NYT:
By on Dec 21st, 2005 at 12:58 am
NYT:
Bush spying program “captured what are purely domestic communications in some cases, despite a requirement by the White House that one end of the intercepted conversations take place on foreign soil, officials say.” Former NSA director Hayden, two days ago: “I can assure you, by the physics of the intercept, by how we actually conduct our activities, that one end of these communications are always outside the United States.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Boehner
Bush
Bush Legacy
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Hannity
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Liz Cheney
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
If he's circumventing a rubber stamp court, he's probably doing domestic spying. The sheer number of taps is staggering. The lying piece of human garbage known as the Attorney General claimed there were no more than 500. Now we're hearing 18,000 and it's probably more than that. Just who is on that list and why was Bush so desperate to squash the story?
December 21st, 2005 at 1:14 amWashington Post = Nixon
New York Times = George W. Bush
What other dirt does the NY Times have on these guys that they aren't sharing? They held the Secret Wiretapping story until a year after the elections. Is that because they want to see Bush impeached, not just voted out?
December 21st, 2005 at 1:43 amI'm sure Attorney Criminal Garbanzo and Yoo already have Bush's excuses and lies for his domestic spying program in readiness since they had a year to prepare for this. One thing is for sure, this is definitely Shrub's "Oh, Shit!" moment. Let's hope our congress and courts choose to do the proper thing for a change instead of sucking up to King George. If Shrub is impeached, will we still have to provide secret service protection for him? I hope cell doors locked from the outside and concrete walls with concertina wire is all the protection he'll need. Impeach and prosecute Bush and Cheney to start with.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:00 amFeingold for president in '08. Someone that has convictions and sticks to them. Not trying to kiss up to everybody based on what the polls say. Voted no for Bush's War and Bush's Patriot Act.
There is a very concise post over at TPM cafe about "Our Criminal President."
December 21st, 2005 at 2:30 amhttp://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/21/2947/0424
Oh yeah, Bush pardoned a ex-coke dealer lawyer today.
Rocky Mountain News
December 21, 2005
Bush Pardons Denver Attorney
An old friend maybe?
December 21st, 2005 at 3:40 am#1 "... just who is on that list...?"
I think Joe and Valerie Wilson are on that list. That's just what I think.
December 21st, 2005 at 4:28 amThe scariest thing about all this is how long they've been doing it. Since the created the PATRIOT act they seem to have the freedom do what they like, or the power to make it ok regardless of any of your previous constitutional rights. I worry because the UK government sees what Bush can get away with and think they can do it too. How on earth the U.S government thinks it has the right to spread 'democracy' is beyond me. A country that allows an election with an electronic ballot that can't be recounted, made by a company who invest in the GOP, is not one to be advising others IMO.
December 21st, 2005 at 5:24 amI hope they give him some stick over this, but in reality I doubt much will happen, he seems to be very above the law and has created a political bias that will allow him to escape punishment for the wrong he's done.
Quote: "Bush spying program “captured what are purely domestic communications in some cases,"
So Bush's spying program spied on the American public in the same way that human fingers are an ingredient in bowls of chilli.
Way to go with the hype machine there kids.
December 21st, 2005 at 6:01 ama human finger in a bowl of chilli is still illegal. I think that dude was prosecuted.
December 21st, 2005 at 6:13 amLot's of things are illegal.
Few things actually assist you in combatting the threat of terrorism. Signals intelligence is one of them.
Frankly I'm ashamed people are talking about impeaching Bush over this. Have people been in a fkn coma for 5 years ? Have you got enough to impeach him already ?
How about all the shit which involved the Bush administration and Halliburton you retards. Best result is Bush goes and Halliburton goes. Here you are looking at messing with possibly the most useful intel gathering program the world has ever seen.
Because you sure as shit know that whatever happens to Bush the same congressmen who are acting all shocked that this goes on will screw with this program just to score some brownie points for themselves in the next election.
December 21st, 2005 at 6:39 amTank, the program may indeed yield useful intelligence. But the problem is that it's against the law. If FISA wasn't working, then fix it, as Clinton did in the mid 90's. If they were unwilling to go to congress, then they knew what they were doing was violating laws or the constitution. Now we're seeing that non-international calls were intercepted. It sounds to me like the technology acts like a fishing net, grabbing everything in it's path. Unfortunately that also includes our civil rights. To overuse the Franklin quote: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
December 21st, 2005 at 8:13 amTank,
So, you're saying that it's find and dandy for the current President to declare parts of the Constitution dead? You're fine with the current President deciding that he's above the law, and can spy on anyone just because?
Sort of like, "Well, in order to protect the constitution we had to break the laws the constitution defines."
