The Bush Administration and Wiretaps

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: Rocky

"If you really were one, you would support the conservative cause regardless of who was in power. "



Are you under the impression that Bush is a conservative?  Sorry Tex, I wish we had a conservative president compared to this one.

Please name the specficis on how he is not a conservative.   And if he is not, what is he?

The only area I know of that shows he is not a conservative is his spending.

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: Rocky

#1 Bush asked congress to include the words "in the United States" into the authorization Congress gave him after 9/11 and Congress refused to include those words and took them out because they didnt want the president to have unlimited spying authority on domestic cases.

That does not negate his authority on cases involving terorism.  There was no limitation attached to that which is exactly what we are talking about..

#2 72 hours?  So?  FISA rulings are expo fact, you dont seem to grasp that cause you just tried to make that argument again.  The President can order the wire tap, and then go to FISA afterwards.  The ruling could take a year and it wouldnt affect national security.

You keep repeating this without evidence.  Please provide the evidence that FISA would grant a wiretap without a warrent in the circumstances Bush has said he used them.

[Rocky]

"You keep repeating this without evidence. "

Feel free to prove me wrong.


"That does not negate his authority on cases involving terorism. There was no limitation attached to that which is exactly what we are talking about.. "

No limitation? Whats the point of having Congress then if the President asks them for the authority and they take out the language giving him authority?

[Rocky]

"Please name the specficis on how he is not a conservative. And if he is not, what is he?

The only area I know of that shows he is not a conservative is his spending. "

I think you are using conservative as a coin term and what it has become rather than what it is.  

Conservatism wants a smaller less intrusive government. Which also means less taxes and less spending.  If you have a different definition Id be happy to hear it.

But heres a quick list:
The spending is a HUGE one.  The patriot act is another big one. His views on gay marriage is another.  Abortion could be thrown in there too, but that argument is so muddied its ridiculous to point out how hypocritical everyone is.

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: Rocky

"You keep repeating this without evidence. "



Feel free to prove me wrong.

I'm not the one making the accusation.  You are.  Where is your evidence to support your accusation?

I've also given you the FISA law itself.   You have yet to provide a shred of evidence to back up your asserations.

No limitation? Whats the point of having Congress then if the President asks them for the authority and they take out the language giving him authority?

Again Rocky, the use of force was against terrorist activities which is why you are wrong in your assertion.   If he had gone after people without ties to terrorism or terrorists themsevles, you would be right but since this is not the case, you are wrong.

[Rocky]

"If he had gone after people without ties to terrorism or terrorists themsevles, you would be right but since this is not the case, you are wrong. "

Thats what we're waiting on texmaster, that proof.  ANd the proof is on the President not the accuser.  Do you know why?  Cause the actions are already admitted and proven.  The reason WHY has to be told.  This isnt your normal Judge Judy case Texmaster.  We already know the President has been tapping domestic lines without the authority needed, he should be required to say who and why hes tapping them.  Not to me, or to you, but to some sort of oversight, some sort of checks and balances, I dont want any president to have unlimited authority, thats not the kind of country we live in, this is Iraq, its America. And conservatives should be behind the oversight, this whole argument is incredibly hypocritical.


Also, look up the FISA laws since you are so good at it and see that the timeline doesnt matter at all.

[ric]

Originally posted by: Reflex

Rocky - ric is the sniper who sits in some hard to reach place in your fav FPS and takes potshots.  Unable to handle the heat of actual battle, without the reflexes or quick thinking of his fellow players, he sits back safe, offering up nothing to be held to, giving nothing but cheap shots.  The day he actually comes out and elaborates on anything will be the day that cowardice vanishes from the human race.  ie: a cold day in hell



More or less he is a troll who loves trying to ruin everyone else's discussion.  Unfortunatly after 2200+ posts, he is no more competant at it than he was after the first.

