Mike Luckovich

By 8 To 5 Andy

May 15, 2006 08:03 AM | Link to this

The Washington Post comes through for Conservatives again:

The Right Call on Phone Records The NSA’s Program Safeguards Security — and Civil Liberties By Richard A. Falkenrath

On Thursday, USA Today reported that three U.S. telecommunications companies have been voluntarily providing the National Security Agency with anonymized domestic telephone records — that is, records stripped of individually identifiable data, such as names and place of residence. If true, the architect of this program deserves our thanks and probably a medal. That architect was presumably Gen. Michael Hayden, former director of the NSA and President Bush’s nominee to become director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

We really do appreciate it.

By 8 To 5 Andy

May 15, 2006 08:04 AM | Link to this

Look at Queen Pinko announce to everyone that her 7 year niece has a better understanding of the world than she does:

My 7-year-old niece — seven-and-a-half, she insists — e-mailed me that message a few weeks back, a reflection of the boundless enthusiasm only a small child can muster.

I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t own a crystal ball but I am willing to bet this Mother Lib does not sit around all day mourning the plight of illegal immigrants:

At the time, I hardly shared her cheeriness. Listening as the rhetoric surrounding immigration grew coarser — with unmistakable signals of an unwholesome nativism, if not outright racism, seeping in from the fringes — I worried that her future wouldn’t be as bright as I had hoped.

The most telling item in this column is the omission; failing to mention that Bush takes the same position that the Atlanta Urinal’s editorial page pooh bah does, he would swap out the population of the two countries and erase the border if it wasn’t for his base. I guess it would kill this exalted pinko to even consider mentioning the fact that she and George were once ideological sweethearts.

It amazes me watching these libs squirm around this immigration debate the way they do, their “flexibility” on the issue is simply breath taking. When they’re foaming at the Republicans about “falling wages,” do they cross their fingers behind their backs to keep from being struck by lightening?

After writing gratuitous editorials about the ever increasing people living in poverty, the high unemployment rates among, get this, Hispanics and the horror facing the average two car and mansion owning worker in this booming economy, do they run straight to the nearest private place where they can laugh out loud about the stupidity of the liberals that read their newspaper?

By 8 To 5 Andy

May 15, 2006 08:04 AM | Link to this

The problem for responsible members of the administration, and the intelligence committees in Congress, is that we are not allowed to discuss intelligence leaks. We cannot tell the public details of the damage that has been done to our ability to stay a step ahead of Al Qaeda because to do so would confirm that damage — and that would help the enemy just as much as a leak.

We cannot tell the public whether American intelligence officers have died since 9/11 protecting the secrets that are being cavalierly leaked. We cannot discuss the financial losses incurred when top-secret technologies developed at huge cost to taxpayers are revealed on Page 1, rendering them useless against our foes. What I can assure you is that leaks are costly in every sense of the word. They endanger all Americans.

I regret that I see little sign of intolerance for unauthorized disclosures of intelligence to the media from some of my Democratic colleagues today. If an individual with knowledge of the Terrorist Surveillance Program thought it was wrong or illegal, he or she could have gone to the intelligence oversight committees under the procedures established by law. By going to the media, the leaker broke the law and the oath he or she swore to protect the nation’s legitimate secrets.

By 8 To 5 Andy

May 15, 2006 08:05 AM | Link to this

So if the Republicans try to overturn an election by ousting Bill Clinton from the Oval Office through an ill-advised impeachment and trial, watch out when the Democrats regain control if there is a Republican in the White House. Where does all this political t** for tat leave Americans who expect these clowns to represent them with some measure of equanimity for the good of all? The answer seems to be two more years of doing very little to solve the nation’s problems.

Full-fledged hearings into such ho-hum questions as what energy executives had input to Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy policy task force during George Bush’s first term or how the administration messed up on the issue of Iraq’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction (WMD) would only delay badly needed solutions. Besides, the courts have ruled several times that the White House need not reveal those consulted by Mr. Cheney. And the WMD issue has been investigated ad nauseam by one official panel after another and by the media.

By 8 To 5 Andy

May 15, 2006 08:06 AM | Link to this

Contrary to what you’ve been told:

When it released official statistics Wednesday, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reported more than 37 million Americans — more than 85 percent of those eligible for Medicare — have enrolled in Medicare prescription drug benefit or have equivalent coverage through a former employer or the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Since CMS reports heavy enrollment volume ahead of tomorrow’s deadline, we have every reason to believe the numbers will swell even further. Already, Medicare has helped pay for well above 280 million prescriptions; just about one for every American.

All who sign up will get good drug coverage. On average, beneficiaries will save more than $1,100 each per year. And most seniors already pay lower monthly premiums than experts predicted. Low-income recipients of the drug benefit receive the greatest boost to their standard of living.

By 8 To 5 Andy

May 15, 2006 08:06 AM | Link to this

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he supported using the National Guard on the Mexican border. He said lawmakers who doubt that the National Guard, whose members have served for years in Iraq and went to the Gulf Coast after last summer’s hurricanes, could take on border patrol duty are “whining” and “moaning.”

“We’ve got to secure our borders,” Frist said on CNN’s “Late Edition.”“We hear it from the American people. We’ve got millions of people coming across that border. First and foremost, secure the border, whatever it takes. Everything else we’ve done has failed. We’ve got to face that. And so we need to bring in, I believe, the National Guard.”

That’s a fact, jack.

By 8 To 5 Andy

May 15, 2006 08:07 AM | Link to this

The democrats finally have a plan! How to lie to and then sellout 2 large groups of people:

The Democratic Party finds itself in a difficult position these days: groping toward something it can spin as a coherent alternative to the Bush administration’s handling of the Iraq war. The party faces a difficult — if not impossible — task, because it is trying simultaneously to appeal to two constituencies with dramatically different world views: 1) the left-wing Democratic base which hates President Bush and would like to see him impeached; and 2) moderates and centrists who have been deserting the party in large numbers since the late 1960s because they associate the party with foreign-policy weakness. The defection of these Democrats spelled political doom for presidential stand-bearers such as George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry. The task facing the party leadership is finding a way to reassure the centrists it really wants some form of “success” in Iraq (however defined), while reassuring the MoveOn.org crowd that they will get of Iraq as soon as it becomes politically possible to abandon the Iraqis to their fate.

