| Times Online | 0 | |
| Fox Boston | 0 | |
| Merc. News | 0 | |
| Big Govt | Obama’s Shock Troops: SEIU and Political Intimidation in St. Louis |
0 |
| NYT | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Whiner-in-Chief:
"[W]hether the grumbling is about Republicans on Fox or bloggers in pajamas, there's a word for what the president and his aides are doing. That word is "whining." And nothing [...] does more damage to Obama's credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief."
- John Nichols, Nation Magazine - 10/12/09
Link between disposable phone sale surge and NSA leak?
ABCNews is reporting that federal agents are investigating a surge in the purchasing of disposable cell phones by individuals from the Middle East and Pakistan:
The phones — which do not require purchasers to sign a contract or have a credit card — have many legitimate uses, and are popular with people who have bad credit or for use as emergency phones tucked away in glove compartments or tackle boxes. But since they can be difficult or impossible to track, law enforcement officials say the phones are widely used by criminal gangs and terrorists.
“There’s very little audit trail assigned to this phone. One can walk in, purchase it in cash, you don’t have to put down a credit card, buy any amount of minutes to it, and you don’t, frankly, know who bought this,” said Jack Cloonan, a former FBI official who is now an ABC News consultant.
Law enforcement officials say the phones were used to detonate the bombs terrorists used in the Madrid train attacks in March 2004.
“The application of prepaid phones for nefarious reasons, is really widespread. For example, the terrorists in Madrid used prepaid phones to detonate the bombs in the subway trains that killed more than 200 people,” said Roger Entner, a communications consultant.
150 Phones in One Sale, 60 Phones in Another
The FBI is closely monitoring the potentially dangerous development, which came to light following recent large-quantity purchases in California and Texas, officials confirmed.
In one New Year’s Eve transaction at a Target store in Hemet, Calif., 150 disposable tracfones were purchased. Suspicious store employees notified police, who called in the FBI, law enforcement sources said.
In an earlier incident, at a Wal-mart store in Midland, Texas, on December 18, six individuals attempted to buy about 60 of the phones until store clerks became suspicious and notified the police. A Wal-mart spokesperson confirmed the incident.
The Midland, Texas, police report dated December 18 and obtained by ABC News states: “Information obtained by MPD [Midland Police Department] dispatch personnel indicated that approximately six individuals of Middle-Eastern origin were attempting to purchase an unusually large quantity of tracfones (disposable cell phones with prepaid minutes attached).” At least one of the suspects was identified as being from Iraq and another from Pakistan, officials said.
“Upon the arrival of officers, suspects were observed moving away from the registers — appearing to evade detection while ridding themselves of the merchandise.”
Other reports have come in from other cities, including Dallas, and from authorities in other states. Authorities in Pennsylvania, New York and other parts of Texas confirmed that they were alerted to the cases, and sources say other jurisdictions were also notified.
There’s more:
The Midland, Texas, arrest report police also identified the individuals as linked to a terror cell:
“Evasive responses provided by the subjects, coupled with actions observed by officers at the onset of the contact prompted the notification of local FBI officials to assist in the investigation,” the report said. “Upon the arrival of special agents, and as a result of subsequent interviews, it was discovered that members of the group were linked to suspected terrorist cells stationed within the Metroplex.
When did the story on the NSA eavesdropping break? Dec. 16. I hope the “whistleblowers“ and those who once upon a time claimed to be so concerned about how leaks could damage our national security suffer some sleepless nights and restless days over this. A lot of them.
Others blogging about this: Anchoress, Brutally Honest, Flopping Aces, Right Voices, Mike’s America, Blog for All, Confederate Yankee, Junkyard Blog, Macsmind
(Cross-posted at California Conservative)
Updated: Michelle Malkin weighs in, and has posted links to AJ Strata, Daily Pundit, and Chris Christner on this issue.
We need to raise the roof on this one.
Related:
- Whistleblower or leaker?