Welcome to the



CROWD....GO CRY TO MOMMY, WIMP...just lke McCain...lol

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: Rocky

"If he had gone after people without ties to terrorism or terrorists themsevles, you would be right but since this is not the case, you are wrong. "



Thats what we're waiting on texmaster, that proof.  ANd the proof is on the President not the accuser.

LOL since when?   You are accusing the president of a crime.   You can't back it up with even quoting the law you claim covers your assertion.    

Do you know why?  Cause the actions are already admitted and proven.  The reason WHY has to be told.  This isnt your normal Judge Judy case Texmaster.  We already know the President has been tapping domestic lines without the authority needed, he should be required to say who and why hes tapping them.

Wrong again Rocky.   If it is a national security issue he does Not have to do what you want.

Not to me, or to you, but to some sort of oversight, some sort of checks and balances, I dont want any president to have unlimited authority, thats not the kind of country we live in, this is Iraq, its America. And conservatives should be behind the oversight, this whole argument is incredibly hypocritical.

GROAN.   He doesn't have unlimited authority Rocky.  He does have  authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent those responsible for Sept. 11 from carrying out further attacks.

You keep wanting to dodge this and I wonder why.

Also, look up the FISA laws since you are so good at it and see that the timeline doesnt matter at all.

I'm not going to do your work for you.   I have given my side and provided the law that supports my side.  If you are too lazy or afraid to post your evidence then just admit it and move on.

I see you ran away from my challenge to you to prove Bush isn't a conservative as you claimed.

Typical.

[Rocky]

""use all necessary and appropriate force""

Yes....  except that he wanted the words "in the United States" added to that line and Congress told him no and removed it.  Because America is not under Marshal Law and is not at the whim of the President.  He does not have total authroity.  Its proven hes domesticly wiretapped lines, thats not the question.  The question is why after cognress told him he couldnt, did he find it to be a national security issue.  All he has to do is tell congressional leaders or FISA why and if they say, yea no problem, then I have no problem.  Too many secrets in one basket is not how our country is arranged per the US constitution.  You can argue for the dismantling of the constitution all you want texmaster, but I just dont agree with you.

[Rocky]

"I see you ran away from my challenge to you to prove Bush isn't a conservative as you claimed.

Typical. "


Also to show once again your complete lack of reading comprehension, please review the posts where I posted a lot about that "challenge" of yours, you missed it.  Your selective reading is amazing.

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: Rocky

""use all necessary and appropriate force""



Yes....  except that he wanted the words "in the United States" added to that line and Congress told him no and removed it.  Because America is not under Marshal Law and is not at the whim of the President.  He does not have total authroity.  Its proven hes domesticly wiretapped lines, thats not the question.  The question is why after cognress told him he couldnt, did he find it to be a national security issue.  All he has to do is tell congressional leaders or FISA why and if they say, yea no problem, then I have no problem.  Too many secrets in one basket is not how our country is arranged per the US constitution.  You can argue for the dismantling of the constitution all you want texmaster, but I just dont agree with you.

NO ONE SAYS HE DOES.  Hwo many times must that be said BEFORE you understand it Rocky?

This is Specifically for terrorism and terrorist activities.

Quit focusing on what he wanted and didn't get when the arguement is NOT about that.

[Reflex]

ric - Keep sniping there buddy, its so much easier than actually having to compose something thoughful and intelligent.

Texmaster - There really is nothing to be said.  You do not understand the difference between political parties and political orientations.  I fail to understand how you got through high school civics(do they have that in Texas?).  An Independant can be a Conservative.  Heck, a Democrat can be Conservative(most Southern Democrats are actually).  Your political party is just one factor in your political orientation.  Personally I am mostly a Libertarian.  I usually vote for them and I generally support most of their ideals(not all).  Libertarians on average are about personal responsibility, capitalism, free trade, and keeping the government out of our lives.  Thats about as conservative as it gets.  To us it appears as though the Republicans have become big government liberals, throwing billions at things like so-called Homeland Security and bridges in Alaska(thank you dear Senator Stevens-R).  Not the hallmark of conservative in the slightest.

