No, only those who don't see the absolute contention... The percentage would be somewhat to even dare I say,...significantly lower.
BTW, I don't want to disenfranchise the sensible left-leaning moderate posters out there. I respect a reasoned, but differing opinion and actually like certain posters on the other side I won't name, but this Gore thing is not your hand...
are you saying only a minority agrees with Gore on this and every one who agrees with him is labeled as fringe idiot libs? howbout barr is he a fringe idiot lib? howbout other republicans who share the same opinion as gore?
It's not unreasoned rhetoric, ROXRAN. The unreasoned rhetoric is coming from the White House. Even Republican conservative Bob Barr, the last person I would imagine being against the President, gave a damned good explanation about how wrong Bush is, and how unlawful his actions are. I respect that you disagree, but I think you are a bit like my one issue friend, who thinks Democrats are going to take his, and my own, guns away. That on that one issue, it is worth supporting Bush, regardless of how he's trampling our Constitution. MasterBaiter said flat out that he's supporting Bush because of his stance on abortion, and really doesn't care what else Bush may be doing. All that makes someone like me, who has different beliefs on a host of issues, sometimes different from many in this supposed "liberal group" here... the one that Trader_J, and texxx, and basso would have everyone think marches in lockstep, have a discussion. How can one have a discussion about many issues with people who care about only one? How can one have a discussion on one issue when 2 or 3 members in here delight is acting the fool, attacking others without any serious attempt at discussion, and they continually get away with it? Maybe it's the way the Rockets season is going down the tubes that has me bummed out, but I'm pretty bummed out, ROXRAN. Don't take it personally. Keep D&D Civil.
its not complicated - bush lied to each and every one of us when he made this statement in april 04... "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution." at the time he made this statement the government was doing exactly what he said they werent doing. hes a dirty liar, plain and simple.
What is unfathomable, is to have a clear cut public confirmation without acknowledging all particulars. To me that is idiotic. I feel many have not yet affirmed whether any law was actually broken. This is likely a majority on both sides. Sure, there are neo-demos, or confused/displaced Republicans who will only find reasoning of ill...You may not agree, but to have Gore boast that a law was broken by President Bush and ignore a report by the Justice department on the lawfulness belittles the truth and the sanctity of the left-leaning cause.
but you do marh in lock step, and your discussions re the presidency of GWB have been anything but reasonable. you have given credence to the idea that Bush is no worse than a mass murdering fascist tyrant. how is one to have a reasonable discussion with someone who says such things? i believe you to be a reasonable person, yet your rhetoric has of late taken a turn in a decidedly gorian direction, one that sees dark forces at work in every bushian utterance. please, let us see the more resonable deckard of some months ago, he is much missed. this newer model, not so much.
Deckard, believe it or not I like you. If I met you, chances are I would like you more... There are posters on the left side who do seem to talk the same kind of regurgitated speak. In another thread, a poster I debated with did not agree, but at least acknowledged the differing reasons I brought up as valid and telling to the argument. This was refreshing and very productive to debate. I respect your views because I believe that you have reasoned counteragreements fairly on a consistent basis. In fact I respect all views even without my interpretation of reasoning counteragreements "fairly" because that is a right. In this case, I sincerely feel there is substantial merit on the lawfulness of President Bush's actions and this has nothing to do with my fascination with firearms. Yes, I personally am happy that Bush has helped your 2nd admendment rights, but the driving underscore in my view is whether or not this is in keeping with the Constitution, and is it the right thing to do for the people?...I affirmly believe the answer is YES!, while at the same time acknowledging why it may not be...The issue is contentious, but it is not the sum of an absolute, while underhandedly politically driven announcement from a prominent democrat.
