Just more proof that Bush plans to turn the US into a police state! Just like Burma!

E-V-E-R-Y-B-O-D-Y P-A-N-I-C-!-!-!-!

Just more proof that this regime of terrorists has been breaking the law at will and eroding our civil liberties to forward their own agenda. And, they have been doing it since day one...

I feel safer, don't y'all???

Looks like everything changed BEFORE 9/11 Mr president.

And we are peranoid to suspect the honesty of these oppertunists?

Citizen, PLEASE!

Vernon

It does show intent before 9/11.

You do remember 911 the date that changed everything making expanded spying a necessity.

Apparently for Bush the actual date he wanted to change everything was February 27, 2001. Or more likely was January 29, 2001.

So this is why I didn't get the extra cheese I ordered on my pizza Feb of 2001.

It's all too clear now.

Bush's friends recount conversations with George prior to 2000 where he described the best way to take power in this country was to start a war with a small country.

It's interesting anyone thinks this man has been ought but consistent with who he is: a fr0g-exlpoding, sucker-punching, securities defrauding, dictator want-to-be.

Where are all the Bush supporters on this post? I guess it's hard to fall back on 9/11 as the reason for eroding freedom when it actually hadn't happened yet. I'm sure Rush will come up with something ridiculous for them to all start shouting in response to this tomorrow. It must be hard being a neocon on the weekends when no one is around to tell you what to think.

IMPEACHMENT

Stop talking

JUST DO IT!!!

But Bush needs these powers like he did before 9/11 to stop 9/11s. . .

Unqualified loser seeking dictatorial powers?

And vermin is STILL sucking on his dick.....is anyone surprised? I'm not.
That old Egyptian curse-"May you live in "interesting" times-keeps playin' itself out on us.....

Although-dipshit DOES have this "thing" for armed insurrection.......

You lefties are funnier than shit. First youc omplain that President Bush didn't do anything to stop 9/11 from happening after receiving the infamous PDB. Now that it is discovered that he may indeed have been trying to do something, all you can do is bitch that he was spying on you prior to 9/11 and trying to turn this country into a police state. Idiots

exeagle-so-you're sayin'-it's OK for bushie to break the law? That he was actually "trying" to do something about Osama Bin Forgotten?

Tool.

EXEAGLE:

Bush didn't have any reason to believe that anything like 9/11 would/could occur: his words, repeated over, and over, and over....

So, I guess Bush is a liar and a wanna be tyrant from your view?

I'm just sayin'...

Gee Sexbeagle,is it possible we think that way cause thats what W told us?
The PDB was just "old news, historical in nature" with no actionable intel, if you recall.
Totally a 'you have covered your ass' proforma piece of briefing item, or so W said to his briefer.
See, Truth is not some kind of playdough that can be twisted, mischaracterized, and modeled into a semi believable statements which can be redefined when vetted and found to be false...unless you are part of the Bushwackoff administration.
Some of us are paying attention fercryinoutloud.

oldwhiskeysour and CaptainOfUranus
Is it possible that for security reasons you were told what you were told?

frankf55,

Yes, under certain circumstances, like the security of this country, I am willing to allow "Bushie" or any other president to Temporarily "break the law"

"Yes, under certain circumstances, like the security of this country, I am willing to allow "Bushie" or any other president to Temporarily "break the law"

This comment would work just as well on one of the "Good German" threads.

Sieg Heil, exeagle.

Hans

Hans,
Don't forget to make an EXEAGLE file, you may want to use that statement against me in the future!

Of course eavesdropping is necessary to fight the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 before 9/11.

And the lapdogs like Vernon lap up the bullshit like it is a dreamwhip pie.

I am willing to allow "Bushie" or any other president to Temporarily "break the law"


Posted by Exeagle at 2007-10-14 01:58 PM | Reply

Well if you have no respect for Constitutional rights and are willing to live under a regime that expresses those rights in exchange for a false sense of freedom Iran would suit you just fine.

Or China.

Or North Korea.

Or Burma.

Or Russia.

Or Saudi Arabia.

Just because you don't value the Constitution there is no reason to subject the rest of the citizens of this nation to the same deluded wishes you have.

Just because you don't value the Constitution there is no reason to subject the rest of the citizens of this nation to the same deluded wishes you have.
Posted by JimmyWallback

Jimmywallback, there are many who agree with your statements.