Learn the difference and then come back to this discussion, its impossible to have an intelligent discussion with an unarmed man.

[Rocky]

"This is Specifically for terrorism and terrorist activities. "

Why is Bush hiding then?  Why is he running from oversight and checks and balances?  If its all legit like you say then I have no problem, but you as a source just doesnt cut it.

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: Rocky

Also to show once again your complete lack of reading comprehension, please review the posts where I posted a lot about that "challenge" of yours, you missed it.  Your selective reading is amazing.

Actually I didn't see your post on the subject and for that I was wrong and I apologize.

Now, lets analyze it.

"Please name the specficis on how he is not a conservative. And if he is not, what is he?

The only area I know of that shows he is not a conservative is his spending. "

I think you are using conservative as a coin term and what it has become rather than what it is.

Doesnt answer my question.

Conservatism wants a smaller less intrusive government. Which also means less taxes and less spending. If you have a different definition Id be happy to hear it.

Yes thank you Reflex for the history lesson.   Now, are you going to answer it?

But heres a quick list:
The spending is a HUGE one. The patriot act is another big one. His views on gay marriage is another. Abortion could be thrown in there too, but that argument is so muddied its ridiculous to point out how hypocritical everyone is.

ROFLOL!!!   How is his stance on gay marriage not conservative or aborition?  Are you actually reading what you type?

Bush is against gay marriage, a conservative belief.   He is against abortion, another conservative belief.

The Patriot Act is designed to keep us safer, another conservative point.  Are you claiming the Patriot Act is a liberal agenda? LOL

I didn't ask you to prove he was a conservative Rocky but thanks for the 3 examples  LOL

Once again, how is Bush NOT a conservative other than the spending issue?

[Rocky]

"The Patriot Act is designed to keep us safer, another conservative point."

Keeping us safer isnt a conservative point.  Lets at least pretend to be objective ok?

The patriot act is one of the most intrusive bills and increase of the federal governmetns power ever in our history. How that fits in the conservative agenda is beyond me.  If democrats proposed this conservative base would be held bound on defeating it.  Just happens to have happened and been needed under a Republican.


Gay Marriage.  Marriage is a states issue, always has been.  Conservatives are for state rights and less government regulation.  If you want to oppose gay marriage, fine go ahead, but if you want to change the US constitution to limit states rights then you are not following the conservative ideology.


Abortion.  Same issue as gay marriage minus the states rights part.  Changing the constitution to intrude into someones personal life is not conservativbe. All it does is increase the federal governments power to regulate the individual.  Granted liberals are on the exact opposite side of this hypocrit scale.  

But calling those things conservatives is wrong, its adapting to the current political climate to play favor in the polls.  Thats not wrong in general, but dont clame conservatism with those things.

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: Reflex

ric - Keep sniping there buddy, its so much easier than actually having to compose something thoughful and intelligent.



Texmaster - There really is nothing to be said.  You do not understand the difference between political parties and political orientations.  I fail to understand how you got through high school civics(do they have that in Texas?).

HAHA  Sticking your nose in the air again challenging my educational background on someone you have never met before.   Your arrogance is staggering.

And running away from specific points made against you shows your own incomepetance and impotence in your quest to defend your political affiliation.

An Independant can be a Conservative.

in specific areas yes

Heck, a Democrat can be Conservative(most Southern Democrats are actually).  

A Democrat can have conservative ideals but if they ounumbered their liberal or progressive ideals, they wouldn't be Democrats.

Your political party is just one factor in your political orientation.  Personally I am mostly a Libertarian

FINALLY.   You chose one!  Congradulations!   It only took you 5 postings in this thread to do it!