- Joe Klein: How to Stay Out of Power (and undermine the war in the process)
- Why it was important to keep the cat in the bag
- The Rep. Jane Harman flip flop
- NSA initially acted on its own after 9-11
- Investigations begin into the NSA eavesdropping leak
- “… the only thing outrageous about this policy is the outrage itself”
- Michael Barone on the MSM’s ‘eavesdropping’ coverage
- Brief history of warrantless searches
- Past presidents and the NSA
- Bill Clinton and the NSA
- WSJ: “Thank you for wiretapping”
- The Prez fires back
- Prez essentially says ‘let me do my job’
- The undermining of this war
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
140 Responses to “Link between disposable phone sale surge and NSA leak?”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
- Ok 3rd….Now you’re trotting out all the old Dem talking points crap and moving into Deaniac land… b.b.b.bye
- Bang
- FISA, nor any other statute, is viable if it blocks the President from his constitutional duty to protect the US and its citizens.
- The system is specifically set up to keep the Congress from meddling in war time decisions and actions.
- Only some sort of suicidal maniac would want the likes of Kennedrunk or Schumer to be calling the shots in the WOT. We’d all be dead inside a month.
- You guys are simply laughable now. you are kidding Right?
- Bang
“Only some sort of suicidal maniac would want the likes of Kennedrunk or Schumer to be calling the shots in the WOT. We’d all be dead inside a month.”
What are you talking about? We’re talking about a law passed in 1978.
Cav,
You said:
“Once again, the FISA Court itself stated that “the President does have that authority”
And once again you are mischaracterizing that quote, its context, and the time frames involved, as well as ignoring codified law that contradicts what you’re attempting to assert.
“I’m sorry if facts and reason are so foreign to you that you continue to insist that…
Interesting that your reason and facts are so sound that the Bush Administration isn’t even using your rationale.
Maybe you should call the White House and let them know that you’ve found a new argument for them to put forth. I’m sure Gonzalez is working overtime to build the case and he appears not to possess the facts and reasoning ability that you do.
Does that tell you anything?
Andrew wrote, “We’re talking about a law passed in 1978.
A law that is exempted for intelligence gathered from “international communications”
- FISA, nor any other statute, is viable if it blocks the President from his constitutional duty to protect the US and its citizens.
- The system is specifically set up to keep the Congress from meddling in war time decisions and actions.
- Only some sort of suicidal maniac would want the likes of Kennedrunk or Schumer to be calling the shots in the WOT. We’d all be dead inside a month.
- Hmmmmm …. See it all becomes clear Andrew when you read the whole post.
- I’m beginning to think Gayland had something when he said theres a reading comphrehension gene missing from Liberal DNA…..
- Bang
Pam,
You said:
“There is no campaign going to make those on the left look like OBL sympathizers. The left in this country just has the uncanny ability to open their mouth and out comes their words, not ours”
The fact that you do not dispute that the left or any one else in this country sounds like an OBL sympathizer is telling enough. No amount of dissent should give you that impression, short of someone out and out saying they sympathize. What a ridiculous notion.
You said:
“you offered a code to fit the arguement. There are other codes involved.”
Of course I offered one that supports my argument. What kind of ridiculous statement is that? If my reading and analysis has led me to believe one way or another, then when sharing what I believe I’m going to cite why. You’ve done nothing but point out how reasonable people debate.
But the salient point here is that, ironically, you offer nothing to the contrary. What “other code” are you referencing? Let me know what you’ve come up with after Googling “U.S. Code”. I’m interested in hearing that.
“How you come up with that is beyond me. How are you less secure?”
I know–it’s CLEARLY beyond you. Which is precisely the problem. Talk about lacking knowledge of history in the area. Here’s a brief lesson:
First of all, OBL/Al Q was not in Iraq in any significant way, and in fact, thought of Sadaam as an “infidel”. They had no regard for each other (in spite of what this admin wanted everyone to believe). So, there was a balance (albeit tenuous) that kept OBL out of Iraq. Now he has fertile recruiting ground.
Second of all, OBL has told his people all along that the U.S. wanted to occupy Arab land. Now that we’re there (virtually unilaterally), we’ve made him look prophetic and given him further basis for recruitment.
Third, this is not a time in which we can afford to lose focus with the very deadly threats facing us. Our little near-unilateral adventure in Iraq has thinned our resources significantly. Wonder if that contributed to the 9/11 commission recently giving America’s security a failing grade?
