Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Congress goes off the deep end
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 16 of 126 (353454)
10-01-2006 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by jar
10-01-2006 10:49 AM


Re: bump, for the proWarrantless conservatives
I am a Republican and I have spoken out against warrantless searches and in support of Gay Marriage.
You have not been in support of Bush and Co, nor have you been arguing most of their actions have been "conservative" as opposed to "liberal" in nature.
I'm looking for people that have been defending this administration for a while now. Are they actually in support of it? If so how is it consistent with conservative principles? If not, are they willing to criticize this latest venture as a change?

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 10-01-2006 10:49 AM jar has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 17 of 126 (353655)
10-02-2006 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by jar
10-01-2006 10:49 AM


Re: bump, for the proWarrantless conservatives
something tells me you're much more like a traditional republican than the current social conservative infused bunch is.
by traditional, I mean one that cares more about fiscal matters and while concerned on social issues, feels that the government shouldn't step in (such as with banning abortion). It may be a bit confused, but . . .
(of course, the last conservative democrats were the dixiecrats, so it is possible to have a liberal republican, wierd as it may be).

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 10-01-2006 10:49 AM jar has not replied

  
ThingsChange
Member (Idle past 5926 days)
Posts: 315
From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony)
Joined: 02-04-2004


Message 18 of 126 (353740)
10-02-2006 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Silent H
10-01-2006 6:06 AM


liberal distortion as usual
You guys never cease to amaze me. You make it sound like wire-tapping gone wild.
article in OP writes:
...wiretapping of calls and e-mails between people on U.S. soil making calls or sending e-mails and those in other countries...
Under the measure, the president would be authorized to conduct such wiretaps if he:
” Notifies the House and Senate intelligence committees and congressional leaders.
” Believes an attack is imminent and later explains the reason and names the individuals and groups involved.
” Renews his certification every 90 days.
So, it's for international calls, others are notified, and reasons are given. I don't see a problem with that, and I am not a Bush-supporter (mainly because of illegal immigration and spiraling debt).
In Defense of Congress: The first priority of government is to protect the people. Similar security emphasis over some rights has occurred for other wars, and like those, the temporary measures will be retracted when the war is over (i.e. in 72.327992 yrs). You may not feel that there is a threat from radical Islam, and a war, but a significant portion of USA does.
When I vote Republican, it's because the Democrats offer a worse choice.

'Liberalism is a mental disorder' - Michael Savage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Silent H, posted 10-01-2006 6:06 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by kuresu, posted 10-02-2006 8:47 PM ThingsChange has not replied
 Message 20 by jar, posted 10-02-2006 8:50 PM ThingsChange has not replied
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 10-02-2006 10:02 PM ThingsChange has not replied
 Message 31 by Silent H, posted 10-03-2006 5:36 AM ThingsChange has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 19 of 126 (353745)
10-02-2006 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by ThingsChange
10-02-2006 8:34 PM


Re: liberal distortion as usual
In Defense of Congress: The first priority of government is to protect the people
dead wrong. absolutely dead wrong. the first, utmost absoltuley important job of congress, the one that overrides every other thing is that congress is supposed to serve the people. not protect them. At least, not in the way you mean (the whole war protection part). I do not agree with any of those measures employed by our government as a means of "protecting us". why? only in the past have they actually given us back those liberties. But in every case the power of the government has been amplified. ANd how can we count on those today to resist the temptation of keeping that power.
The funny thing with terrorism--there will always be terrorism. We're actually in the fourth wave. The first started, at least was partially responsible for, WWI. So the government has a perfect excuse for keeping these protective measures. And now, when I talk to my relatives in sweden, I am having my rights infringed upon. damn it, I don't want some government freak who only has to give justification after the wiretapping. How easy is it to hide the "proof" for an imminent attack with the "it's top secret, can't reveal". I do not trust the government as far as I can throw--and seeing as how large it is, I can't throw it at all.
Besides, why should we have to get rid of warrants? Just so that this current president, who by the way wanted a stronger version of the house bill doesn't have to get "tangled" up with following the law? Answer me this--how does getting a warrant slow down the process? And if we are really fighting for the freedoms we hold most dear from the terrorists who want to bring us to our knees and implement sharia law, why are we fighting them by getting rid of our freedoms? I mean come on, they win everytime they knock down one more freedom of ours. The patriot act may as well be a defeat for us. This bill, should it get passed by the senate will be a defeat for us. You don't fight those who want to take away freedom by voluntarily taking away our own freedoms.
If we are supposed to be the shining example of democracy and freedom in this world, we're doing a piss poor job of upholding that reputation.