Bush is a New World Order supporter, just like his daddy.

"Temporarily break the law...."

Is my temporary the same as your temporary? Is it the same as Bush's?

"The security of this country" seems like a permanent issue. Therefore, by your reasoning, "temporary" must by definition be another word for forever.

How many laws does Bush get to "temporarily" break. One, three, all?

I'm with Jimmy. If you want a collection taken up so you can emmigrate some place else more in tune with your ideas, do let us know.

JimmyWallback
First off, I respect the Constitution of this country as much or more than you do. And if it takes a bit of law breaking to keep me and the rest of America from having to live under a regime such as the ones that you mentioned, so be it.

"If it takes a bit of law-breaking....."

Define "a bit".

"I respect the Consitution...."

Find "a bit" in it.

People who support "temporarily 'breaking the law'" to defend the country continue to forget the oath of office taken by a president:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The President is bound to defend the Constitution, not the people; the Constitution is the instrument used to protect citizens through its enforcement rather than a unitary executive doing it by claiming to protect citizens by violating their civil rights. So any time a president says his or her job is to protect the people, he's lying or being disingenuous at the least. And anytime someone says it's okay for the president to violate Constitutional law to keep people physically safe is basically saying they disregard The Constitution: that makes them pro-crime. Justifications of this type remind me of the mafia dons who say you have to pay up if you want them to protect your livelihood and your life but that they're just "taking care of you."

EX... "First off, I respect the Constitution of this country as much or more than you do. And if it takes a bit of law breaking to keep me and the rest of America from having to live under a regime such as the ones that you mentioned, so be it."

Uh... I cannot think of the words here...

This was quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard...

I would just LOVE to hear what an American soldier would say to you after having risked: life limb and sanity fighting for the freedom of Americans like YOU, and you (all-the-while safe here in America) are willing to give up those "freedoms" for security against a possible occurance that is less likely to happen to you than you being struck by lightning...

Land of the scared, and home of the naive ...

"pressure on the company to participate in activities it saw as improper came as early as February"

Damn Bush moved fast. He took office in Jan. I'll bet it was activities started by the previous administration. Would BJ Billie do that?

EXEAGLE: how are terrorist attacks effective in establishing a nightmare "regime" that you're talking about? Do you really think the U.S. Constitution is THAT weak? Do you think O.B.L. and his like are really strong enough to topple the U.S. republic and negate the Constitution? You're falling into the same trap as so many others, laid by domestic leaders who want to use their positions to exert total power over the U.S. population. The belief that the president is some sort of Big Daddy who needs to rob you of your civil rights in order to guarantee you'll never suffer physical danger from a foreign attacker is delusional and infantile.

CaptainOfUranus,
I have been a serviceman fighting for the freedoms of Americans like me. My statement stands

"I'll bet it was activities started by the previous administration....."

Spectacularly timed so the previous administration received no benefit from it.

"Fighting for (a bit) of the freedoms of Americans like me...."

As long as we lose our rights the terrorist are winning by making us feel afraid. we shouldn't be afraid of them we should be showing how democracy is better than fascism by fighting Islamic fascism with a better ideal which is democracy.

You do not fight fascism with fascist ideals. Like taking away rights which we will never get back. Fools - all of you are fools that believe you have fight fascism with fascist ideals.

The biggest weakness in democracy is also it's core cornerstone of it. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of expression, the right to petition the government, the right criticize the president, and the right to privacy. Lose the cornerstone and the whole damn thing falls down and the terrorist win.

"Of course eavesdropping is necessary to fight the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 before 9/11."

gregorybrian,

Neither you or I know where the next attack on this country is coming from, maybe OBL, maybe China, but if the people in charge of this countries security believe that that they can stop it, by whatever means necessary, go for it!

EXEAGLE: so you're saying there will inevitably be another attack on the U.S. but you're also saying it is avoidable by "whatever means necessary." That's a paradox, unless you believe in time machines where one can a) experience something (an attack) and then b) go back in time to prepare for and divert it.