By 8 To 5 Andy

May 15, 2006 08:08 AM | Link to this

I told John Gibson that the people who are leaking top-secret information and damaging national security — a large and growing crowd of CIA, State Department and Congressional sources — should be spending the rest of their lives in jail. When Gibson asked me why we weren’t seeing indictments, I could only throw up my hands and say Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should be answering the question. And so he should.

Yes he should.

By 8 To 5 Andy

May 15, 2006 08:09 AM | Link to this

The funniest thing about this Washington Post pinko’s argument is that he acts like massive government spending is a given:

In a study published under Holtz-Eakin’s direction last December, the CBO estimated the extent to which a 10 percent reduction in personal taxes might pay for itself. The conclusions confirm that the free-lunch mantra is just plain wrong. On the most optimistic assumptions it could muster, the CBO found that tax cuts would stimulate enough economic growth to replace 22 percent of lost revenue in the first five years and 32 percent in the second five. On pessimistic assumptions, the growth effects of tax cuts did nothing to offset revenue loss.

Meanwhile, here on planet Earth: Tax Revenues up 14.6% over 2004- Federal tax revenue has increased nearly 15% during 2005, according to a report by the Congressional Budget Office. Many politicans and economist think this will help reduce the federal deficit (Sharp Increase in Tax Revenue Will Pare U.S. Deficit - New York Times). The reason for the big increase? People and businesses are paying more estimated taxes than was expected. In fact, payments by corporations increased over 40%. The federal government has collected $204 billion more in taxes through June 2005 than it did in the same period in 2004. Could it be that the economy improving? And for the whining wienies worried about the states:

The nation’s strong economic growth is creating a tax-revenue boom for the states. State tax revenues jumped 8.7 percent in 2004 and about 8 percent in 2005. About three-quarters of state governments had tax-revenue growth of 6 percent or more in 2005.

By 8 To 5 Andy

May 15, 2006 08:10 AM | Link to this

Thank You, Lea!

By Liberal Texas Democrat

May 15, 2006 08:23 AM | Link to this

Good ‘toon Mike

By Thomas

May 15, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this

Spam Spam Spam Spam —

Welcome to Andy’s Blog!

By Buy Danish

May 15, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this

Thomas,

Have anything of interest to say? I’m all ears. Meanwhile, you may want to direct your spamming comments to “Pinko Liberal” and “Andy’s Mom” - that’s who shut the blog down between the hours of 8 and 5, so this new hours of operation rule is useless.

Andy,

Thanks for the great links.

By seeker

May 15, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this

The Bush GOP continues to self-destruct:

WASHINGTON, May 13 — Some of President Bush’s most influential conservative Christian allies are becoming openly critical of the White House and Republicans in Congress, warning that they will withhold their support in the midterm elections unless Congress does more to oppose same-sex marriage, obscenity and abortion.

What planet do Herrs Dobsen, Falwell and Robertson live on? The nation’s problems have nothing to do with gays, abortion or smutty words on TV.

They have everything to so with a failed war, a failed promise to limit the federal deficit, a failed immigration policy, the failure of Plan D Medicare, and (last but not least) a failed economic policy that sees more Americans than ever working harder than ever to make ends meet, while the 5% upper crust soak up tax cuts and worry about servicing their yachts.

I see Hater is back. Will he crash the blog again?? Wouldn’t surprise me at all.

By RW-(the original)

May 15, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this

Thomas,

Links to informative articles along with your own commentary is NOT spam. It is exactly what an interactive blog is for.

Attention: AJC Internet Operations

Many of us have written you to tell you the two things that could fix the problems in this forum and still maintain the active debate that takes place, or at least used to, here. Name protection and a limit to comment length. These two fixes would have prevented the problems that caused you to first shut down the blog and now limit commenting to 8 to 5 M-F.

The one action you did take fixes nothing. The problems occurred during these hours. The action you took will only serve to shut down this blog. If that is your intention, why bother with the pretense? You really should either shut the forum down or fix it using the input you have received from many people out here that are much more familiar with blogging than anyone at the AJC appears to be.

Thanks.

I now return to my regularly scheduled vacation.

By Angry Liberal Guy

May 15, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this

8 To 5 Andy - get a life man! You are proving to be the most pathetic moron I’ve ever had the non-pleasure to bypass on my way to intelligent, meaningful posts from libs and cons alike.

By seeker

May 15, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this

Hater, aka Andy, Pinko Liberal, Suck and Lie etc… so many names for one demented blog-spammer.

The pest with the most aliases here is clearly the pest who brought down the ml blog.

This is what Republicans call “free speech”.

By 8 To 5 Andy

May 15, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this

You’re welcome, Danish.

Here’s some more spam on the good news from Iraq that the drive by media refuses to report:

The actions of the Iraqi Security Forces are having a significant negative impact on the Mujahideen’s ability to operate in Baghdad. Al Qaida in Iraq attacks Mosques and other public places to draw media attention and is having difficulty recruiting members because the people of Iraq do not support its cause.

According to the translated al-Qaida in Iraq’s documents, the Mujahideen’s only power lies in surprise ‘hit and run’ attacks, or setting up explosive charges and booby traps that predominantly target civilian men, women and children.

By getalife

May 15, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this

So, freedom of speech only during business hours is the new rule on this blog. Is there a blog babysitter to shut it down again?

The wingnuts say they will stay at home during the elections if they do not get their way. Political blackmail, if you will.

So, Frist wants an amendment to the Constitution for marriage between a man and woman only.

I thought they did not negotiate with terrorists. I guess we will see bombing on same sex marriages in the future just like the abortion clinics.

By 8 To 5 Andy

May 15, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this

A normal functioning human being would feel pride that the United States put an end to this abomination:

Saddam continued to fleece the U.N. Oil-for-Food Program out of billions of dollars—money which was supposed to be used to provide humanitarian relief to the Iraqi people, but which Saddam used instead to buy influence among European politicians and American and European businessmen in an effort to undermine U.N. sanctions…while hundreds of Iraqi children, under the age of five, died every month for lack of food and medicine that the Oil-for-Food program was supposed to supply.

That last number, the body count of Iraqi children, should settle the argument by itself, and utterly put to rest the idea that the pre-invasion status quo in Iraq was acceptable. It doesn’t, because critics of the war no longer recognize it; the number has conveniently “disappeared” from the collective mind of the political Left. Before 9/11, moonbats like Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, and Ward Churchill regularly cited grotesquely inflated World Health Organization and UNICEF statistics, which put the body count of Iraqi children at 4,500 to 5,000 per month, in order to bash whatever aspect of corporate capitalism they had targeted at a given rally. Even if the actual number of dead children was a tenth of the WHO/UNICEF numbers—let’s say 450 to 500 per month—that still makes the wanton murder sprees of the current insurgency a humanitarian respite from what came before.