I could go on, but I think that’s enough.
You said:
“You might want to learn a bit about the history of this prior to making such
a ridiculous statement.”
Whoa, that’s laughable. I know what “caused” Iraq and it’s not on the multi-rationale list that your favorite president gave you. But why don’t you treat us to your revision, er…I mean version of history?
“We are not causing any of this…”
Causing any of what? What do you mean? The Iraq War or terrorist attacks by OBL? You do know they aren’t the same don’t you?
“Secondly, You have us fighting the WOT in Iraq only.”
OBL. War on terror in Iraq. Think about it.
On your whole SC rant, I’d say, no of course I don’t know. That’s my thought. Just as “this years court will be no different…” is your opinion.
And “balance” seems to be a matter of perspective these days. But, I hope you’re right.
And BTW, there is already at least one known target of the program to date who is considering action. So, it’s definitely possible the SC will hear it.
“Regardless of the persons political allegiance, the opinions are not drawn by party lines
Perhaps not party, but ideological. That’ s not to say that a justice starts with an agenda. I’m sure they try to be impartial, but like anyone can be informed by their beliefs on some level. A look at Alito’s record clearly shows a trend.
“why all the fuss about where you think people are assigning you?…Why not just discuss the issues at hand?”
Are you kidding? If no one was assigning me a label I wouldn’t have to reject it would I? By assigning me a label, THEY were avoiding “discussion of the issues at hand” and just going through their standard anti-left talking points. So, I was trying to reject the label so we could have a real discussion.
If you look above, from the very beginning that’s what they were doing. And they’re still doing it. Ironic huh?
And, one other good reason. It’s not true.
>Haven’t we sorted out that FISA was
>violated
FISA does not override the Constitution. Sorry. And a statute cannot be violated if it does not apply to the circumstances.
>You’re saying that the president is
>above the law by virtue of his ability
>to decide which ones are “real laws” to
>be followed.
That proves you haven’t understood a single word that’s been said to you. Whether that’s deliberate is the only thing up for debate at this point. FISA does not override the Constitution. Get it?
>once again you are mischaracterizing
>that quote
Once again, here is the direct quote from the 2002 FISA Court of Review, in full (emphasis added):
The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.
Any mischaracterisation is purely on your part.
3rd wrote, “ sounds like an OBL sympathizer is telling enough.
It’s our perspective for a reason 3rd. We have the right to form our opinion and express it just as much as you have the right to act like an OBL sympathizer.
3rd wrote with bigotry, “thought of Sadaam as an “infidel”.
This WOT aint about Islam. Are you saying it is?
3rd symnpathized with OBL by writing, “Second of all, OBL has told his people all along that the U.S. wanted to occupy Arab land. Now that we’re there (virtually unilaterally)[another liberal talking point], we’ve made him look prophetic and given him further basis for recruitment.
Further basis huh.
You got peanut butter on that foot? 
3rd wrote, “If you look above, from the very beginning that’s what they were doing. And they’re still doing it.
You keep digging your hole and ignoring the first rule of holes. You have one leftist talking point after another. Sorry you are so misinformed and have accusation after accusation. It’s the leftist way!! There are plenty of truthful things to accuse the president of and there are plenty of solutions you could bring to the table that the president hasn’t. We’ve discussed them long before the day you came.
Cav,
That direct quote is useless for 5th column (I mean 3rdparty).
Cav,
Last post to you on this.
“That proves you haven’t understood a single word that’s been said to you. Whether that’s deliberate is the only thing up for debate at this point. FISA does not override the Constitution. Get it?”
First, know that I understand what you are TRYING to assert. But, I’m saying that I think you are WRONG. That is what’s known as a debate.
And to your last post, “context” doesn’t mean that you just grab one or two more sentences around the quote.
Now on to the substance: To say that “FISA doesn’t override the Constitution” shows where your understanding breaks down. The problem is that there is a conflict in the Constitution between the president’s security responsibilites and the 4th amendment. FISA addresses this and attempts to balance the two.
It sets forth a method that allows the president to do his job, while protecting privacy and 4th amendment rights. It effectively provides oversight and prevents gross abuses.