You're conceding to my earlier point: physical danger is unavoidable. If most everybody agrees that such a thing will happen, isn't it worth living by the founding principles of the U.S.? Again, you are confusing the rights guaranteed to all Americans with an impossible guarantee that nothing bad will ever happen on American soil. The Founders of the country were willing to die so that their fellow countrymen and -women, their children and all future generations of Americans could enjoy the Constitutional protections they encoded. The desire to throw all that away (or "a bit" of it) just so people could "feel" safe was brilliantly observed by Benjamin Franklin: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." Are you willing to sell Liberty to purchase power, power of "the people in charge of this countries (sic) security" to do as they please, however misguided they may be?

gregorybrian,
I would say that almost everyone believes that we will be attacked again at some time. I also believe that if there is a chance to stop that attack we should do whatever it takes to do so.

I said nothing about going back in time and and diverting something that has already happened.

I am not sure why you think that protecting this country is misguided.

By the way, we live in a completely different time than our founding fathers did, so the quotations from them really mean nothing to me or anyone else with a brain

Neither you or I know where the next attack on this country is coming from, maybe OBL, maybe China, but if the people in charge of this countries security believe that that they can stop it, by whatever means necessary, go for it!

Posted by Exeagle at


Putting OBL and China in the same league is of course ridiculous. Diplomacy and economics will always be the answer for china, and the risk of terrorist attacks, while real (but GROSSLY overstated in terms of actual damage and likelood), is not worth the sacrifice of the liberty earned for us by the very real blood spilled by prior generations of Americans fighting real wars against real enemies.

exvulture,

I like your facist attitude, so much so that it would be quite nice to have you picked up, arrested, given no due process and put in jail because you are just so willing to give up the constitution.

"First off, I respect the Constitution of this country as much or more than you do. And if it takes a bit of law breaking to keep me and the rest of America from having to live

Troll! This statement, all on its own, clearly, by any prudent reasonable person of almost any age, would convict you as no YOU dont respect the constitution. To say otherwise is just fool hardy trolling.

I am not sure why you think that protecting this country is misguided.

I am not sure why you think this is protecting our country. Our Constitution says it is not protecting the country no matter what the reason, it is subverting the constitution from control from the people to control to the government.

The exact opposite of what the country was founded upon.

we live in a completely different time than our founding fathers did

A stupid facists canard!!! The constitution was not written for a time period, it was written for a people to be protected from a government which is timeless.

TROLL

if the people in charge of this countries security believe that that they can stop it, by whatever means necessary, go for it!

POSTED BY EXEAGLE

That's what I saying.

Don't forget:

WMD's
911
Anthrax laden drones
911
Mushroom clouds
911
Flag Burning
911
Abortion
911
Gay Marriage
911
Terri Schiavo
911
Hurricane Katrina


We have everything under control and would never exaggerate a situation for our own interests.

And Exagle is spot on.

Franklin was nothing but a womanizing fraud. Why during most of the Revolutionary war he was in France.

EXEAGLE: I'm still waiting for an answer to my earlier questions: how are terrorist attacks [or any other attacks] effective in establishing a nightmare "regime" that you're talking about? Do you really think the U.S. Constitution is THAT weak?

Let me ask another question: do you believe the U.S. should become a military state with a constant declaration of martial law?

midiman,
You mean that so far OBL does not have the same power as china. Who knows if he will be able to buy a nuke from some country with that technology and the means to deliver it. Would it then become worth the sacrifice of that liberty? Or would you just prefer to see many of your fellow americans die when they may have been saved.

Moneywar,

I said nothing about the Constitution being outdated, I said that the quotations of founding fathers were. Maybe if you had pasted the entire sentence that I wrote you would have realized that

So it sounds like what EXEAGLE, the fine American patriotic, military man he is saying is that he believes it is better to live on your knees than to die on your feet. What the hell were you fighting for man? Did you take this oath?:

"I, EXEAGLE, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

If so, you are, in effect, fragging the Constitution when you want to extinguish "a bit" of it.

I said nothing about the Constitution being outdated, I said that the quotations of founding fathers were.

POSTED BY EXEAGLE

Indeed EXEAGLE clearly said she respect the Constitution, of course she also said that it could be ignored if it was really, really necessary.



I respect the Constitution of this country as much or more than you do. And if it takes a bit of law breaking to keep me and the rest of America from having to live under a regime such as the ones that you mentioned, so be it.
-EXEAGLE

" I said nothing about the Consitution being out-dated...."

But you clearly believe that it is.