By Liberal Texas Democrat

May 15, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this

Referencing the linked column in the 8:03 post. The linked piece ends with “The writer is a fellow at the Brookings Institution. He was deputy homeland security adviser and deputy assistant to the president until May 2004. He has no official knowledge of the program in question.” My emphasis added.

By Dusty

May 15, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this

Well, here we go.

Already Seeker is calling Andy “Hater” while Andy posts pertinent news items of interest and importance for discussion.

I hope AJC Internet Operations will read RW’s good post. He is saying what many of us are thinking.

By Seek and Ye shall find

May 15, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this

It would seem that the same person that is frantically trying to blame Andy this morning, is the same one that issued a threat the night before the blog was trashed.

If I were looking for a likely culprit, I would start with the one who SEEKS to point fingers.

By Andy's Mom

May 15, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this

I would like to take this moment to thank the AJC for shutting the blog down all weekend. It was the greatest Mothers Day gift ever! I finally got to see my Andy! Of course he just sat and mumbled mostly but hey! We wheeled him out to the patio for brunch on Sunday but don’t worry, we wheeled him back in after only 5 mins. where he finished his Spaghetti O’s. He was sunburned but just seeing him outside was just nifty.

Again thanks AJC, I didn’t have to change any diapers all weekend!

By getalife

May 15, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this

This blog could use registration that is mostly closed like lgf or hot air.

When someone has an opinion they do not like, they ban them from posting. At free republic, I was banned after two posts.

This is freedom of speech, the wingnut way. Lets not go there.

By N-GA

May 15, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this

Dusty,

Most of the links Andy posts are not news, but propaganda. Wing-nuts, for the most part, listen to Hannity, O’Reilly and Limbaugh. All of these “entertainers” simply pander to this nation’s common denominator…the right wing voter.

When confronted with truth, the right wing castigates the truthsayers and denigrates their integrity. Andy emulates this administration and has mastered this technique.

Poll after poll points out that this president and his administration have lost the support of the American people. There are a few extremists (some of whom post on this blog) who are incapable of recognizing what this administration has done to this country…and these false Christians will burn for eternity in the hell of their own making.

By Liberal Texas Democrat

May 15, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this

The party of Ronald Reagan has devolved into the party of Lyndon Johnson, George McGovern, Henry Waxman, and Al Gore. From the publication NRO at 8 To 5 Andy’s link.

By N-GA

May 15, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this

Sorry Dusty…I meant “lowest” common denominator.

By Goldie

May 15, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this

For once, the GA voters did the right thing by not electing Linda “Shriek” Schrenko to the governor’s office. We got stuck with ole Sonny instead, but at least he hasn’t stopped the teaching of science classes in our public schools.

By Huge

May 15, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this

Looks like one of the children has been vewy, vewy bad. I agree with the comment about spam, spam, spam, spam…

As for the cartoon - great to see another “family values” corrupt-as-h&ll republican go down the toilet.

By 8 To 5 Andy

May 15, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this

Why am I even the issue? If you liberals are so sure of yourselves and so confident in your polls, than disprove what I’m saying.

It’s better than the insanity and rage you usually have for us.

By getalife

May 15, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this

Let us not forget the Ian character at expose the left.

No registration but he deletes comments he does not like.

Now the Huffington Post or Kos, anything goes, freedom of speech the way it was intended to be.

By Goldie

May 15, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this

8 to 5 Andy— you’re asking us to disprove that you have some kind of obsessive-compulsive problem here on the blog? I don’t think we can disprove that…

By Dusty

May 15, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

N-GA

Since Andy includes the name and source of his news items, why don’t you let the reader decide whether it is propaganda or not?

Contrary to your “accusations”, I am a so-called “wingnut” who never listens to talk-radio. But obviously you do, just to learn scoring points.

Please tell me about your own religion. I would like to know what fanatic is making judgments about life after death for others.

By Midori

May 15, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this

Why am I even the issue?

YOU made yourself the issue, oh unstable one.

By finch

May 15, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this

I second what RW said…

If posts here had word limits and names were registered, we wouldn’t be stuck in detention.

I didn’t see a threat in the seeker post that “seek and ye” linked to. Just a rant against the Bush flunkies and telecom wussies…

Hey, we’ll never know who the secret spammer was.

By Liberal Texas Democrat

May 15, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this

This is: the snooping into your phone bill is just the snout of the pig of a strange, lucrative link-up between the Administration’s Homeland Security spy network and private companies operating beyond the reach of the laws meant to protect us from our government. You can call it the privatization of the FBI — though it is better described as the creation of a private KGB. Quoting from this excellent read written by Greg Palast;”But it won’t stop, despite Republican senators shedding big crocodile tears about “surveillance” of innocent Americans. That’s because FEAR is a lucrative business — not just for ChoicePoint, but for firms such as Syntech, …”

By Dusty

May 15, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this

Well,

to make a comment on the cartoon which is the subject of this blog, not Andy,

Schrenko has been judged guilty and sentenced which is the way our justice system works. Well, usually.

Since Schrenko was not named Kennedy, the usual disregard for guilt was not shown. She was sentenced. The guilt of drownings and drunk driving have been ignored for the Kennedys. What a difference a name makes. And what political party never seems to notice this difference?

Ah well, back to name calling and non-discussions.

By ConDemII

May 15, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this

I for one don’t care who did what. Can we please proceed on this blog without so much discussion being had about one individual. I can read and think for myself.

finch, getalife & Liberal Texas Democrat and conservatives are the only ones here who aren’t wasting our time.

By Liberal Texas Democrat

May 15, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this

During the Vietnam War, the NSA used data from Shamrock to compile a watch-list code-named “Minaret” of Nixon’s political enemies, including Martin Luther King, Jane Fonda, folksinger Joan Baez and Dr. Benjamin Spock, along with 75,000 other Americans. It would seem history repeats itself …

By getalife

May 15, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this

Speaking of freedom, I have a theory about the 9/11 attack.

Was the real target American’s freedom? Was the goal to expose the government’s corruption and taking away our freedoms?

It is amazing watching Americans give up their freedoms after one attack. The Americans who went to war to protect our freedoms have been forgotten. It is now a profitable business and Americans are being used again for profits.