Show me where I have called Bush, "a mass murdering fascist tyrant." I certainly don't see "dark forces at work in every bushian utterance." And my "rhetoric has of late taken a turn in a decidedly gorian direction??" What the hell is that? Gorian?? I've criticized him numerous times, I have repeatedly said that he ran a terrible campaign, with his worst mistake not having Bill Clinton work vigorously for his election, seconded by the stupidity of having Lieberman as his running mate. I think that he has "found his voice," since his defeat, and I wish this Al Gore had been the one running for President. He would be President today, and we would be the better for it, in my opinion. I have said several times that I believe Bush to be an extremist. I've said he's mislead and downright lied to the American people, and he has. I think his foreign policy has been a disaster. I think he has surrounded himself with a small cabal of advisors who have repeatedly given him bad advice, for which he praises and promotes them, getting rid of those who dare to respectfully disagree with him, and tell him things that I believe would have served him well, but are things he doesn't want to hear. I think he mislead the American people about the need to invade Iraq, and then went about it in the worst possible way. I think he has committed an impeachable offense by ignoring the law and Congress, thereby breaking the law and being worthy of impeachment, for reasons that make absolutely no sense. The man is so full of himself that he thinks he is above the law. We will see, eventually, if he is or not. I see no "dark forces" here. I don't give a damn if others here agree with me or not. What I do see is the President being the very definition of the Peter Principal. He is completely over his head, and is surrounded by people who managed to get him elected, but do not know how to govern. They know how to reward their corporate and wealthy backers beyond their wildest dreams of avarice. I will give them that, because they are bloody good at it. By the way, basso... I haven't seen you speaking up against the crap being spewed by Trader_J and texxx. If you think you have been so reasonable, why have you been silent? Keep D&D Civil.
Nice post, you've probably summed this up in a manner better than the administration has so far. 1. However, most people agree that the FISA court has been more than reasonable when it comes to determining whether or not a wiretap is acceptable. Hell, the court has never rejected a wiretap ever. Not to mention there's no reason why the courts are any worse than the executive branch at determining the legitimacy of a wiretap. It's a court afterall. The administration presents its arguments as to why there should be a wiretap and the court then rules on it. That is the foundation of the seperation of powers. Its the same reason why we don't let the prosecutor determine beforehand what happens to a murder suspect. Instead there is a seperation that is created by a court trial. 2. Even if your assertion is correct, that doesn't make this constitutional. It sitll violates FISA, which you concede and it still violates due process and constitutional guarantees which are the foundation of the constitution. You may be right that the executive branch could be the best branch to decide what wiretaps are correct, but that doesn't mean that it is still consistent with the constitution. 3. Even I agree that FISA is somewhat overcomplicated in its procedure to apply for wiretaps. There is unecessary paperwork and it requires too many signatures to get a wiretap. I firmly believe in amending the FISA act to make wiretap applications more simple but that doesn't mean that we should disregard the process entirely. The Seperation of Powers still has value and still should be affirmed.
Thanks for the civil reply, ROXRAN. I really appreciate it. It's nice to see someone who doesn't always use "the broad brush," when talking about one side or the other. I also respect that you believe the issue is contentious. I hope that in the future you may come to realize that every bit chipped away from our personal freedoms, every case of ignoring our Constitution in the name of "protecting our freedom," diminishes those freedoms. And I firmly believe that someone like George W. Bush, with his disregard for Congress and the Constitution, in my opinion, is just the sort of person who may decide to take away your firearms, in the name of national security. Just food for thought. Keep D&D Civil.
...Not trying to speak for Basso, but I'm sure he would be more than happy to follow your lead (the names on your side of the fence, that is...)
Yeah man it's so hard to get a warrant 3 DAYS AFTER THE FACT for a wiretap because of e-mail and the internet. I fail to see what the method of communication has to do with getting a warrant - I seriously doubt the process for getting a wiretap is different whether you're spying on phone calls or AOL IMs. Also, here's the offical Republican response: When you can't attack the message, attack the messenger!
Oh my fatty. Is Mr. Gore still dreaming about becoming president one day? Let me get it straight for ya, Al: it's not gonna happen.
A few points: Retroactive filings have not been an issue before, why should they be now? Before this broke, you didn't hear people screraming about retroactive approval even though FISA is public law and well known to many "neo-demos." Yes, certainly the Executive Branch is the strongest in "expertise." No question about that. But expertise does not convey wisdom and the branches of our government are designed to make use of that expertise while arriving at decisions. Expertise is not to be hidden from elected officials and then used to justify acts even though the expertise is not there to be challenged. Also, do you not see the incestuous (in our system) nature of relying on the Justice Department to justify what is OK by the Constitution? Is "Constitutional inference" the responsibility of the Justice Department under our system? I think not. Should we just accept the cases the Justice Dept. puts forth to justify an accretion of power? Finally, because legitimacy is indeed subjective, shouldn't that be more reason for more people to have a look at it? Why trust one person or branch to make that interpretation?
Of course he knew it. But framing this debate as if people are too stupid to tell the difference is the only way these idiots can operate it, from the Admin itself and its professional liars to the screeching echo chamber harpy like Ann Coulter all the way down to the lowly, keyboard pounding rank-and-file, basketball BBS Freedom Fighter Brigade - that's the order of the day. And he's marching with it.
