Amazon 7 #51 November 3, 2009 QuoteQuoteWhat was the national debt before the Reagan Revultion in 1980??? I hope you have noticed that under Obama it is growing at a rate faster than ever before. QuoteHow many of our personal freedoms have eroded with the coming of the "Patriot Act" etc and the Bush whacked Doctrine that would have founding fathers thourouly disgusted. Have you noticed that Obama is supporting things like wire taps? DUH.... Have you noticed that he is actually doing it by the LAW.. and engaging FISA.. unlike the buttstain's from Texas and Wyoming??? What a novel idea huh?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #52 November 3, 2009 QuoteQuoteHave you noticed that Obama is supporting things like wire taps? DUH.... Have you noticed that he is actually doing it by the LAW.. and engaging FISA.. unlike the buttstain's from Texas and Wyoming??? What a novel idea huh?? Like the 2083 illegal wiretaps in 2008? Oh, wait, those were approved by FISA - imagine that. Of course, now there's the Obama administration's ideas on privacy (courtesy of EFF): QuotePreviously, the Bush Administration has argued that the U.S. possesses "sovereign immunity" from suit for conducting electronic surveillance that violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). However, FISA is only one of several laws that restrict the government's ability to wiretap. The Obama Administration goes two steps further than Bush did, and claims that the US PATRIOT Act also renders the U.S. immune from suit under the two remaining key federal surveillance laws: the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act. Essentially, the Obama Adminstration has claimed that the government cannot be held accountable for illegal surveillance under any federal statutes. Yup...that's some improvement, all right!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #53 November 3, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteHave you noticed that Obama is supporting things like wire taps? DUH.... Have you noticed that he is actually doing it by the LAW.. and engaging FISA.. unlike the buttstain's from Texas and Wyoming??? What a novel idea huh?? Like the 2083 illegal wiretaps in 2008? Oh, wait, those were approved by FISA - imagine that. Of course, now there's the Obama administration's ideas on privacy (courtesy of EFF): QuotePreviously, the Bush Administration has argued that the U.S. possesses "sovereign immunity" from suit for conducting electronic surveillance that violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). However, FISA is only one of several laws that restrict the government's ability to wiretap. The Obama Administration goes two steps further than Bush did, and claims that the US PATRIOT Act also renders the U.S. immune from suit under the two remaining key federal surveillance laws: the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act. Essentially, the Obama Adminstration has claimed that the government cannot be held accountable for illegal surveillance under any federal statutes. Yup...that's some improvement, all right! OHHHHH and right next to what you cut and pasted we find THIS It's an especially disappointing argument to hear from the Obama Administration. As a candidate, Senator Obama lamented that the Bush Administration "invoked a legal tool known as the 'state secrets' privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court." He was right then, and we're dismayed that he and his team seem to have forgotten. Sad as that is, it's the Department Of Justice's second argument that is the most pernicious. The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying — that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes. This is a radical assertion that is utterly unprecedented. No one — not the White House, not the Justice Department, not any member of Congress, and not the Bush Administration — has ever interpreted the law this way. Perhaps some of those Pat Robertson Law School grads.. need to be fucking cut off at the knees. That is what happens when you get fundamentalist religious whacko's into positions of power who believe they can do anything to anyone if the MIGHT catch an evil-doer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #54 November 3, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHave you noticed that Obama is supporting things like wire taps? DUH.... Have you noticed that he is actually doing it by the LAW.. and engaging FISA.. unlike the buttstain's from Texas and Wyoming??? What a novel idea huh?? Like the 2083 illegal wiretaps in 2008? Oh, wait, those were approved by FISA - imagine that. Of course, now there's the Obama administration's ideas on privacy (courtesy of EFF): QuotePreviously, the Bush Administration has argued that the U.S. possesses "sovereign immunity" from suit for conducting electronic surveillance that violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). However, FISA is only one of several laws that restrict the government's ability to wiretap. The Obama Administration goes two steps further than Bush did, and claims that the US PATRIOT Act also renders the U.S. immune from suit under the two remaining key federal surveillance laws: the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act. Essentially, the Obama Adminstration has claimed that the government cannot be held accountable for illegal surveillance under any federal statutes. Yup...that's some improvement, all right! OHHHHH and right next to what you cut and pasted we find THIS It's an especially disappointing argument to hear from the Obama Administration. As a candidate, Senator Obama lamented that the Bush Administration "invoked a legal tool known as the 'state secrets' privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court." He was right then, and we're dismayed that he and his team seem to have forgotten. Sad as that is, it's the Department Of Justice's second argument that is the most pernicious. The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying — that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes. This is a radical assertion that is utterly unprecedented. No one — not the White House, not the Justice Department, not any member of Congress, and not the Bush Administration — has ever interpreted the law this way. Perhaps some of those Pat Robertson Law School grads.. need to be fucking cut off at the knees. That is what happens when you get fundamentalist religious whacko's into positions of power who believe they can do anything to anyone if the MIGHT catch an evil-doer. So, you're saying that Obama and Holder are 'fundamentalist religious whackos', then? I mean, the part you added IS talking about the Obama administration arguments...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LyraM45 0 #55 November 4, 2009 Quote Quote A conservative doesn't agree with same sex marriage, he preaches at the top of his lungs and outlaws it... ...while being secretly gay and sucking dicks in airport toilet stalls. YOU GOT IT!!!!!! Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ridestrong 1 #56 November 13, 2009 QuoteSo, you're saying that Obama and Holder are 'fundamentalist religious whackos', then? I mean, the part you added IS talking about the Obama administration arguments... I was thinking the same thing... seemed strange to add that.*I am not afraid of dying... I am afraid of missing life.* ----Disclaimer: I don't know shit about skydiving.---- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
