Founding Fathers were fanatics.

And its not that I'm a fanatic, its because your arguments DONT HOLD ANY WATER, thats why your're angry. You are simply not convincing. Oh and by the way, throwing a tantrum like a child because people don't agree with you does make you my junior. If you cannot handle disagreement: find another hobby. I am not in the habit of changing my mind simply because you say I should. Only dictators think that way.

Back to subject, Your certainly entitled to believe what you want but checked most polls Gallup,all have Americans AGAINST this policy. I have seen similar posts at Raussmussen, AP, and PollingReport. Most Americans are against this.

http://poll.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=22789


Have a Nice Day.
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
The latest Harris Poll had Bush at 29% approval and sliding.
Polls? Hold on hold on hold on.... can you remind me what polls said about the outcome of the 2004 election? In Italy the left was largely expected by pollsters to get a solid +5% at our election. In the end the right took more votes. Just to doublecheck how accurate polls may be.
 
IG

Thats what the margin or error is for, to calculate mistakes in the polls. I cannot speak for Italian politics, but I can for American politics. Its highly doubtful (near impossible) the polls are wrong, as its coming from mulitple polls groups taken from the past year and a half. The chances they are false are so astronamically low if they were, I will start buying lotto tickets again. Even news sources that are highly sympathetic to Bush (like FOX) has the presidents numbers in the toilet.

This ship is sinking fast.
 
Back
Top