Wiretapping Law Casts Pall On Democrats

[GaryC 7]

I can't defend it either - just seems strange that someone who supported the policy in the first place would point this out when its serving his political interests.

It also serves his political interest to point out that the Democrats didn't stand up to Bush but clearly fell over on that one.

Yep. But they aren't finished. They're laying low for now and will strike when they feel the opportunity presents itself. Perhaps they're being spineless, or perhaps they're being smarter than conventional wisdom shows us.

Or I will give you another possibility. Maybe they knew all along that this was the right thing to do. They were just shouting about it to play to their base to get elected. But when the rubber met the road they had to do what was right and vote for it. In short, they played you all for chumps.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I can't defend it either - just seems strange that someone who supported the policy in the first place would point this out when its serving his political interests.

It also serves his political interest to point out that the Democrats didn't stand up to Bush but clearly fell over on that one.

Yep. But they aren't finished. They're laying low for now and will strike when they feel the opportunity presents itself. Perhaps they're being spineless, or perhaps they're being smarter than conventional wisdom shows us.

I'm afraid it's the former.

It remains to be seen.

Man, you know I hope you're right. But I don't see the strategery here.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I can't defend it either - just seems strange that someone who supported the policy in the first place would point this out when its serving his political interests.

It also serves his political interest to point out that the Democrats didn't stand up to Bush but clearly fell over on that one.

Yep. But they aren't finished. They're laying low for now and will strike when they feel the opportunity presents itself. Perhaps they're being spineless, or perhaps they're being smarter than conventional wisdom shows us.

Or I will give you another possibility. Maybe they knew all along that this was the right thing to do. They were just shouting about it to play to their base to get elected. But when the rubber met the road they had to do what was right and vote for it. In short, they played you all for chumps.

Hardly... (just wait 6 months from now).

Speaker of the House, Nance Pelosi (D-CA), said the spy legislation "does violence to the U.S. Constitution."

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I can't defend it either - just seems strange that someone who supported the policy in the first place would point this out when its serving his political interests.

It also serves his political interest to point out that the Democrats didn't stand up to Bush but clearly fell over on that one.

Yep. But they aren't finished. They're laying low for now and will strike when they feel the opportunity presents itself. Perhaps they're being spineless, or perhaps they're being smarter than conventional wisdom shows us.

Or I will give you another possibility. Maybe they knew all along that this was the right thing to do. They were just shouting about it to play to their base to get elected. But when the rubber met the road they had to do what was right and vote for it. In short, they played you all for chumps.

Hardly... (just wait 6 months from now).

Speaker of the House, Nance Pelosi (D-CA), said the spy legislation "does violence to the U.S. Constitution."

I agree with her but need to ask the obvious question: Who presided over that violence?

[Heracles 417]

I thought you agreed with the warrantless wiretapping Gary....?

Actually thanks to the 'pro-american' media that avenue has been removed because the terrorists now know we are listening in.

Nevertheless, please enlighten me on how you would like us to find these terrorists.

Why does that question arise from what I said above?

Moreover, do you just like asking questions that you're not prepared to answer yourself? Not very sporting is it?

I ask because I would like to know your opinion. Too many people nowadays say they hate XYZ, for example, yet fail to provide an alternative.

GW is wrong, GW is an idiot etc. So what should would we have done?

PS Just remember hindsight is 20/20..

Edited August 8, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I can't defend it either - just seems strange that someone who supported the policy in the first place would point this out when its serving his political interests.

It also serves his political interest to point out that the Democrats didn't stand up to Bush but clearly fell over on that one.

Yep. But they aren't finished. They're laying low for now and will strike when they feel the opportunity presents itself. Perhaps they're being spineless, or perhaps they're being smarter than conventional wisdom shows us.

Or I will give you another possibility. Maybe they knew all along that this was the right thing to do. They were just shouting about it to play to their base to get elected. But when the rubber met the road they had to do what was right and vote for it. In short, they played you all for chumps.

Hardly... (just wait 6 months from now).

Speaker of the House, Nance Pelosi (D-CA), said the spy legislation "does violence to the U.S. Constitution."

I agree with her but need to ask the obvious question: Who presided over that violence?

Both Congress and the President can and should make political compromises for the greater good. The question is whether the greater good was realized. I think it's too early to know that. Again, this bill expires in 6 months...a lot of things will take place in the meantime with regard to the War in Iraq.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I thought you agreed with the warrantless wiretapping Gary....?