Now, on to your favorite line in the quote, “FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power”. Oversight does not constitute encroachment, which is where your hangup lies. The “oversight nature” and non-encroachment respect is evidenced most clearly in the 72-hour retroactive clause.
You see, your assumption is that Bush is only using the wiretaps in the prescribed manner (that is in execution of his constitutional duties). If that is the case, then it’s true that “FISA could not encroach”.
However without oversight, how could that be assured? Back in the Nixon days, taps were used for other “less-constitutional” purposes. So it was clear that there should at least be someone watching. Hence, FISA.
It’s the LAW and as they usually try to do with laws around these parts, it’s BASED on the Constitution, not attempting to override it.
Bush cannot simply decide on his own that he’s going to ignore the law and interpret the Constitution in a way that he chooses. In fact, as andrew pointed out, doing so also violates the separation of powers set forth by the Constitution.
Like I said, re-read your quote in full context.
3rd: “So, I was trying to reject the label so we could have a real discussion.”
I’m not so sure you’re that interested in a real discussion, considering your level of patronization of people who don’t automatically agree with your viewpoint. Try to move on from that, please.
To Bang, Baklava, and anyone else who posted earlier with the tired, leftist attacks.
Don’t have time to catch up with the multitude of posts that I missed, but I want to say this:
The conclusions I draw are my own. I have not been to democrats.com, nor do I tow any line. In fact, I’d prefer a completely new third party that owes nothing to special interests, but only to the American people. It’s clear that the power that rightfully belongs to the people has been diluted by these special interests.
Further, I’d like a party that does not damage this nation by attempting to divide its people (in a malicious way) for political purposes. Idealistic, sure. I could go on, but in short, I think the two party system is hurting our democracy.
You can believe that or not, but I will also add that your ad hominem attacks are without merit and reflect poorly on your ability to navigate difficult topics on their merit. It is a running theme (fact, not opinion…just scroll up).
I’ll grant that some of you have made some good, thoughtful points, but you all too often fall back to the use of ad hominem.
Think about it: Citing that I’ve said something that happens to have been said somewhere else does not make your case.
And even if I was on the left, stating as much as some sort of slur is meaningless to honest discourse.
In fact, it discredits you, as it is concrete evidence of a closed mind.
Just thought you should know.
- I wonder if after the 2006 Congressional elections if the left will finally figure out that Bush isn’t running again…
- Then again maybe its all just another Rovian mind meld trick, and Bush will announce at the last minute….
- Bang
“In fact, it discredits you, as it is concrete evidence of a closed mind.
Just thought you should know.”
Is there a doctor in the house? What a lame diagnosis of what you’ve read here. What the evidence in this thread indicates is an inability on your part to accept anything less than “I agree with you” as a response to anything you say. Arguments in response to yours are met with a heavy dose of implied derision. If you have issues with ad hominems, them I’m hard pressed to understand why you use them yourself.
You see, your assumption is that Bush is only using the wiretaps in the prescribed manner (that is in execution of his constitutional duties).
- Yes third…. that is our assumption. I voted the man in office. I’m not accostumed to voting for people I think have a propencity to take away my freedoms and try to enslave me in some grand conspiracy. That would be sort of self defeating. So yes, I gave the man my trust.
- Obviously you did not, and so in your opinion we all should watch his every move like a hawk and assume the worst until proven otherwise.
- We got that. Several hundred words ago. Your opinion is clear. You have that right. Its fine.
- Until you try to move your opinion into some sort of ground swell of fact, based on non-existant material, obfuscated interpretations, false assumptions, and over the top fears.
- When you do that, intersparsing your comments with a laundry list of Deaniac talking points then you lose the initiative.
- BTW. If the screeds you posted form the basis for your “new party platform” you might as well just stay in the leftwing section of the DNC bowl. Theres not enough difference to bother with. We’ve heard it all before. On and on, ad nauseum.
- Bang
Sister,
If you look at the history of the posts, it’s clear where the personal attacks/condescension began.
From my very first post I was attacked as a liar, leftist, this and that…blah, blah, blah.
Go back and check it out if you like. Read my respectful, earnest first post, then follow the thread of escalating condescension and personal attacks.