EXEAGLE, in his/her/it's heart-of-hearts, thinks "laws" are things other people experience.

Abstractions, having nothing to do with him. And, if those laws were suspended, that's just an abstraction of an abstraction.

EXEAGLE will be one of those that has to bleed from teh effects of his own ideas before he knows the taste of blood. In the meantime, just make sure he/she/it teaches no high school Civics classes.

gregorybrian,
I did not bring up the nightmare regime scenario, jimmywallbeck did. I simply answered him.
but in answer to your question, I would assume that if OBL or any of the others that jimmywallbeck mentioned, decided to use weapons that would cause mass destruction to this country, they would also try to occupy the country, thus establishing a "nightmare regime" As far as your question about martial law goes, I do not equate gathering information about a possible enemy to establishing martial law.

Exeagle, a good Straussian bless her heart.

Zed,
As I read it, the 4th amendment does not allow unreasonable searches and siezures. I believe that some searches are reasonable to protect this country. That you do not is your problem.

I also believe some searches are permitted under the Consitution.

What I know is that lawbreaking isn't permitted. You know, that thing you wish for?

You know, EXEAGLE, if you're even the least bit honest, you're on the verge of an admission here.

Zed,
So you don't believe the 4th amendment allows reasonable searches. I believe it is reasonable to do whatever is possible to protect my country, if you do not, we will just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

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.

All that:" supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" stuff is just so pre 911. You know (wink, wink, Nod, Nod) the 'bit' Exeagle find unnecessary.

"I believe it's reasonable to do whatever is possiblt protect my country...."

Do you also believe that playing badmitton without a net makes a great game?

"I beleive it's reasonable to do whatever...."

Then you are a tyrant and abettor of tyrants.

I believe that some searches are reasonable to protect this country.
-Exeagle


And of Course as we all know.

I Am The Decider!

Zed,
I absolutely believe everything that I have said today. I for the life of me cannot understand why anyone would bypass using any tool available to protect this country and save the lives of fellow Americans.

Sorry---I realize I'm having a discussion about what the Consitution means with someone that doesn't care what it means.

But, let's try once again----If protecting this country required you and your children were sold into slavery and your house burned, is that OK under your theories?

And, if not, why not? Take your time.

I said nothing about the Constitution being outdated, I said that the quotations of founding fathers were. Maybe if you had pasted the entire sentence that I wrote you would have realized that

What you don't seemed to grasp is you ignored the actual statement of my post. Why, because it goes against the very thing you are trying to say here.

It was a nice deflection but one should also remember you are the true supporter of facisms and should be regarded on the scale of the white supremacy groups just marching along quietly.

We're in the process of testing what you believe. And, just think, in this instance it's only in writing.

I realize I'm having a discussion about what the Constitution means with someone that doesn't care what it means.

God Bless them.

They realize what we really need is a Faith Based Constitution!

And that would be Faith in the partisans in power and not some silly piece of paper written for all times.

So this is why I didn't get the extra cheese I ordered on my pizza Feb of 2001.

It's all too clear now.

Posted by Lou_Dobbs at 2007-10-14 10:35 AM | Reply | Flag

Yes it is. The fact that you're a true Bush apologist is crystal clear.

Zed,
if I am not mistaken, we are still gathering intelligence in this manner so I guess it has not been settled yet has it?

Moneywar;
I have only been telling you folks my opinion on the subject of this thread, so if you feel that is a reason to call me a fascist, have at it. I think we all have the right to disagree with each other,
maybe in my first post I shouldn't have called the first few posters idiots, but I have been reading this site for about four or five years now and you guys do make me laugh, uncontrollably at times!

Oh, answer the question. It's a simple "yes" or "no". Courage of one's convictions and all that?

I have been reading this site for about four or five years now and you guys do make me laugh, uncontrollably at times!

POSTED BY EXEAGLE

Me two, but even funnier than that is people like you STILL trust people like me.

EXEAGLE: do you believe that supporting a violation of the Constitution goes against your sworn oath as a member of the armed forces?

Me two,

Sorry about that I meant "I Two".

EXEAGLE, if I understand him properly, thinks that it's OK to "temporarily" suspend one's oath to the Constitution.

Also, as far as I can follow---As long as it's Muhammad and his kids and his nice little store than the street the government can rape and burn to it's heart's content.