Maybe you can explain it to me, how can breaking constitutional law help preserver constitutional law?
December 21st, 2005 at 8:16 am#4 Maybe "SFCWallace" is TP's troll, wwallace?
December 21st, 2005 at 8:21 amSo Bush’s spying program spied on the American public in the same way that human fingers are an ingredient in bowls of chilli.
Way to go with the hype machine there kids.
Comment by Tank — December 21, 2005 @
How do you do it, Tank? Type, I mean. He must use voice recognition software. Either that or a pencil glued to his nose. Tank has no fingers. He can't use a knife too well and he likes to make home-cooked chili con dedo
December 21st, 2005 at 8:35 amI am sure, this is the tip of the iceberg. Just the very tip. Why did the NYT meet with the President? How do we know this is all of it? What if the NYT published the spy leak now, because something worse is still hidden? What if this, the spy leak IS the distraction?
December 21st, 2005 at 8:38 amIf Bush's spy program didn't violate American citizens' privacy, then he wouldn't have neglected to obtain a court order within the 72 hours surrveilance. He knew that no court would approve of his wiretapping requests because his requests were not about stopping terrorist. His requests were about obtaining information on his own personal enemies, both real and perceived. Bet there's a huge file on Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan.
December 21st, 2005 at 8:43 amGranoutrage - good point! What you are saying is really scary. Although, not scarier then having a president that is going bonkers and has access to nuclear weapons.
December 21st, 2005 at 8:46 amThey've been opening up Americans' mail, too (an 81 year old, KU professor emeritus of history):
Retiree claims privacy invasion
December 21st, 2005 at 8:49 amhttp://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/20/retiree_claims_privacy_invasion/
Everyone is arguing about whether Bush's actions were legal or illegal. If they were illegal, he should be impeached. If they were legal, we're all in deep trouble.
December 21st, 2005 at 8:58 amSo, I wonder what Howard Dean has for dinner?
Hmmm... I bet Peeping George knows...
December 21st, 2005 at 9:21 amIf this program was being conducted legally, then bush will have no problems proving it. He could show documentation to a panel of FISA judges or some "independent" and authorized body to prove his case. However, since he's claiming it's sensitive national security information, one can't help but wonder if he and his workers have been fudging the rules. Now, he's in a bind because he has to prove that he didn't spy on Americans and if he did, WHO did he spy on?
December 21st, 2005 at 9:23 amSorry guys, but looks like Dubya got ya again. His poll numbers are actually up since all of this began. Please continue to talk about terrorism - Bush is gaining from it.
Wow - I never thought I would see the day the GOP had the White House, the Senate, the House and the Supreme Court. There is absolutely nothing liberals can do to Bush. lol! - LOSERS!
December 21st, 2005 at 9:45 amIt’s OK, we understand. In your reality, Bush will never, ever break a law…and Bill Clinton, he was just evil.
Just remember this….Republicans conducted 1057 investigations into Bill Clinton, none into Bush. Clinton lied about having sex….Bush lied about this country into an elective war. 1 soldier died on Clinton’s watch…who knows what the number will be under Bush? And despite the efforts of Congressional Republicans and their media synophants to impeach Clinton, he left office with a 65% favorability rating. Bush has a majority Congress and the same syncophantic press propping him up up…and he’ll be lucky to leave office with 35% rating.
Next time you Republicans steal an election, could you at least put a competent front man in?
Comment by Innocent Bystander — December 20, 2005 @ 11:13 pm
Though this was worth bringing forward and repeating... Hope you don't mind Innocent Bystander.
December 21st, 2005 at 9:47 amGuilty Bystander - while you hang on polls to push Clinton, I'll hang onto election results. AND Clinton NEVER had a 65% fave rating when he left office, it actually fell to 39% after he pardoned your buddy Marc Rich.
Poor liberals - they have NOTHING. Not a thing. Nada. Zip. Hang onto the polls friends, we'll be packing up the Supreme Court and ensuring you treasonous scum are deported to Iran where you belong!
December 21st, 2005 at 9:51 am#22, I thought you Republicans didn't care about poll numbers? I guess you do, after all. Wow! imagine that! A hypocritical Republican!
What do you call a lying Republican that has no honor or ethics?
Mr. President!
December 21st, 2005 at 9:53 am#22
Comment by Sen. Boxer Like to kill Babies — December 21, 2005 @ 9:45 am
What kind of lunactic picks a screen name like that? Sorta disqualifies everything he wrote from even being taken seriously.
The White House should just stop talking, if they were smart (?) and collaborate their story. I mean Bush has already sealed his fate by saying that the Constitution gave him exemption from gaining a court order to play Peeping George on the Wilson family and PETA... What is there really left for them to do but implicate more Neocons, perhaps exposed Tom Delay further and posthumously nominate Goebbels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels) to the Supreme Court?