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by ThingsChange, posted 10-02-2006 8:34 PM ThingsChange has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Rahvin, posted 10-02-2006 9:49 PM kuresu has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 20 of 126 (353748)
10-02-2006 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by ThingsChange
10-02-2006 8:34 PM


Re: liberal distortion as usual
Sorry but I am a conservative Republican and I say warrantless searches are an abomination. The current Republican Party is not Conservative but Reactionary approaching fascist.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by ThingsChange, posted 10-02-2006 8:34 PM ThingsChange has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Omnivorous, posted 10-02-2006 9:02 PM jar has not replied
 Message 48 by Quetzal, posted 10-03-2006 5:16 PM jar has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 21 of 126 (353752)
10-02-2006 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by jar
10-02-2006 8:50 PM


Re: liberal distortion as usual
Sorry but I am a conservative Republican and I say warrantless searches are an abomination. The current Republican Party is not Conservative but Reactionary approaching fascist.
And I'm a wild-eyed pistol wavin' anarcho-libertarian tie-dyed Leary-lovin' veteran, and I say, "They're there, dude."
This administration has had the authority to start warrantless wiretaps from the day it took office. That power already existed in law; that law also required them to then apply for a warrant from a secret court that invariably authorized continued tapping.
They ignored that law because Bush & Co. seek to reestablish an imperial presidency. Cheney, especially, is obsessed with reversing the safeguards put in place after Watergate.
Bottom line: Bush wants power without accountability. He and his team have rubbed mud, shit, and blood all over the honor of our Republic, and it will take decades to remove it. Their hands stink of torture. They are despicable caricatures of their fathers.
Don't forget to vote.

God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ”Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’
--Ann Coulter, Fox-TV: Hannity & Colmes, 20 Jun 01
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by jar, posted 10-02-2006 8:50 PM jar has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 22 of 126 (353772)
10-02-2006 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by kuresu
10-02-2006 8:47 PM


Re: liberal distortion as usual
There is no bomb, no gun, no idea or threat as dangerous to the citizens of a nation as its government gone mad. There is no threat to "national security" whose defeat is more important that the protection of the rights that define the nation itself.
Every speach Bush made after 9/11 marks him for the traitor he is. When he decried the terrorists as trying to change our way of life, to take away our freedom, he was right...
But he is the one actually doing it. May God forgive him, because I surely won't.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by kuresu, posted 10-02-2006 8:47 PM kuresu has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 23 of 126 (353776)
10-02-2006 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by ThingsChange
10-02-2006 8:34 PM


Re: liberal distortion as usual
In Defense of Congress: The first priority of government is to protect the people.
Sure. Who's protecting us from Congress?
Habeas corpus isn't a right that protects terrorists. It's a right that protects us. We gain nothing by suspending it and we lose so much.
Similar security emphasis over some rights has occurred for other wars, and like those, the temporary measures will be retracted when the war is over (i.e. in 72.327992 yrs).
What? Come on. You really think that? You think that, in the face of a war that is defined as lasting forever, we're ever going to get those rights back? How naieve.
When I vote Republican, it's because the Democrats offer a worse choice.
Worse how? Democrats wouldn't have drastically magnified the terrorist problem (as confirmed by the recent NIE briefing), wouldn't have ignored a PDB entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike inside the US", wouldn't have promised to fire anyone who planned for post-invasion Iraq (as Rumsfeld did), wouldn't have grossly inflated the budget to an extent unseen since the days of FDR, wouldn't have buried an investigation into the sexual harrassment of Congressional pages for almost a year.
Worse how? Sean Hannity is telling you to be afraid of "Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi", but is she really worse than Speaker of the House "Pedophile Protector" Dennis Hastert? Or Tobacco Checks John Boner? Or Duke Cunningham, now serving 7-10 on corruption? Or Tom DeLay, retiring in discrace for same?
C'mon, really? The reason you vote Repub is because it isn't a choice. You're drinking the Kool-aid so deeply you don't actually know what choice Democrats offer. Like they say, you'd vote for a blue dog before you'd vote Democratic, and you have absolutely no idea why.
You may not feel that there is a threat from radical Islam, and a war, but a significant portion of USA does.
Sure. There's a threat from radical Islam. The Republicans have absolutely no idea what to do about that except exploit terror for political ends and yell "9/11" over and over again. Most Republicans have no idea how to fight because most Republicans have never served in the military. No surprise that, under Republican control, terrorists have grown exponentially in number and geographical distribution.
Republicans have absolutely no idea what they're doing, with the result that we're in even more danger than before. And you think their continued incompetence is the better choice? How about you actually start thinking about these issues instead of just doing Sean Hannity's bidding?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by ThingsChange, posted 10-02-2006 8:34 PM ThingsChange has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 126 (353783)
10-02-2006 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Silent H
09-29-2006 4:23 AM