If you don’t feel like scrolling, I’ll summarize: My first post questioned the topic, and here’s how the first response ended:
“So please take your lies about what’s ‘required by law’ over to DU or Kos, where they believe that stuff.”
Is that what you characterize as “real discussion”?
And, since you cited my comment to Pam, go back and check out how that thread opened. She addressed me earnestly and politely, then I responded in kind. In fact, I thought “cool, someone who wants to discuss”.
Next thing you know she blind-sides me with stuff like:
“How ridiculous to think that, but usually one with a problem does tend to try to blame it on others.”
“You might want to learn a bit about the history of this prior to making such a ridiculous statement.”
“First of all, we do have link buttons at our disposable”
Hmmm…why don’t the other kids have to play nice?
>First, know that I understand what you
>are TRYING to assert. But, I’m saying
>that I think you are WRONG. That is
>what’s known as a debate.
Only on playgrounds at schools across the country. When adults have a debate, we show evidence to back our assertions as I have done repeatedly; we don’t simply say, “no, you’re wrong!”
>And to your last post, “context” doesn’t
>mean that you just grab one or two more
>sentences around the quote.
So you’re unable to prove the FISA Review Court was wrong in what they said, but don’t want to admit it.
>To say that “FISA doesn’t override the
>Constitution” shows where your
>understanding breaks down
In case you missed Civics class, the Constitution is the highest law in the land.
>there is a conflict in the Constitution
>between the president’s security
>responsibilites and the 4th amendment
The 4th Amendment was not touched by this, unless you’re prepared to tell us that listening to phone calls with known enemies is somehow unreasonable. Good luck with that.
>It effectively provides oversight and
>prevents gross abuses.
I’ve been waiting for you to provide any evidence of abuses for two days now.
>However without oversight
You keep using the word “oversight” as though the Legislative or Judicial branches of government gets to make military or intelligence decisions. Oversight means reporting on the decisions, which the President did.
>Back in the Nixon days
Liberal talking point #4573.
>Bush cannot simply decide on his own
>that he’s going to ignore the law
Which he didn’t. This repetitive nonsense is beginning to bore me.
Oh, Lord, he’s beginning to whine. Maybe if you didn’t spout Liberal talking points and follow the exact Liberal template for “debate” we’ve all seen a thousand times before, we wouldn’t be able to peg you as a Leftists in a sentence or two
You think those were “attacks”? Better toughen up a bit, 3rd. I’m thinking Pam commented about the link buttons because you’ve acted as though you know more on this topic than the rest of us -seems to me she was recommending you use links to back up your arguments. That’s not an “attack.”
If someone says you are spouting lies, there’s a very easy way to prove them wrong: links. We’re all challenged from time to time to do that and we either respond with links, or admit that what we stated was our opinion.
“A law that is exempted for intelligence gathered from “international communications”"
Oh. Then gonzales must have been wrong when he didn’t rely on FISA. Thanks for clearing it up.
- Andrew, stop disembling. Doesn’t matter what anyone says or does. The bottom line is that as long as Bush adheres to his sworn duty to do everything he can to meet his Constitutional duties and protect the country and the people he’s basically unasailable. Period. End of discussion.
- Even if by some quirk the Liberals were able to find a statute that somehow was written in a way that would be in conflict with the Presidents war powers, by definition the SCOTUS would find in his favor, and unless they suddenly took leave of their senses in the final analysis the Congress would also.
- You’re really on a loser tack here. You should be glad that your Dem reps are smart enough never to actually have to stand before the electorate and explain why you want to find ways to hobble the President in his effort to perotect the nation. You’d be lucky if you weren’t tarred and feathered.
- I know who puts these crazy. ill-advised ideas in your heads. The worst is they’re not the ones around when the fit hits the shan. Just like Kent. the SDS and Weather underground rabel rousers slipped out of town just before the shooting started. They drop their lies and emotional bombs and then let the followers take the heat. Its a sucker punch in the emotional gut when you gain some real world experience and refuse to be “used” anymore. Been there – done that. Rude awakening is what it is. Everyone has an agenda. Just some agenda’s are less honest than others. So there you are. My tip for the day.