December 21st, 2005 at 9:54 am#25 and #26 - NOT A THING you can do to Bush. You do not have the power to impeach. NONE.
December 21st, 2005 at 9:57 amYou don't have the votes. You don't have Congress. You don't have the White House.
December 21st, 2005 at 9:59 am#24 post your proof to substantiate your claims...
here is ours (scroll down the list, as there are several polls including one by FAUX "News"):
http://www.pollingreport.com/clinton-.htm
Clinton routinely scored in the sixties. Peeping George is in the 30's.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:00 am#27
#25 and #26 - NOT A THING you can do to Bush. You do not have the power to impeach. NONE.
Comment by Sen. Boxer Likes to kill Babies — December 21, 2005 @ 9:57 am
Republicans are already jumping ship... trying to save their own careers. But I guess we'll see. And I predict you won't be anywhere around to apologize either.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:02 amI'll stick with #16 Grantourage's point. What else is the Times siting on? OT:Think this out a little to the future for a second.I think the Administration's biggest travesty will be the Harriet Meirs appointment. If The president hadn't nominated her, Alito would already be seated with probably no nuclear option issued,and this would have been heading towards the court that Bush needs to support this power he is claiming. Now the Dems can filibuster Alito just to slow things down and actually justify their actions, while they get the GOP to run an investigation for them. Yeah! divided govt.The very best kind.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:04 amhttp://www.pollingreport.com/clinton1.htm
#29 - according to Gallup:
4/20-22/01 48 50 2
3/5-7/01 39 59 2
2/19-21/01 42 55 3
2/1-4/01 51 48 1
12/2-4/00 57 41 2
AND Clinton's approval rating hit 37% in his first term and was routinely under 50. But that doesn't matter - Clinton never had the padded majorities Bush has had for most of his presidency.
NOTHING. You can do nothing to Bush. You don't have the votes.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:05 amHang onto the polls friends, we’ll be packing up the Supreme Court and ensuring you treasonous scum are deported to Iran where you belong!
DANGER! CHEETO-INDUCED DELUSION ALERT! RAISE WINGNUT PARANOIA LEVEL TO RED-ORANGE!
December 21st, 2005 at 10:06 am#31 - Dems filibuster Alito and the rules will be changed. But I'd argue you don't even have the votes for a filibuster. Red State Democrats are not going to down Alito on the call of the hateful, bigoted left.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:07 amIts deja vu all over again. This is an exact copy of the Nixon days.
An illagal war, and the covering up. Deja vu.
Spying on american citizens, and covering it up. Deja vu.
Accusations and criminal charges flying everywhere, cinluding members of congress in their net. Deja vu.
Deja vu, deja vu, deja vu all over again.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:07 amYOU DON'T HAVE THE VOTES.
YOU CAN'T IMPEACH BUSH.
YOU CAN'T BEAT BUSH.
2006 New Year's Resolutions - ANWR, Alito and destroying the left. So far, so good!
December 21st, 2005 at 10:08 am#35 - LBJ started that illegal war dipshit.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:09 amShorter #36 (and half the thread):
spit...spit...hiss...groan...whine...spit...spit...
Don't you have a job? I don't think my tax dollars should pay for your trolling.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:11 am#38 - STFU. You're just jealous because you can't impeach Bush. Are you sad?
December 21st, 2005 at 10:14 amI love to see TROLLS jump so high...Impeachment,what a great word with a nice ring to it....
December 21st, 2005 at 10:17 amSTFU. You’re just jealous because you can’t impeach Bush. Are you sad?
Yeah, I'm so sad. And so scared of your cheeto-flecked rants, you little wuss.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:17 am#39, i don't think it matters if the votes are there or not. Impeachment is not in everyone's vocabulary who cares about what the Administration has been apparently up to. What matters is this will be resolved by The Supreme Court, and the law will be upheld or rejected. Remember the next President is the recipient of this refinement of a power struggle. Impeachment would be the easy way out for the GOP and not solve anything.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:18 am#42 - I actually agree. Impeachment would deflect attention from the nation's real problems. It would also hurt Democrats for being partisan. So..... someone tell this to Boxer and Kerry. The radical left is ruining it for everyone.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:20 am#41 - At least you admit to being sad.
The conservative movement has had a great December. Merry Christmas!
December 21st, 2005 at 10:21 amDo they give out lobotomies to everyone who registers to vote Republican???
December 21st, 2005 at 10:22 am#42 Don't engage this loser in intelligent discourse. He just wants attention because his mommy doesn't love him enough or something. He probably doesn't even vote.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:23 am#41 - Merry Christmas!