Just a theory but the effects of one attack is ongoing in this country.

By RE

May 15, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this

By The AJC Sucks Blame Bush May 12, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this God as my witness, another one of you liberals jacks my name and uses it to sexually assualt children, I will get this whole thing shut down.

Mission Accomplished for the diaper boy. Rules were made for the lowest common denominator, and you are it.

By Goldie

May 15, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this

Dusty, explain to us all how someone named “Cheney” can get away with shooting someone in the face and not be interviewed by the police until 24 hours after the incident… it’s not just the Kennedy name that gets a pass in America.

By ConDemII

May 15, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this

RE-That’s one for the liberals and one for the conservatives and there are those of us who don’t care. What about us? Please move on to discussion of the topics. Individuals are not the topic here.

By George

May 15, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this

Is Andy out of Rigeview already??

By Goldie

May 15, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this

Hey Liberal Texas Dem— I also seem to remember that one of the articles of impeachment for Nixon was because of his illegal spying on Daniel Berrigan’s medical records. And Berrigan was a Catholic priest! We can only imagine what he and his goons were going to do with that info. We learned our lessons about government spying on Americans in the ‘70’s and have to remain vigilant about W trying to do that now!

By Liberal Texas Democrat

May 15, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this

A complaint asking the Maine Public Utilities Commission to investigate whether Verizon handed over telephone records to the National Security Agency could be the first of many similar actions taken in other states. Are we to guess then that the administration will be willing to do battle over states rights yet again? After all, who needs state governments when we have an ever growing federal behemoth to protect us?

By 8 To 5 Andy

May 15, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this

Look, it’s the Washington Post and a poll!:

Poll: Most Americans Support NSA’s Efforts

By Richard Morin Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, May 12, 2006; 7:00 AM

A majority of Americans initially support a controversial National Security Agency program to collect information on telephone calls made in the United States in an effort to identify and investigate potential terrorist threats, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it.

By Liberal Texas Democrat

May 15, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

And reading to the bottom of the poll story in WHAPO ^^ “A total of 502 randomly selected adults were interviewed Thursday night for this survey. Margin of sampling error is five percentage points for the overall results. The practical difficulties of doing a survey in a single night represents another potential source of error.” My emphasis added.

By Dizty

May 15, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this

The real point being - no one can stop without it. Unless of course thats been answered.

By Thomas

May 15, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this

One of my favorite quotes:

“I don’t want the Government to protect me. I want the Government to respect my rights over it!” (The X-Files)

By Ty

May 15, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

This same topic was covered on the Opinion Talk blog this weekend. What amazes me is how everyone has conveniently overlooked the fact that previous Democrat administrations have implemented the same wiretapping techniques during wartimes. How can we forget the wiretapping authorized by Robert Kennedy against what he deemed “subversive” activity by Martin Luther King within our borders. That one and others weren’t even related to wartime issues.

Most people have accepted this as standard operating procedure in our country over a long period of time and in no way feel threatened by it nor has it been proven to violate individual freedoms.

This paranoia is politically driven. That’s all. The Democrats should leave this one alone based on the poll results of the American public.

By Another Poll

May 15, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this

When do you think Andy will have his next mental/nervous breakdown?

My guess is this Wednesday @ 3:13 pm.

By RE

May 15, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this

Please do not equate any intrusion on your liberties or rights as a war time provision. Understand that this war does not end. There is no victory. We are in a shooting war with an idea. Terrorism has been around since the dawn of mankind, and it will not go away no matter how many countries we invade or people we capture. This war does not end, and your rights are not going to be given back to you unless you demand them

By Goldie

May 15, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

I believe the FISA laws were enacted during the Carter administration, requiring a court warrant before being allowed to wiretap on American citizens. Even W has stated that a court order is required now. And yet he still chose to break that law.

We learned some hard lessons during the Nixon era, and the new laws were created because of those crimes committed by Nixon. Not only did they wiretap the phones of those on their “Enemies List”, but they also broke into the doctors’ offices of some anti-war activists because they wanted to use the info in a smear campaign.

No thank you — I don’t want ANY government prying into my personal business without some sort of oversight and regulation.

By Liberal Texas Democrat

May 15, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this

“By RE May 15, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this Please do not equate any intrusion on your liberties or rights as a war time provision. Understand that this war does not end. There is no victory. We are in a shooting war with an idea. Terrorism has been around since the dawn of mankind, and it will not go away no matter how many countries we invade or people we capture. This war does not end, and your rights are not going to be given back to you unless you demand them”

Perhaps the very best post around here in a very long time.

By Barb

May 15, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this

Why would the government need to spy on Goldie when the old hag spews back everything she reads right here?

By 8 To 5 Andy

May 15, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

By Liberal Texas Democrat May 15, 2006 12:20 PM

I knew you’d one day agree with me about the accuracy of these drive by media polls.

RE: So terrorism has always been perpetrated by Islamic religious fanatics?

By RE

May 15, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this

only for the last 1400 years or so

By 8 To 5 Andy

May 15, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this

By Barb May 15, 2006 12:53 PM Why would the government need to spy on Goldie when the old hag spews back everything she reads right here?

Perhaps the funniest post around here in a very long time.

By Ty

May 15, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this

Liberal Texas Democrat-That would have been the very best post in a long time if anyone of you could prove how anyone’s rights have been violated by such activities going on since the 60’s.

You feeling uncomfortable doesn’t count.

By Dusty

May 15, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this

Ah Goldie,

How you do twist and turn. Always ending in some thought you want to place in people’s minds.

The government is NOT prying into your personal business without some sort of oversight and regulation.

Unless you are a terrorist, don’t pay your taxes. or break laws you don’t have a thing to worry about. Why? Because we have the Constitution and laws that follow it.

Maybe you know more than the Attorney General of the United States but I seriously doubt that. I think you know more about the Democratic Party moves and publicity than anything.

But keep on posting. You have freedom of speech. And if anybody is using your phone number, it is probably telemarketers. You know the truth but don’t want to admit your leanings are incorrect. Not a good party line to spout.

By RE

May 15, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this

TY, How can you support freedom yet be so quick to give it away? This is a clear violation of the 4th admendment, along with the warrentless wiretaps. It does not matter what the motive behind the action is, if it is outside the law, it is outside the law. They have a nice little circular arguement going here, where you cannot actually obtain information about the activited the NSA and others are involved in because they are classified. In fact, even the Justice department, part of the exec branch, is not allowed to investigate what has happened. So the only people allowed to know what is happening are the same people who are performing the searches, and we just have to trust them without any outside accountability. You may trust your government enough that this does not bother you, but it does not make it legal, nor does it allay other peoples concerns.