- Bang
Andrew, please link what you are talking about and/or copy some text!
Cav,
I said that’d be my last post to you on the topic, but you kind of bring out that weird thing in people where they’ll keep smelling something that stinks, b/c they can’t believe it stinks so bad.
On the other hand, I feel like I’m kicking a defenseless little animal or something.
So, I’m torn about continuing to hand you your hat b/c of my conscience. But I take comfort in knowing that you have no idea how badly you’re missing the point and getting your butt kicked.
You’ve managed to completely miss every point. I’m not saying you disagreed with them. You missed them.
You said:
“So you’re unable to prove the FISA Review Court was wrong in what they said, but don’t want to admit it.”
My argument does not rest on proving the FISA Review Court wrong. In fact, I’ve agreed that they held that FISA couldn’t encroach upon the president.
“In case you missed Civics class, the Constitution is the highest law in the land.”
Again, you pit FISA vs. the Constitution. Again, that’s not the point. I can’t tell if you’re erecting a straw man or you earnestly don’t get that.
“The 4th Amendment was not touched by this.
Huh? To understand this, maybe it would help if you thought, not about the people on the phone, but the people whose “rights could be violated” if the president abused his power. FISA serves to prevent such abuse.
“I’ve been waiting for you to provide any evidence of abuses for two days now”
I did. You just don’t agree, or understand or something. So can we just say that we disagree, rather than you pretending that I didn’t offer it? Good grief.
“Liberal talking point #4573″
Oh, you invoked the all-powerful “liberal talking point” clause. You got me there! Good one!
In point of fact, this is just the history of FISA, which I gave to help you understand the point. I can’t even tell what you’re rejecting with the all-powerful “liberal talking point” clause here. What do you think I’m attacking another Republican or something? I don’t get it.
Someone else please explain to Cav what I’m saying. He refuses to listen b/c it’s coming from me. I’m not asking you to agree with me (I know that ain’t gonna’ happen), I’m just asking that you explain to him where he’s missing the point(s), so he can argue properly.
Otherwise Cav, before you respond again, consider going offline and asking one of your friends for help.
- 3rd party…..the bus left several hours ago and you weren’t on it…. tip for the day… If you plan on a career in some way based in debating keep your day job…
- Bang
Sister,
“You think those were “attacks”? Better toughen up a bit, 3rd.”
I’m not saying they hurt me. I’m saying they were attacks. But yes, I think someone calling you a liar is an attack.
The only reason I commented on it was b/c you asked me to stop being condescending, but seemed to overlook the 8,000 derisive attacks sent my way.
I mean, I can definitely take it. In fact, I did and responded in kind. But it’s not right for you as the site owner to single out one person’s “misbehavior”.
Let me clarify that. As the site owner you can do whatever you want. But it’s not right, if you’re interested in being fair.
With the link button thing, I was referring to Pam’s condescending tone, not the content. Til then, our exchange had been cordial.
Again, pointing out the apparent double-standard here.
Bang,
Thanks for the tip. Enormously insightful.
But, how dare you insult your friend Cav that way! I mean if you’re saying I missed the bus, then you’re saying that he didn’t even know there was a bus.
Maybe you can make it up to him by sending him an e-mail and telling him what to say.
He seems to have no answer for new assertions, so he just keeps repeating his old ones.
Baklava,
I scanned some of the posts I missed and wanted to respond to one of yours.
I think most of your post is tongue in cheek (it’s hard to tell), so I won’t cover all points.
“3rd symnpathized with OBL… by writing,…we’ve made him look prophetic and given him further basis for recruitment.”
I said making him look like a prophetic hero helps in his recruiting. I didn’t say that it’s justified.
That’s actually telling. You approach it from an American perspective, and think that b/c you find it to be unjustified, OBL’s recruiting targets will too. That lack of understanding is the same that got us into this mess. I guess these are petty little nuances though.
You’re right. They are all liberal talking points. Now, which aren’t true?
“There are plenty of truthful things to accuse the president of…”
Name 4.
Extra credit: Name one that I’ve actually raised that you agree with.
Bang,
“Yes third…. that is our assumption. I voted the man in office. So yes, I gave the man my trust. Obviously you did not, and so in your opinion we all should watch his every move like a hawk and assume the worst until proven otherwise.”