I usually vote for them and I generally support most of their ideals(not all).  Libertarians on average are about personal responsibility, capitalism, free trade, and keeping the government out of our lives.  Thats about as conservative as it gets.  

Wrong again.  Conservatives have a deep desire toward traditionalist thinking inluding issues like abortion, gay marriage, illegal immigration, prayer in school, defense spending, low taxes, war on terrorism, making judgements on certain behavior, against affirmative action or promoting any other race above another, and the list goes on.

And most importantly, when a conservative president is in power, they give him the benifit of the doubt as other conservative politicans.  Just like liberal lovers like you give liberals the benifit of the doubt.  You have been proven Not to give it to Bush which is why your claim earlier that you are a conservative is laughable.

You are a Libertarian which is FINE.   Be one.   Just don't claim you are a conservative when clearly you are Not.

To us it appears as though the Republicans have become big government liberals, throwing billions at things like so-called Homeland Security and bridges in Alaska(thank you dear Senator Stevens-R).  Not the hallmark of conservative in the slightest.

On spending you are correct.   But that is the only point you are correct on.

Learn the difference and then come back to this discussion, its impossible to have an intelligent discussion with an unarmed man.

Its even harder to have a debate with someone who runs away when the fire gets too hot for him.

The cowardice you have shown in refusing to defend your own statements has earned you the label of a runner, afraid to truely debate when challenged.

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: Rocky

Keeping us safer isnt a conservative point.  Lets at least pretend to be objective ok?

LOL   I'll refain from the label you try to pin on me for this one.   We were talking specifically about the Patriot Act, not the feeling of conservatives vs liberals overall on safety but the aspect of what the Patiot Act stands for.   I will say that Conservatives are far more willing to take steps to protect us than Liberals are for the folling reasons.   The outing of CIA prisons, the wiretap leaks and others are designed to hurt the US and its ability to protect its people.   Liberals see this as a way to thwart republicans and dont care about protection if it earns them political points.   This is why Clinton did nothing like this even though we were attacked multiple times including on our own soil.  And the result?  The attacks increased in frequency and size.   Its the taking of action liberals are afraid of which is why things got so bad in the first place.

The patriot act is one of the most intrusive bills and increase of the federal governmetns power ever in our history.

Your opionion as a liberal.

How that fits in the conservative agenda is beyond me.

I understand that.   It deals with protecting us from terror.   That is how it was designed and how it is used.   Its the pro action that distinguishes liberas from conservatives on defense.

If democrats proposed this conservative base would be held bound on defeating it.  Just happens to have happened and been needed under a Republican.

This came about after 9/11 and had liberal support in the Senate. 98-1-1.   Only now when liberals become complacent and don't see terror as a threat do they scream about it.   That is the difference.  Conservatives see the threat as a real and unforgiving enemy.  Liberals think diplomacy and complacency can win the day.

Gay Marriage.  Marriage is a states issue, always has been.  Conservatives are for state rights and less government regulation.  If you want to oppose gay marriage, fine go ahead, but if you want to change the US constitution to limit states rights then you are not following the conservative ideology.

Your interpretation of gay marriage is of no conscern.  The facts are that conservatives overall support the banning gay marriage because it coincides with their traditionalist views which circumvent your arguement about privacy conscerns and addresses the liberals want and need to change the society values we live under.

Abortion.  Same issue as gay marriage minus the states rights part.  Changing the constitution to intrude into someones personal life is not conservativbe. All it does is increase the federal governments power to regulate the individual.  Granted liberals are on the exact opposite side of this hypocrit scale.  

LOL   You just made my point.  Liberals are on the exact opposite side whcih is why anti abortion groups are overwhemingly conservative.

But calling those things conservatives is wrong, its adapting to the current political climate to play favor in the polls.  Thats not wrong in general, but dont clame conservatism with those things.

That really was amusing.   You admit that liberals are on the exact opposite side yet you claim its not a conservative ideal.   Amazing.