By joewilson

May 15, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this

Qwest did not give in to the governments illegal spy operation because they knew it was illegal. The rest will be sued for violating privacy laws.

By 8 To 5 Andy

May 15, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this

RE: Gosh, I had no idea that Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph were Islamic religious fanatics. Thanks for the info.

By Qwest

May 15, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this

Give us some help with our new slogan:

By Ty

May 15, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this

RE-Where was your outrage for the last 40 years? Where is your proven case that someone has been imprisoned unjustly because of this long-time practice? It’s political, plain & simple.

The majority of Americans are going to support the practice especially now. Threats have been carried out, that’s a reality. Unfortunately, these programs are necessary in the information age. Sign of the times my friend.

The enemy is waging their battle via cellphones and the internet. Do you really want to give them the advantage?

By finch

May 15, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this

The government is NOT prying into your personal business without some sort of oversight and regulation.

You have got to be kidding. It’s clear that the Bush administration’s tap-dancing has been done in spite of “government oversight and regulation”.

Bush ignored the FISA courts, which allow retroactive wiretaps, and pressed ahead with eavesdropping with no court permission. Some oversight.

When the Justice Department wanted to question the NSA over wiretaps, the NSA said it couldn’t because Justice lawyers didn’t have NSA security clearance… which can only be given by NSA. Huh?

When Quest decided not to join the other telcos in handing over customer data without a warrant, it was called unpatriotic and was threatened with loss of government contracts.

There is no oversight and regulation!

By RE

May 15, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this

What are you talking about Andy? You are not making any sense at all, I guess you still have not recovered from your meltdown on friday

By Liberal Texas Democrat

May 15, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this

By Ty May 15, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this Liberal Texas Democrat-That would have been the very best post in a long time if anyone of you could prove how anyone’s rights have been violated by such activities going on since the 60’s. You feeling uncomfortable doesn’t count.

Funny you should reference the 60’s as that’s when I was in high school and Mr. Cook, a history teacher used to say that one of the basic differences between the USSR and the USA was that you couldn’t even make a phone call in the USSR without the government taking note of it. You’re right, I don’t remember seeing, or hearing a single story about Soviet citizens being even remotely uncomfortable with that. If you feel that government requests for a record of your phone calls protects you more power to you.

By Goldie

May 15, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this

So Dusty— do tell us how good you would feel if Hillary Clinton was our next president and you found out that her administration was doing some wiretaps on Americans — and without getting a warrant first? You would be completely comfortable with that happening?

Forget that you love W and his goons — what about some other president doing this to Americans. Without warrants.

By Dusty

May 15, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this

RE—How can you support freedom yet be so quick to give it away?

That really “burns me up”?

Our troops are over in Iraq giving freedom to a whole country at a great sacrifice. They have already done so in Afghanistan.

But right here at home where we are also trying to keep freedom from terrorists, some supreme idiot is whining that we are giving away freedom.

What is worse is the fact that they know that is not true. As has been mentioned, these procedures have been done in other times with other presidents and was judged legal.

I am leaving for the day, sorry to see what cannot be called anything but ANTI-AMERICANISM. Pure and simple.

By Ty

May 15, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this

I will still need a proven case where someone has been unjustly imprisoned due to this program.

Out of courtesy and so you won’t be talking to me while I’m not here, I’m on my way out the door.

You are all welcome to feel uncomfortable under this program, I’m not. Neither are the majority of the American people although I know there are differing polls on that. Bottom line, we want to be protected. Freedoms are of no value to dead folks.

By RE

May 15, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this

ok TY, what are you willing to give up. Are you ok with all your mail being opened up? Are you ok with your phone being tapped? Are you ok with every website you visit being trapped, every e-mail you send being read. How about all your bank records being reviewed for anything out of the ordinary. This is about where we are now in so far as what we have given up.

If you have nothing to hide, how about a camera and microphone in your home, if you have nothing to hide, it should not be a problem.

The question is, do you feel the government is entitled to know about every action of every person in this country? Also do you see any point in the future in your mind when this would not be needed?

By 8 To 5 Andy

May 15, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this

It’s been that long?

By RE May 15, 2006 12:36 PM Terrorism has been around since the dawn of mankind, and it will not go away no matter how many countries we invade or people we capture.

By 8 To 5 Andy May 15, 2006 12:57 PM RE: So terrorism has always been perpetrated by Islamic religious fanatics?

By RE May 15, 2006 01:01 PM only for the last 1400 years or so

By 8 To 5 Andy May 15, 2006 01:20 PM RE: Gosh, I had no idea that Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph were Islamic religious fanatics. Thanks for the info.

By RE May 15, 2006 01:31 PM What are you talking about Andy? You are not making any sense at all, I guess you still have not recovered from your meltdown on friday

Now the meltdown I don’t remember, must not have been me. If the timeline above doesn’t help jog your memory, ask goldie for help, please.

By RE

May 15, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this

Freedoms are of no value to dead folks

That sums it up, there are some that are not willing to accept the danger involved in living in a free society, they crave a daddy state to protect them. Freedom always comes with risk, the brave can accept that, the cowardly look to give it away for protection

By Goldie

May 15, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this

Hey, did any of you bloggers catch Al Gore on Saturday Night Live? He did the opening scene, where he was giving a state-of-the-union speech several years after winning the 2000 election. He was quite funny. Some good writers on that monologue! He was talking about how gasoline was so cheap now because he enforced laws to make us use our trash for car fuel. And then he said, “I am therefore proposing a federal bailout to our oil companies because- hey if it were the other way around, you know the oil companies would help us…”

That Al Gore — what a great President he would’ve been. LOL— using trash for car fuel!

BTW, did y’all hear about Brazil now using sugar cane for their ethanol fuel? The country of Brazil no longer has to import oil from terrorist countries… what foresight their government had. Started implementing the ethanol plan about 15 years ago and now they’re off the t** of BIG OIL.