Unbelievable! Of course the point is that someone should be watching. Separation of Powers you know.
So if someone is elected that you don’t trust, should we amend the Constitution? Enact new laws?
I mean if your foundation all along has been that he gives you warm fuzzies, then you should’ve just said so and we could’ve skipped this whole Constitution-thingy diversion. Actually the whole discussion for that matter. Incredible.
Not to mention this indicates that you did start with “Bush is good. I trust him.” and backed into your arguments from there.
The thing I don’t get is that you present rational arguments in some posts, then lapse into stuff like this, leaving yourself wide open. This is the second time you’ve done that.
“you might as well just stay in the leftwing section of the DNC bowl.”
There are other issues you know.
And BTW, I know each and every one of you is checking back to see what I’ve written.
This is cool. I can’t believe I single-handedly broke up your little celebration b/c you couldn’t handle some real pressure from the outside in your insulated world.
Making you reflect? Shaking up your beliefs? Maybe you were scared my logic was turning you into Democrats or Independents or something, so you took your ball and went home.
Good luck with that. Just read my original posts and remember, you brought it on yourselves.
>I can’t believe I single-handedly broke
>up your little celebration
Hahahaha…. Liberals are not only the most arrogant of people, but the most undeservedly so. Liberalism is a mental disease, the symptoms of which mimic those of narcissistic personality disorder and ADD.
>I said that’d be my last post to you on
>the topic
Liberals are not widely known for their truth-telling abilities.
>you kind of bring out that weird thing
>in people where they’ll keep smelling
>something that stinks, b/c they can’t
>believe it stinks so bad.
Ahh, that would be your ability to debate at a higher than third-grade level. In fact, I feel kind of bad insulting third graders that way.
>I take comfort in knowing that you have
>no idea how badly you’re missing the
>point and getting your butt kicked.
Man, you just gotta love the self-aggrandising fantasy world all Liberals live in. When you totally destroy their arguments, and simply repeating them doesn’t work, they start congratulating themselves on winning the debate. Once again, this one is following the Liberal playbook to the letter.
>My argument does not rest on proving the
>FISA Review Court wrong. In fact, I’ve
>agreed that they held that FISA couldn’t
>encroach upon the president.
Therefore, you agree with me — and them — that the President had every authority to order warrantless survellance without having to beg permission. So what are you arguing about, then? You could have simply said, “Oh, I hadn’t thought of that; you must be right,” from the start.
>people whose “rights could be violated”
>if the president abused his power
One more time: when you have actual evidence of such abuse, let us know. You cannot shred the Constitution because yu fear it’s remotely possible that someone might somehow do something wrong at some point.
>FISA serves to prevent such abuse.
But FISA cannot be used to encroach upon Presidential authority, as the FISA Review Court has said, and you agreed.
>Someone else please explain to Cav what
>I’m saying.
You need a Liberal-to-logic translator, perhaps? We all know what you’re saying. Like the rest of your type, you’re saying that you hate Bush and don’t want him exercising the same Constitutional authority all Presidents have exercised to keep the country safe from attack. You’re saying that you believe the War on Terror does not exist except as a law enforcement problem — the same attitude that brought us to 9/11 in the first place. You have no concept of what we’re up against or how to fight it. Go back to the playground and don’t come back until you’re ready to think like an adult.
“Go back to the playground and don’t come back until you’re ready to think like an adult.”
Great advice, Cav!
3rd: I’ve had just about enough of your holier than thou attitude. If you consider Pam, who is one of the nicest people here, condescending, then you’ve got issues dealing with disagreement and people askig you to simply back up your claims with links that we can’t help you with. And as far as “insulated” goes, the only person who seems to want insulation is you – insulation from being asked to back up ANYTHING you say with something more than “because I say so.” That doesn’t work anywhere that I know of, and definitely not here. So when you’re ready to shed your ubersensitivity to disagreement and actually want to back up what you say with links, then it might be a good idea for you to log off and do some studying of your own – and perhaps consult someone who knows better than you how the game of political debate works. You obviously don’t know how it does.
This thread has about run its course. Time to close it.