[Rocky]

So basically your point about conservatives is that an issue is conservative unless they see a political benefit to being hypocritical to what they've done and said in the past?  I guess Ill agree with you.

And at least I know what a conservative is, your liberal bashing shows your total lack of knowledge of what the other side stands for and explains why your arguments lack any sustinance.

[Rocky]

ANd your comments about the patriot act directly coincide with one of the congressional rules I think should be instated.  That a bill cannot be voted on without giving the peopel voting on it plenty of time to read the law they are voting on.  The patriot act was introduced and passed before anyone had time to read the thing, it was a horrible event for our nation if you agree with teh act or not.  LEgislation should not be made like that.  And yes one senator had the balls to say that right away, which is also why he may be a candidate for President.

[Reflex]

HAHA Sticking your nose in the air again challenging my educational background on someone you have never met before. Your arrogance is staggering.

Not sticking my nose in the air, I'm honestly curious because you do not understand the difference between a political party and political orientation which are two different things.

And running away from specific points made against you shows your own incomepetance and impotence in your quest to defend your political affiliation.

Nothing to defend, I am what I am whether you like it or not.

in specific areas yes

No, an Independant can be as conservative as they wish.  The whole point of being independant is that you feel no political parties meet your own beliefs, there are very liberal independants and very conservative ones, and some who are moderates as well.

A Democrat can have conservative ideals but if they ounumbered their liberal or progressive ideals, they wouldn't be Democrats.

Why?  In the deep south much of the Republican platform for many generations has been seen as liberal/progressive.  Erosion of state rights, forced policies like Reconstruction and such moved state leaders far from the Republican Party, the party that had crushed the secession.  Despite being Democrats, they certainly were(and some still are) as Conservative as a person can get.

FINALLY. You chose one! Congradulations! It only took you 5 postings in this thread to do it!

Yes, I am a Conservative Libertarian, as I have stated on these forums for years.  The first part states my political leanings, the second part the political party I tend to affilliate with.  I could also be a Conservative Republican, a Conservative Democrat, or a Conservative Reform Party member, but I have chosen the Libertarians since I feel their party platform more closely matches my point of view than those other parties.

Wrong again. Conservatives have a deep desire toward traditionalist thinking inluding issues like abortion, gay marriage, illegal immigration, prayer in school, defense spending, low taxes, war on terrorism, making judgements on certain behavior, against affirmative action or promoting any other race above another, and the list goes on.

And most importantly, when a conservative president is in power, they give him the benifit of the doubt as other conservative politicans. Just like liberal lovers like you give liberals the benifit of the doubt. You have been proven Not to give it to Bush which is why your claim earlier that you are a conservative is laughable.

And here is where you disconnect.  You confuse party platforms with political leanings.  The Republicans are not automatically all conservatives, you yourself accuse John McCain of being Liberal, but he has been a loyal Republican for decades.  Supporting Bush is the same as supporting the Republican Party, I choose not to as I do not feel they support conservative ideals, most importantly state rights and freedoms.  Choosing not to support Bush does not make me a liberal, in fact I find Bush to be far too liberal for my taste just as many Green party members felt Clinton was too conservative.  Bush does not have a monopoly on the definition of conservative, and up until his election to president, most considered him to actually be relatively moderate if not slightly liberal when he was governor of Texas.

You are a Libertarian which is FINE. Be one. Just don't claim you are a conservative when clearly you are Not.

The terms Libertarian and Conservative are not mutually exclusive.  Thats what you do not seem to understand here, liberal and conservative are relative terms depending on other factors.

On spending you are correct. But that is the only point you are correct on.

Its a pretty major point to a conservative.  I'll also add that state rights and personal liberty are pretty major conservative points of view that the Republicans are not supporting either.

The cowardice you have shown in refusing to defend your own statements has earned you the label of a runner, afraid to truely debate when challenged.

Only to you.  I have been regularly praised by others on this forum, both conservative and liberal for my reasoned approach.