What’s really sad is that I was always taught that America is #1 in the world — always on the side of God, no government intrusion in our lives, no underfed children, no uneducated citizens, no need for foreign imports of energy sources. Oh wait…

By Ricky

May 15, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this

What kills me about the wire tap “controversy” is that the Dems on the committee with oversight knew about it in December. They only openly critize it after it has been leaked so they can have political cover. It is politics at its worst. If it is so bad, why are Dems saying it should be codified into law? It is only the activist left (ACLU, Moveon.org, etc) that are freaking out over this. Show me one case where someone’s liberty has been violated due to this law. Shouldn’t we take every precaution to prevent another terrorist attack? At the same time Dems say the President isn’t doing enough and doing too much at the same time. Makes a lot of sense to me.

By Dusty

May 15, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this

Goldie,

Before I go…..Americans would have to be in a COMA to elect Hillary as president. No need to worry about such a hypothetical sitation. It is just another of your wild dreams.

Bye now.

By Ricky

May 15, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this

RE, so by your logic, the brave should not worry about another terrorist attack. They should just accept that it might happen and shouldn’t expect their government to protect them. What kind of logic is that?

By 8 To 5 Andy

May 15, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this

The question wasn’t directed at me but I’m compelled to give my answer also:

If I had the choice between giving up the phone numbers I called to the government or jumping out of a flaming 110 story office building, I would let the fed have my whole entire cellphone.

By RE

May 15, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this

Sorry about that Andy, I misinterpreted what you were saying. No, not all terrorism is perpretrated by Islamic fanatics. There have been some sects of Islamic radicals who perform terrorist activities going back hundreds of years.

Summery: Terrorism is not exclusive to Islamic radicals.

Terrorism in general has been around for thousands of years

terrorism by Islamic radicals has been occuring for well over 1000 years

By RE

May 15, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this

Ricky, not at the expense of your constitutional liberties. Out if curiosity, is there any freedom you are not willing to give up for the sake of protection?

By Goldie

May 15, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this

TY— I will still need a proven case where someone has been unjustly imprisoned due to this program.

Your only concerned if someone is imprisoned? How about someone’s ID is messed with, or their credit report damaged, etc. It doesn’t have to be imprisonment for it to be damaging to someone’s life. Why would Nixon want to steal an American’s medical records from his doctor’s office? What’s to stop W from trying the same thing, if he is only focused on giving himself more “presidential powers”?

Government intrusion in our personal lives is very un-American at its core, and Repubs used to always understand that. What a sad state your party has come to now!

By Midori

May 15, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this

why the hell is Sonny Perdue throwing parties for teenagers? who is paying for this?

By Ricky

May 15, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this

RE, I am not giving up any freedoms right now. If the govt wants to check my phone records to make sure I am not chatting with terrorists, thats fine with me. The only problem occurs if they tried to use that information relative to some other crime. That is not happening. Tell me how your freedoms are being violated. Bottom line is they aren’t. You guys would be more than happy with is if it was Clinton or Carter doing it. This is all about politics, the worst kind too.

By RE

May 15, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this

Andy 300,000,000 people in this country, roughly 3000 killed in 9-11, roughly.

0.001% of the population. Are you willing to give up all your phone, e-mail, and banking records for the rest of your life because of a 0.001% risk?

By Goldie

May 15, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this

Dusty— forget Hillary then, even though she would beat Jeb Bush in a heartbeat if he ran next. Just answer the question I posed to you.

By 8 To 5 Andy

May 15, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this

RE: The only real difference in the status quo (yes I’m being redundant) is that we finally have 150,000 crack United States soldiers up in the terrorists country killing them as they present themselves.

Why not give wholesale slaughter of these fanatics a chance to run it’s full course? What will it hurt the world to have 100,000 fewer madmen in it?

By 8 To 5 Andy

May 15, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this

By Midori May 15, 2006 02:06 PM why the hell is Sonny Perdue throwing parties for teenagers? who is paying for this?

I really hope this doesn’t need further explaination but no drugs or alcohol were allowed at Sonny’s party.

By 8 To 5 Andy

May 15, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this

By RE May 15, 2006 02:10 PM Andy 300,000,000 people in this country, roughly 3000 killed in 9-11, roughly. 0.001% of the population. Are you willing to give up all your phone, e-mail, and banking records for the rest of your life because of a 0.001% risk?

Yes I am.

By uhhh

May 15, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this

promotion of genocide on that last post by 8 to 5 andy. nice…

on the wireless subject: do you really think terrorists are dumb enough to use normal phones/cell phones? i am sure that the higher ups have obtained and used encrypted technologies? with the exception of the kid from GA Tech, perhaps, and other lower level wannabes…

By rushncap

May 15, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this

Ricky, that is a patent lie that we would be “more than happy” if Clinton tapped or tracked my phone calls. I would be just as pi$sed off about it, for one. One of the most basic, most essential rights guaranteed in the Constitution is the freedom from unwarranted (i.e. without a warrant) searches. The government tracking the calls of millions of Americans who are not suspected of any crimes violates that right. It does not matter whether it is done by Bush, Clinton, Carter, FDR, or Lincoln. If I’m not suspected of a crime the government has NO right to track my communications. That is a violation of my freedom.

This government, after 9/11, has become very impressed with itself, and has decided, apparently, that laws of the land don’t apply to it because of “terrorists”. Bush seems to think that he is able to apply any law in any way he chooses, and ignore any law he chooses, all in the name of this ephemeral “safety”. It’s ironic how well the 9/11 plpot has succeeded. Not only did they bring down 4 planes and 2 buildings, but they are actually pushing our historically free and democratic society towards renouncing the very thing it’s based on. I don’t think even Osama anticipated such resounding success. He must be loving this.

By finch

May 15, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this

The reason our Founding Fathers were so adament about protecting themselves from arbitrary and secretive government intrusion was because government back then had this “annoying habit” of making up criminal charges as they went along, based on what you wrote, what you said, and whom you associated with.

A lot of governments today retain this “annoying habit”. I want to see the US remain free of it.

It’s one thing for Google or Nextel to build up a customer profile. That’s bad enough. But it’s quite another for the government to do it without my permission. Google and Nextel can’t drag me away in handcuffs and use “extreme rendition” to spirit me away and hold me incommunicado.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

By Liberal Texas Democrat

May 15, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this

I understand Ty has left the room, as I’m fixin’ to be, but he had stated that he needed proof that a citizens rights were violated by the turn over of phone records to the government. Well, as it was, and to some extent probably remains a secret activity that would be like proving the KGB kidnapped my brother in the middle of the night and he didn’t just wander off as the local commissar suggests, wouldn’t it? As far as protesting this whole business over the last forty years, well there were all those contributions to the A.C.L.U. weren’t there? And before anyone even goes there in a nonsensical rant about NAMBLA and the ACLU, it’s not about that and you know it.