Actually thanks to the 'pro-american' media that avenue has been removed because the terrorists now know we are listening in.

Nevertheless, please enlighten me on how you would like us to find these terrorists.

Why does that question arise from what I said above?

Moreover, do you just like asking questions that you're not prepared to answer yourself? Not very sporting is it?

I ask because I would like to know your opinion. Too many people nowadays say they hate XYZ, for example, yet fail to provide an alternative.

GW is wrong, GW is an idiot etc. So what should would we have done?

PS Just remember hindsight is 20/20..

You're assuming that the wiretapping law is (i) legal and (ii) effective. Assumptions that are essentially debatable.

As I said - I'm not going to do you the courteous of answering questions that you're not prepared to answer yourself.

Again - has nothing to do with anything I said in this thread, so irrelevant here. Though if you want to present your opinion on what should be done to facilitate a deeper debate - you're free to do so. Of course when that opinion amounts to "I agree with what he said" that's a bit of a cheat isn't it?

[William33 110]

Once again, we digress into worthless party debate.

On topic, unless you have something to hide, this legislation will not affect you.

NSA has been tapping wired phones for years and Cell traffic is available to anyone with the knowhow.

Get over it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'd say the beef a lot of people have with it - is with the "warrantless" part.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Number 6

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'd say the beef a lot of people have with it - is with the "warrantless" part.

Count me among those. Ever since the CIA managed to kidnap and torture people for no reason other than them having a name similar to someone they were looking for, I have little confidence and comfort in this government assuring me that they're only after the bad guys. And I don't buy into this "if you have nothing to hide" #######. Even if I have nothing to hide, I'd like to think that I should be entitled to privacy.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'd say the beef a lot of people have with it - is with the "warrantless" part.

Count me among those. Ever since the CIA managed to kidnap and torture people for no reason other than them having a name similar to someone they were looking for, I have little confidence and comfort in this government assuring me that they're only after the bad guys. And I don't buy into this "if you have nothing to hide" #######. Even if I have nothing to hide, I'd like to think that I should be entitled to privacy.

Agreed. I'd sooner we don't do away with the due process, the one small piece of protection that protects the public from potential abuse.

[William33 110]

I'd say the beef a lot of people have with it - is with the "warrantless" part.

Count me among those. Ever since the CIA managed to kidnap and torture people for no reason other than them having a name similar to someone they were looking for, I have little confidence and comfort in this government assuring me that they're only after the bad guys. And I don't buy into this "if you have nothing to hide" #######. Even if I have nothing to hide, I'd like to think that I should be entitled to privacy.

Dude, the Secret Service, in conjunction with NSA, have been monitoring telecommunications for decades. They are seeking words such as: Kill, president, (name of a President or Vice-President) and many others.

Realize that many Government operations are just now coming to light. Like it or not, agree with it or not, it is reality.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'd say the beef a lot of people have with it - is with the "warrantless" part.

Count me among those. Ever since the CIA managed to kidnap and torture people for no reason other than them having a name similar to someone they were looking for, I have little confidence and comfort in this government assuring me that they're only after the bad guys. And I don't buy into this "if you have nothing to hide" #######. Even if I have nothing to hide, I'd like to think that I should be entitled to privacy.

Dude, the Secret Service, in conjunction with NSA, have been monitoring telecommunications for decades. They are seeking words such as: Kill, president, (name of a President or Vice-President) and many others.

Realize that many Government operations are just now coming to light. Like it or not, agree with it or not, it is reality.

You do have to wonder why, after making a big song and dance about how this surveillance program didn't fall under the remit of the FISA court, that the Attorney General has now reversed course from that position and said in a letter to the Senate that it will now do so.

[Scott & Lai 12]

Speaker of the House, Nance Pelosi (D-CA), said the spy legislation "does violence to the U.S. Constitution."

I can't help but chuckle whenever I hear Dems talking about violence being done to the Constitution

[GaryC 7]

Both Congress and the President can and should make political compromises for the greater good. The question is whether the greater good was realized. I think it's too early to know that. Again, this bill expires in 6 months...a lot of things will take place in the meantime with regard to the War in Iraq.

Yeah, wait 6 months. They will extend it again. 6 months later they will extend it yet again. Why you ask? Because if Clinton gets elected she will want to use it. Mark my words, she will use it and call it "an important tool to combat terrorists".