EXEAGLE: do you believe that supporting a violation of the Constitution goes against your sworn oath as a member of the armed forces?

POSTED BY GREGORYBRIA

For god sake, give the girl a break.

What's the big deal about Constitutions and sworn Oaths anyway.

Do you hold the sacred or something.

That is so pre 911.

Actually, why pick on poor Muhammad and his property? EXEAGLE's position seems to be anything goes as liong as he personally is not the target.

EX ... "I have been a serviceman fighting for the freedoms of Americans like me. My statement stands"

And, it is just as dumb now as it was then ...

EX ... "By the way, we live in a completely different time than our founding fathers did, so the quotations from them really mean nothing to me or anyone else with a brain ...

Quotations from our founding fathers like say, THE CONSTITUTION??? Yeah, those quote mean nothing to people like you and those with brains like GWB ...

EX ... "I believe it is reasonable to do whatever is possible to protect my country, if you do not, we will just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that."

The problem with that statement is that you are not "doing what is necessary to protect your country", you are doing what you are told to do by those that insist that our country is in peril ... It is not ...

EX ... "I absolutely believe everything that I have said today. I for the life of me cannot understand why anyone would bypass using any tool available to protect this country and save the lives of fellow Americans."

This administration IS using every "tool" available ... Unfortunately for our Constitution and the American way there are a lot of "tools" out there.

CaptainOfUranus,
I have tried to tell you guys all afternoon that, the opinions that I have offered here are my own. And I believe the constitution affords me the right to express them. You don't like it amend the constitution.
sounds funny coming from someone who hates the constitution don't it.
By the way COU none of The quotations you guys like to post from the founding fathers have anything to do with the wording of the constitution as far as I can tell.
I have some work to do now so I will be signing off for awhile.

"I have tried to tell you guys all afternoon that, the opinions that I have offered here are my own. And I believe the constitution affords me the right to express them."

Unless, of course,

...under certain circumstances, like the security of this country, I am willing to allow "Bushie" or any other president to Temporarily "break the law"

Posted by Exeagle

hans,
Both of your above quotes from me are incomplete.
in the first one you deleted the part where I said
"sounds funny coming from someone who hates the constitution don't it" I was trying to be facetious, but I obviously failed.

In the second quote you failed to include the question that I was answering from frank55, which was:
"exeagle-so-you're sayin'-it's OK for bushie to break the law? That he was actually "trying" to do something about Osama Bin Forgotten?"

Don't forget to ad this to your EXEAGLE file

EX ... "I have tried to tell you guys all afternoon that, the opinions that I have offered here are my own. And I believe the constitution affords me the right to express them. You don't like it amend the constitution."

No one is saying that you can't speak your mind, I just think that your opinion is rather inept. And, this being a "political discussion board" means that when one posts an opinion, they do so to have it argued ... Glad I could clear this up for you; I hope that it helps ...

EX ... "sounds funny coming from someone who hates the constitution don't it.
By the way COU none of The quotations you guys like to post from the founding fathers have anything to do with the wording of the constitution as far as I can tell"

So, the Constitution says somewhere that no one should argue the validity another's freely expressed opinions? That must be in "the bit" of the Constitution that you respect (thanks ZED) ...

And, I haven't quoted the Constitution ...

But, the Founding Fathers wrote it, and the words of the founding fathers are as valid today as they ever were (unless you are GWB, then it's just a God damn piece of paper)...

Zed,
I am sorry I missed your question about my kids and house burning and all that. That is just a silly question, it has nothing to do with the thread at all.

CaptainOfUranus
All I have said all day long is that I feel it is justified to gather information on an entity that may do my country and its citizens harm. If you don't feel that way fine, just sit and wait for the expolosion. Some of you have said today that it is not likely that we will be hit hard enough to do us any real harm, like the use of a nuke or a gas attack or botulism in our water supplies or things of that nature. Well I and others disagree and any info that we can garner to prevent those actions should be gathered. Just my way of thinking, to each his own.

The significance of the claim is hard to assess

I would be very concerned if this turns out to be true. However, Mr Nacchio is a convicted felon and a POS in general.

I realize that most of you would choose to believe a corporate scumbag if he says what you want to hear however.

It does show intent before 9/11.