By RE

May 15, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this

Ricky, this is always where is starts, when a practice becomes acceptable for one purpose, it is used for others as well. It starts as a terrorism prevention tactic. But it becomes a law enforcement tool, and you would probably be ok with such things as drug enforcement, even street gangs.

When the power of the government is expanded, and people accept a loss of freedom and privacy, it is hard to go back. I imagine you are not a terrorist, a drug dealer, or in a street gang, but the laws designed to fight terrorism are being used for any type of law enforcement

By 8 To 5 Andy

May 15, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this

You’ll have to pardon me but I’m all weepy from rushnsap’s 2:32 post. Not the kind of tears you are thinking of, I’m talking about those you get from a real good laugh.

The awe your boy feels from a suicidal murder of 3000 innocent office workers is really sad, but the part about Osama not “anticipating such a resounding success” is a sidesplitter.

We’ve killed off the majority of his soldiers, all of his fellow bigwigs are in prison and he’s laid up in some Pakistani cave not daring to make, get this, any phone calls, lest the 101st Airborne shows up at his rathole.

And here’s rushnsap all worried the government knows he called the massage parlor, like they even care.

It would take something like 4 million people working 24/7 to eavesdrop on every phone call in the United States.

By Ricky

May 15, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this

RE, like I said before, this should only be used for terrorist and shouldn’t be allowed for use against any other crime. I would not be okay with this for drug or gang prevention. My point is that, nobody has lost any freedom. It is all hypothetical. If this is abused then I am with you, it should be stopped. But until it is or you can prove to me that it has been used for something other than terrorism, I think all of you are overreacting.

By Buy Danish

May 15, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this

• Why would Nixon want to steal an American’s medical records from his doctor’s office?*

Uh. Goldie. Wake up. The Liberal Democrat activist Palm Beach District Attorney just tried that with Rush Limbaugh.

All of you,

Your phones are not being tapped. I know you think if you tell the Big Lie often enough, the ignorant masses will believe you, but ever since we got some competition in the media biz, Useful Idiots are harder to come by (except within your own ranks of moonbats of course).

Getalife,

I tried blogging at HuffPuff’s and my comment didn’t pass muster. You must be flattering her, or your comments are so unintentionally obtuse that they get posted because no one can figure out what you’re trying to say. Like the hysterical paranoia you posted here today.

Rushncap,

What is a “patent lie”? Is that a lie that you got a patent on?

Your loony theories are patently false. I’ll be back with some links for you about conspiracies that actually do exist and do pose a threat to all of Western civilization, which of course may be your most heartfelt desire for all I know.

By Ricky

May 15, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this

This debate has gotten so far out of hand that people are minimizing the impact of the terrorist attacks. Oh it was only .001% of our population some of you are saying. Thats not the point. The point is that our idea of being secure at home was shattered and we realized that it really wasn’t that hard for them. To me that is worth letting the government see who I called. They aren’t infringing on my rights.

By RE

May 15, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this

Ricky, I gave you examples of where the government has expanded terrorism related laws to prosecute other crimes in my last post. A guy running a meth lab, as bad as that is, is not manufacturing chemical weapons. But he was charged under those statutes. What motivation would the government have to limit it’s own power? Certainly not the constitution, not any more at least. Not any new legistalation either, now that signing statements have become so popular. Not 20 year old laws dealing with the exact subject we are talking about. What can limit the power of government?

By Buy Danish

May 15, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this

finch,

I think you have had too much coffee. Try decaf with lot’s of milk to calm you down. You are making stuff up out of whole cloth.

Meanwhile, have you been to places like Yahoo People Search lately?

And why do you think it is that I get credit card letters to my address that are meant for my father-in-law (same last name, but everything else, including the state we reside in, is different) or for my sister who doesn’t even share my last name?

We have legitimate privacy concerns, but those concerns rest with Big Google, Big Yahoo, Big Banking, et al.

By rushncap

May 15, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

“Patent lie” is a saying in English, Danish. Please stop playing stupid little word games. I’m pretty sure you’re not impressing anyone, least of all me.

I don’t have “loony theories”. I’m stating facts. If there is something I said wrong, feel free to point it out. However, I’m willing to bet you money that you can’t. And, before you start, “Osama must be loving this” is not a “theory” nor do I know for a fact how he feels. It’s a guess, and I used it for dramatic effect. And spare me your links. I know that conspiracies exist, that does nothing to disprove my statements that unwarranted phone surveilance is unconstitutional.

By Buy Danish

May 15, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this

Rushncap,

The Supremes already ruled on this. It is not unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, it looks like they are going after the CIA moles after all, and an awful lot of bloggers, including yours truly, are delighted at the idea.

By Buy Danish

May 15, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this

Here’s Mark Steyn on the subject of monitoring phone calls. Brilliant as ever.

Fifteen out of 19 of the 9/11 killers were citizens of Saudi Arabia. So let’s scrap the tens of millions of law-abiding phone records, and say we only want to examine the long-distance phone bills of, say, young men of Saudi origin living in the United States. Can you imagine what Leahy and Lauer would say to that? Oh, no! Racial profiling!

By Buy Danish

May 15, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this

Your phone records are for sale

January 5, 2006

Is this the U.S. Government at work? Nope.

I look forward to appropriately hysterical posts about this under-reported situation.

By rushncap

May 15, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this

Really, Danish? When did they rule on it? Do you have a reference for us?

And, by the way, Leahy and Lauer would be right. It would be racial profiling. Hey… I have an idea! Let’s examine long-distance bills of people who we suspect are terrorists! Isn’t that novel?

By Goldie

May 15, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

Ricky— You guys would be more than happy with is if it was Clinton or Carter doing it. This is all about politics, the worst kind too.

WRONG— the Dems don’t support criminals acts by any president. The difference is that both Carter and Clinton would have followed the law and gotten the court warrants before wiretapping. IT’S THE LAW. Also, the Dem Party forced LBJ to not run for re-election because his war in Viet Nam was not winnable. Ya see, that’s the difference — the Dems don’t support bad policies, like never-ending wars and illegal wiretapping on Americans. Too bad your party only supports its policies, instead of what’s best for America.

By RE

May 15, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this

This is the only supreme court ruling I found on wiretaps.