Re: Calling all Republicans to explain what's going on.
Rather than purely venting, though I understand that feeling, I'm interested in people who have supported Bush and the Republican party explain passage of the bill. Rather than purely venting, though I understand that feeling, I'm interested in people who have supported Bush and the Republican party explain passage of the bill.
I haven’t supported Bush and the Republican party but I’ll don the conservative label and answer your questions anyways.
So what I want is an explanation of how this bill which allows a single branch of the federal gov't to intrude on people's lives, based on its own say so and with no real oversight, is consistent with traditional republican (i.e. conservative) principles?
It isn’t consistent with traditional republican (i.e. conservative) principles. You see, Bush and the Republican party do have some liberal principles.
So please explain how you view it as consistent and acceptable from a traditional Republican vantage point. And if it isn't, why is it worthwhile for Reps to change their traditional platform?
Well, it has something to do with terrorism.
If the answer has anything to do with "terrorism", explain why court sanctioned wiretaps, with flexible time for requesting the tap, is not sufficient?
The terrorists are getting good.
Why is it thought that a single person has the ability to make such a decision with no true checking power by the population?
Because terrorist tactics are very difficult to defend against, especially when the defender has to avoid racism by not profiling people. They need to maintain an image of being the good side, but they are also going to have to do some really bad things to protect us, so they’re trying to hide them, from congress I guess.
The article in the OP/qs writes:
quote:
The bill approved by the House, they {( Democrats}) argued, gives the president too much power and leaves the law vulnerable to being overturned by a court.
I think they have a point here and I can see how this is giving the president too much power.
The article in the OP/qs writes:
quote:
Under the measure, the president would be authorized to conduct such wiretaps if he:
” Notifies the House and Senate intelligence committees and congressional leaders.
” Believes an attack is imminent and later explains the reason and names the individuals and groups involved.
” Renews his certification every 90 days.
At least he has to notify people and can only use it if attacks are imminent. I don’t think he’s going to abuse this power by getting free phone sex or listening to what his wife says about him on the phone.
That’s probably how I’d abuse this power, what kind of stuff did you have in mind?
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : threw a missing 'and' in there

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Silent H, posted 09-29-2006 4:23 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Omnivorous, posted 10-02-2006 11:29 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 10-02-2006 11:37 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 32 by Silent H, posted 10-03-2006 5:49 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 25 of 126 (353785)
10-02-2006 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by New Cat's Eye
10-02-2006 11:21 PM


Re: Calling all Republicans to explain what's going on.
CS writes:
It isn’t consistent with traditional republican (i.e. conservative) principles. You see, Bush and the Republican party do have some liberal principles.
You sure you aren't Karl Rove?
Won't be so funny when your number comes up, though.

God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ”Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’
--Ann Coulter, Fox-TV: Hannity & Colmes, 20 Jun 01
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-02-2006 11:21 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-02-2006 11:43 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 26 of 126 (353786)
10-02-2006 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by New Cat's Eye
10-02-2006 11:21 PM


Re: Calling all Republicans to explain what's going on.
You see, Bush and the Republican party do have some liberal principles.
"Liberal" isn't a synonym for "reprehensible."
God. Why is it impossible for Republicans to defend their party without smearing their opponents?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-02-2006 11:21 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-02-2006 11:50 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 29 by kuresu, posted 10-02-2006 11:58 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 126 (353787)
10-02-2006 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Omnivorous
10-02-2006 11:29 PM


Re: Calling all Republicans to explain what's going on.
CS writes:
It isn’t consistent with traditional republican (i.e. conservative) principles. You see, Bush and the Republican party do have some liberal principles.
Very tongue in cheek, yes.
You sure you aren't Karl Rove?
Never heard of him until now.
Won't be so funny when your number comes up, though.
What happens when my number comes up?
Omnivorous in msg 21 writes:
And I'm a wild-eyed pistol wavin' anarcho-libertarian tie-dyed Leary-lovin' veteran, and I say, "They're there, dude."
You sound pretty cool, man, I bet we could have had a lot of fun together if we had met in person.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Omnivorous, posted 10-02-2006 11:29 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 126 (353788)
10-02-2006 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by crashfrog
10-02-2006 11:37 PM


Re: Calling all Republicans to explain what's going on.
"Liberal" isn't a synonym for "reprehensible."
It was obvious to Holmes that this wasn't being conservative. Isn't liberal antonymous to conservative?
God.
Who?
Why is it impossible for Republicans to defend their party without smearing their opponents?
I don't speak type for Republicans, but everyone defends their party by smearing their opponents. I was just playing along.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 10-02-2006 11:37 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 10-03-2006 9:53 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 29 of 126 (353789)
10-02-2006 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by crashfrog
10-02-2006 11:37 PM


Re: Calling all Republicans to explain what's going on.
the way I udnerstood it, CS was just having some fun--using the stereotypical conservative arguments that defend bush.
(note the intro, where he explicity states he doesn't agree with bush, but will give this a shot anyway)

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 10-02-2006 11:37 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-03-2006 12:04 AM kuresu has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 126 (353791)
10-03-2006 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by kuresu
10-02-2006 11:58 PM


Re: Calling all Republicans to explain what's going on.
the way I udnerstood it, CS was just having some fun--using the stereotypical conservative arguments that defend bush.
Well, its no fun if you're gonna be like that
I started responding to respond to Message 19 but I'm too tired halfway through it. He's what I got so far.
And now, when I talk to my relatives in sweden, I am having my rights infringed upon. damn it, I don't want some government freak who only has to give justification after the wiretapping.
Do you honestly think they want to listen to you when you talk to your relatives in Sweden?
I do not trust the government as far as I can throw
Hmmm, I don't distrust the goevernment.
Answer me this--how does getting a warrant slow down the process?
I don't think its about slowing the process down. I think its about maintaining an good image while doing some bad things in the fight against terrorism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by kuresu, posted 10-02-2006 11:58 PM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 10-03-2006 9:54 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024