You do remember 911 the date that changed everything making expanded spying a necessity.

Apparently for Bush the actual date he wanted to change everything was February 27, 2001. Or more likely was January 29, 2001.



Posted by Zap

It might mean all of that however it might mean that an asshole is just trying to save his ass by lying.

I absolutely believe everything that I have said today. I for the life of me cannot understand why anyone would bypass using any tool available to protect this country and save the lives of fellow Americans."

I agree with EXEAGLE on that point, if used with sincere exceptions. However, the underlying problem is that Americans no longer trust Bush -- on anything -- as far as they can throw him because he has lied so many times. Bush used 9-11 ad nauseum for everything. Bush used 9-11 as his reason for eavesdropping and going behind the back of the FISA court. Now we find out he was AGAIN lying. Does he ever tell the truth?

America does not believe a single word Bush says anymore. Bush did that to himself. Whether it's this incident on the wiretapping or the reason we need more troops for a surge, or anything else Bush says he will never be believed because he's been caught in so many lies.

Bush's presidency is now, and will always remain, suspect and tainted in the eyes of most Americans. That is not our fault nor is it partisan. How many lies do we as a nation have to endure from a man we are suppose to be able to trust- the President of the United States.

It might mean all of that however it might mean that an asshole is just trying to save his ass by lying.

Posted by eberly


A Lying Asshole, Eberly thanks but Bush isn't even denying this of yet.

thanks but Bush isn't even denying this of yet.

That doesn't mean anything at this point. Again, if true then it really means something. Has GWB denied the 9-11 conspiracy theories, that he has fucked Jeff Gannon in the ass, that his dad rapes orphans, etc....???

A convicted felon who's company didn't get a contract it wanted is "asserting" this.

Thanks, but I'll wait till we have more information.

Thanks, but I'll wait till we have more information.

Posted by eberly


Indeed no surprise there, still no WMD's yet either.

Zap,

No, you are right. Let's go ahead and believe this guy.

Strawman.

No, you are right. Let's go ahead and believe this guy.

Yav,

this isn't my first day here. I'm familiar with the book.

I'm just expressing my skeptism with Nacchio.

I realize you can't get that.

EBERLY ... "I would be very concerned if this turns out to be true. However, Mr Nacchio is a convicted felon and a POS in general."

Funny thing, his Corporation doesn't tow the Fascist Party line and what happens? Hmmmm, indictment ...

Then he tries to defend himself legally, and what happens? Hmmmm, his evidence is censored, and his defense refused by the court for National Security reasons ...

Hmmmm, let me think REALY HARD about which branch of government is cloaked in secrecy and has consistently lied to the American people, Congress and the Justice Dept. for "National Security Reasons" ... Give me a sec; I know it will come to me ...

EBERLY ... "I realize that most of you would choose to believe a corporate scumbag if he says what you want to hear however."
I would put a "Corporate scumbag" dead even with the Bush Administration. However, since I have been lied to REPEATEDLY by Bush and his troop of scumbags, and since the article clearly states: "But the (heavily redacted N.S.A.) documents unsealed Wednesday in federal court in Denver claim for the first time that pressure on the company to participate in activities it saw as improper came as early as February, nearly seven months before the terrorist attacks", I would have to opt for the Corporate scumbag... (Devils in the details) ...

Funny thing, his Corporation doesn't tow the Fascist Party line and what happens? Hmmmm, indictment ...

Are you Buffalobob?

No, he didn't do anything. He is just a patsy.

pointless.

EXEAGLE: do you believe that supporting a violation of the Constitution goes against your sworn oath as a member of the armed forces?

That's right, EXEAGLE, you missed my initial post, then all my ancillary posts, but then decide it's all too silly to respond to when I'm long gone.

That's what we call an amazing train of coincidence.

I was just curious what lengths you'd actually go to make this country safe and what sacrifices you'd accept to assure that, voluntarily or otherwise.

My opinion remains the same----As long as you've got no skin in the game it's the rack for the rest of us.

EBERLY... "No, he didn't do anything. He is just a patsy"

Huh, Please point out where I said that he had done nothing...

Otherwise you are just fabricating my side the argument so that you actually sound like you have a point...

What's that called again... Oh yeah, STRAWMAN...


EBERLY... "pointless"

I understand from your point of view that arguing with me would be pretty pointless, as you can't argue with the truth...