1972 supreme court ruling AGAINST warrentless wiretaps

By Buy Danish

May 15, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this

Heather Mac Donald on the subject. And surprise! I agree that the Bush Administration has done a lousy job of communicating this to the American people.

Information Please

Only a paranoid solipsist (that would be you over-caffienated moonbats )could feel threatened by the calling analysis program.

By Goldie

May 15, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this

BuyDanish— The Liberal Democrat activist Palm Beach District Attorney just tried that with Rush Limbaugh.

HA HA HA — nice try. What’s the difference between breaking in to a doctor’s office to steal some records vs. getting the records through our court system? Stealing medical records is illegal, dumbsh*t… but that pretty much sums up the Repugs’ attitude, huh? You won’t follow the laws that you just don’t like, right? Or at least you’ll support W breaking the law, simply because HE’S YOURS.

By rushncap

May 15, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this

Danish… still waiting on that Supreme Court case you claimed supports this “information gathering”. You wouldn’t be… lying again, would you?

By RE

May 15, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this

Supreme ruling on electronic interception in regards to the 4th admandment, it is a wiki link

By Cindy

May 15, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this

“Those who give up essential liberties for temproary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”. Benjamin Franklin

By Buy Danish

May 15, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this

RE:

Sorry to shout, but THEY ARE NOT WIRETAPS!

It is computer-generated records of numbers calling numbers. No one is listening to your boring conversations.

Get the facts straight before you wig out.

By Buy Danish

May 15, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this

RE,

You are right. Warrantless wiretaps are illegal. That’s not what data-mining is.

Goldie,

You have no problem with the D.A. trying to get access to personal medical records, but your panties are all twisted over computer data of phone numbers?

BTW, I’m done responding to rabid moonbats that immediately resort to vulgarities and ad hominems. Save it for Richard Cohen.

By Goldie

May 15, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

BuyDanish— Sorry to shout, but THEY ARE NOT WIRETAPS!

Both things are happening, wiretaps and computer-generated records of phone calls. Two different things happening… you may want to get YOUR facts straight before supporting a criminal administration.

By 8 To 5 Andy

May 15, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this

Isn’t it amazing how the founding fathers are slave owning bigots until we can find something to misquote them with:

By Cindy May 15, 2006 04:04 PM “Those who give up essential liberties for temproary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”. Benjamin Franklin

If you are going to add in some words you might as well spell them correctly:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.-actual Ben Franklin quote

More to the point here, Franklin was a member of the original committee, appointed by the Continental Congress, to review and publish intercepted communications from England. Hmm, Benjamin Franklin: Domestic Spy! If he meant what the liberals think he meant, we’re going to have to change his statues to read “Printer, Inventor, Statesman, Hypocrite”!

By getalife

May 15, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this

What, no spam today?

Some people still trust this administration after all the scandals and lies.

Amazing.

Like Al said. Don’t trust them period.

By RE

May 15, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this

Sorry BD, I was quoting on Warrantless wiretap rulings, which we agree are illegal. Here is the statute for phone records, telecom bill based in 1996“>http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/uscsec47_00000222——000-.html)

By Goldie

May 15, 2006 04:40 PM | Link to this

BuyDanish, I never said I’m upset over computer data — that’s secondary to what’s really going on with W’s law-breaking. And please stop mentioning anything about my panties. Thank you.

Moonbat.

By N-GA

May 15, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this

Wow, Andy…talk about hypocrisy…when liberals support requiring that all handguns be registered, wingnuts come unglued in their fervor denouncing such a law as a precursor to the government confisticating all handguns.

So you don’t trust the government to have information aboutguns, but you do trust them to have illegal wire-taps, etc. How would you feel if the government started tracking 100% of all ammunition purchases? Would it worry you?

Numb-nuts!!

By RE

May 15, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this

Oh, and the statute states it is still illegal for the company to share the information with any outside party except in a few narrowly defined cases

By Cindy

May 15, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this

This is an actual quote, sorry about the misspelling. The founding fathers also hung out in bars, getting so intoxicated they could hardly walk home and had sex with “people” other than their spouses while in office. But they are all we have: they did a lot of conversing, arguing and brainstorming to try to do their best for the country and always managed to move forward rather than become entrenched by hatred for opposing views.

By 8 To 5 Andy

May 15, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this

How does anyone know how I feel about gun laws? Firing up the old wanker crystal ball again? I actually approve of background checks because I am not a pinko and have nothing to hide. It keeps the guns out of the hands of criminals not law abiding citizens.

By Buy Danish

May 15, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this

Moonbats,

…the Supreme Court has already held (Smith v. Maryland, 1979) that the government can legally collect phone numbers since callers who expect to be billed by their phone company have no “reasonable expectation of privacy” concerning such matters.

Goldie,

First, chill out, or this conversation is over.

Second, you said:

the Dems don’t support criminals acts by any president

My response is a direct quote from you: HA HA HA. Must we re-live the endless Clinton scandals? I’m not going to do it, except to point out that your sanctimony is hilarious.

I’m still waiting to hear your position on private medical records.

By 8 To 5 Andy

May 15, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this

NUMBER: 1056 AUTHOR: Benjamin Franklin (1706–90) QUOTATION: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. ATTRIBUTION: BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, November 11, 1755.—The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Leonard W. Labaree, vol. 6, p. 242 (1963).

This quotation, slightly altered, is inscribed on a plaque in the stairwell of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

By Goldie

May 15, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this

No one’s ever said that our Founding Fathers were angels. We all know the stories about their slaves and mistresses. Andy’s rant is just another ploy to try and change the subject away from how the Repugs are always looking for ways to interfere with our personal lives.

And Ben Franklin was right about this one.

By Goldie

May 15, 2006 05:04 PM | Link to this

BuyDanish— at least we’re in agreement that W’s wiretapping of Americans’ phones is an illegal act. We’ll see how far those hearings go in pursuing the travesty of this administration’s deeds.

By Buy Danish

May 15, 2006 05:14 PM | Link to this

Goldie at 4:18 (after I pointed out that data mining is not wiretapping):

Both things are happening, wiretaps and computer-generated records of phone calls. Two different things happening… you may want to get YOUR facts straight before supporting a criminal administration.

Goldie at 4:40:

I never said I’m upset over computer data — that’s secondary to what’s really going on with W’s law-breaking.

Enough said.

And please try to come up with an original name. Moonbat is already taken.