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: Rocky

So basically your point about conservatives is that an issue is conservative unless they see a political benefit to being hypocritical to what they've done and said in the past?  I guess Ill agree with you.

No basically you got it wrong again.

Your defintion could go to either party because they both do it.

I said and am saying that there are political beliefs conservatives have that fly smack in hte face of liberal ideas and liberals do not share what all democrats believe as do conservatives with Republicans.

And at least I know what a conservative is, your liberal bashing shows your total lack of knowledge of what the other side stands for and explains why your arguments lack any sustinance.

Thats right Rocky.   When you can't win the arguement, label.    The hallmark of any Rocky political post after all avenues and BS have been exausted.

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: Rocky

ANd your comments about the patriot act directly coincide with one of the congressional rules I think should be instated.  That a bill cannot be voted on without giving the peopel voting on it plenty of time to read the law they are voting on.  The patriot act was introduced and passed before anyone had time to read the thing, it was a horrible event for our nation if you agree with teh act or not.  LEgislation should not be made like that.  And yes one senator had the balls to say that right away, which is also why he may be a candidate for President.

Yet they voted on it.   ALL of them including your people.   If they had any real backbone or concerns, they never voiced them in their vote.

And why are you still focusing on the Patriot Act? Are you conceding the loss of the original argument of this thread?    

You never could produce a single piece of law that backs up your bullshit claims.

I'll give you another from a FISA court no less in 2002

the president has "inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance."

How does that play with your theory that FISA law is absolute with the president?

Remember Rocky before you scream domestic, you have no evidence whatsoever that any of these taps were not involving foreign intelligence surveillance no matter what shore they were on.

This is why you lost the argument from the very start.

[ric]

Originally posted by: Reflex

ric - Keep sniping there buddy, its so much easier than actually having to compose something thoughful and intelligent.

Nope. I'm gonna let Rocky's buddy do all the composing with exceptional wit and unparalleled thoughtfulness..Rocky's Hackers Inc...lol

btw...never, EVER attack a President when his poll numbers start to climb cuz it means Americans are  trusting his agenda...LOSERS like to attack when the President's numbers are going up...it's the worst time to be on the attack...

Your basic kindergarden Politics (101)....Loser

[Reflex]

btw...never, EVER attack a President when his poll numbers start to climb cuz it means Americans are trusting his agenda...LOSERS like to attack when the President's numbers are going up...it's the worst time to be on the attack...

Why is this exactly?  What if some people do not feel they are 'attacking' but instead feel that they are 'disagreeing' in the true democratic style?  The public discourse, the 'agora' in ancient Greek terms, which was the ideal for any government 'of the people/for the people'.

What would make a person a 'LOSER' as you so eloquently put it for daring to speak up when the tide is against them?  Wouldn't it seem that those individuals are the ones who are truly brave since they are willing to stand against public opinion and for what they feel is right, even if you disagree with it?

Those are the people excercising the rights that many have died for in this nation, and in so doing, honoring those individual sacrifices.

Your basic kindergarden Politics (101)....Loser

So what are the 'Kindergarden Politics (101)' rules in your esteemed opinion?  Dare not speak against the Supreme Ruler lest ye be judged a 'loser' by people who cannot put more than a few words together and are incapable of fully forming a political or social point of view and so adopt those handed to them by seemingly more intelligent(yet simple enough to understand) individuals?

[Rocky]

"Remember Rocky before you scream domestic, you have no evidence whatsoever that any of these taps were not involving foreign intelligence surveillance no matter what shore they were on. "

Umm thats my point tex.  Now you understand.  The President continues to hide and tells secrets.  The president isnt above the law.  The constitution sets up checks and balances.  You can argue the constitution is wrong and youd rather have a dictatorship all you want. But once you realize that our country has laws youll be better off.  Id be more than happy if Bush would come out and show us the evidence we're wrong so we can move on.