EX... "All I have said all day long is that I feel it is justified to gather information on an entity that may do my country and its citizens harm. If you don't feel that way fine, just sit and wait for the expolosion"

I too feel it is justified for my government to gather information on an entity that may do my country and its citizens harm, THROUGH THE LEGAL CHANNELS THAT HAVE WORKED FINE FOR EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT: "FISA COURT WARRANT"...

But, not for the president to do so illegally, then lie about it and then cover it up; insisting on executive priviledge anytime he is asked to justify his actions...

One more in a string of stories and books consistent with a kakamayme NeoCon Plot to reshape the world military and economic order for Israel and the Military Industrial Complex. All Cheney wanted was a "Pearl Harbor Event" to drag the public along.

After Gulf I, Cheney laid out the consequences of advancing into Baghdad in accurate detail. What has happened is exactly what he said would happen. All one can conclude is that the death and destruction is part of Satan's plan, just like Haliburton's record profits and exit to Dubai.

Everything shall be privatized, in the name of the "efficiency lie". But, we are all being fucked royal. Your children's children will be unable to work off the debt.

Bush's friends recount conversations with George prior to 2000 where he described the best way to take power in this country was to start a war with a small country.

It's interesting anyone thinks this man has been ought but consistent with who he is: a fr0g-exlpoding, sucker-punching, securities defrauding, dictator want-to-be.

Posted by Zed at 2007-10-14 10:44 AM

As usual, any proof to this statement?

"pressure on the company to participate in activities it saw as improper came as early as February"

Has this been proven yet or are the liberals just bouncing on another factless statement?

"You do not fight fascism with fascist ideals. Like taking away rights which we will never get back."

The same thing was said in WWII. How many Japanese people do you still see in camps?

It just amazes me how some of these twits want to post a liberal blog as if it were a fact. And you guys claim the the Republicans only follow Rush. Whats the difference?

SICKO... "Has this been proven yet or are the liberals just bouncing on another factless statement?"

Did you read the article?

The article clearly states: "But the (heavily redacted N.S.A.) documents unsealed Wednesday in federal court in Denver claim for the first time that pressure on the company to participate in activities it saw as improper came as early as February, nearly seven months before the terrorist attacks (of 9/11)"

SICKO... "It just amazes me how some of these twits want to post a liberal blog as if it were a fact. And you guys claim the the Republicans only follow Rush. Whats the difference?"

Liberal Blog?

It's an op-ed piece from the NY times about a court case in Denver...

It's a piece written about evidence in a trial...

Jesus you Neo/cons all remind me of that guy on Montey Python's Holy Grail, The sword fighter. No matter how much evidence is heaped upon you telling you that you are wrong...

"Oh, that's just a scratch", "you're walking away!!" "Come back and fight!!!"

Jesus take your f'n torso and go back to drooling to Hush and Rantity...

But, let's try once again----If protecting this country required you and your children were sold into slavery and your house burned, is that OK under your theories?

And, if not, why not? Take your time.

Posted by Zed

What does this have to do with an interpitation of the 4th amendment. You seem to believe that there is no such thing as a reasonable search and some do not share your opinion on that matter.

You are trying to make a fools arguement so I won't argue with you.

Hey CaptainASSHOLE,

You know, you truly are a dick.

What do all three of these have in common? Thats right, liberal blogs.

blog.wired.com
www.truthout.org
www.gwu.edu

Libs are always using these and calling them facts.

SICKO... "Hey CaptainASSHOLE, You know, you truly are a dick."

Oooh... You sure told me off!!!

SICKO... "What do all three of these have in common? Thats right, liberal blogs. blog.wired.com
www.truthout.org www.gwu.edu Libs are always using these and calling them facts."

Yeah... And???

At least they have the balls to site their sources... All the NeoCons do is squawk out their rush/hanity/corporate/fascist mantra, and then when asked to "site their source" they disapear on to another thread and squawk out the same crap...

And, just because YOU don't like the information doesn't make it any less accurate, nor does it make the source any less valid...

Hello folks !?!? Its called trolling...

Or just being flat out stupid,

in any event your not changing his mind. There wasn't even a chance at that.

He didn't come here to test his posistions.

"You are trying to make foolish arguments..."

Only if you didn't read the thread.