Happy Holidays, you fruit loop!
December 21st, 2005 at 10:24 am#48 - actually, it's Merry Christmas. You lost that one, too. It must suck coming to terms with the fact the liberal movement is all but dead.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:29 am#48 - The only "movement" you know anything about is the one you have after downing your dinner of employee-discounted Big Macs.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:31 amsohei,
Don't you just love how one party steals an election in 2000, and then steals a second in 2004 with a slim margin of 51% and then thinks they are justified to act (juvenilely) as if they were the overwhelming majority. Must've dropped out in third grade...
Happy Holidays to you as well!
December 21st, 2005 at 10:32 am“Everybody’s talking ‘bout sur-veillance, secret prisons, White House lies, torture dungeons, cops with truncheons… All we are say-ing… is impeach his ass…â€
December 21st, 2005 at 10:33 am#51 - please seek impeachment.
#50 - admitting you LOST is the first step.
#49 - trashing your opponents as dumb worked real well for you in the last three elections. YOU're DUMB and powerless.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:37 amDon’t you just love how one party steals an election in 2000, and then steals a second in 2004 with a slim margin of 51% and then thinks they are justified to act (juvenilely) as if they were the overwhelming majority.
Shoot, I wish they'd act this way in public so everyone could see how purile and stupid conservatives really are. Of course, they're afraid to act this way in front of actual people, so they go out on the Internet to act like dopes anonymously. These people are pure Grade-A losers. They love to join up with the "winning side" and try to make themselves feel like big, tough men. Anonymously, of course :) Most of them don't give a crap about the conservative agenda. They just like to make liberals mad and bash their fellow Americans.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:38 am#48 You aren't fooling anyone here or you wouldn't feel the need to post so frequently and so angrily. Your desperation does make us feel as though we are getting through to the people. That we are getting all of the corruption out into the open for all to see.
If you wish to prop up criminals that is your choice while it is still a free country. But know that we don't buy your phony posts. Just examine the republican party - it is a sham, a farce. Their greed is so much bigger than their person, we can't help but view it.
So, post away, no big. But really, why don't you use your real handle? Everyone here knows that you trolls post under several names to look like there are more of you. I'm not sure why though. Enlighten?
December 21st, 2005 at 10:38 am#49 - trashing your opponents as dumb worked real well for you in the last three elections. YOU’re DUMB and powerless.
Don't you have to get to work soon? They switch over to lunch at 11:00, right?
December 21st, 2005 at 10:39 amBTW, NeD, Bush has killed more babies than Boxer. Oh, or do you mean fetus? Either way, you are obviously a very angry man. Why? Who knows, maybe it was your poor choice in voting, which you didn't have to do because Bush was going to win anyway. You rube.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:41 amOff topic, but do you think there is any chance that junior's meeting to try and prevent the story from being printed is obstruction?
December 21st, 2005 at 10:42 amI am curious as to how many in here believe that the Democrats will regain control of either house of Congress.
Given all of the polling data and the constant drumbeat against the WH it would seem that the Republicans would be doomed. So how confident are you that Republicans will lose Congress?
December 21st, 2005 at 10:45 am#56 - Either way, you are obviously a very angry man. Why?
He's a white anglo-saxon protestant male and we dirty libruls are takin' away his rights and preventing him from succeeding in life like such rugged, self-made men as W and DeLay! Don't you listen to Rush?
December 21st, 2005 at 10:46 am#57 I do, but it is so thinly vieled that I don't see it blossoming into anything with legal ramifications. BUT, it is sure screwing up the republican cause. They are really worried about the upcoming year's elections and watching them scramble is entertaining to say the least.
Just wait until Abramoff sings.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:47 amOff topic, but do you think there is any chance that junior’s meeting to try and prevent the story from being printed is obstruction?
No. Obstruction is when you interfere with an ongoing investigation. Now conspiracy, that's a different story...
December 21st, 2005 at 10:47 amHa ... the ship has broken and half and is headed for the bottom. Also: please help save Agitprop ...
December 21st, 2005 at 10:49 amHEY DIPSHIT BOXER
How true Johnson started the war, but Nixon continued the lies and the coverup, did he not? Or are you seletive about what what history you store in your miniscule brain?
December 21st, 2005 at 10:50 am#59 Ha. I actually listened for about 5 minutes in the car while messing around with stations. He is so funny. You just can't believe he is on the air in any capacity other than comedic relief. He is so angry and so rude. He doesn't articulate very well either.
I find it hysterical that the neocons have made a drug addict their poster child. Hillbilly heroin was his bag of tricks. The operative word being HILLBILLY, which is exactly what he is.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:51 amI think we do have the votes to impeach...this is some big shit going on here and the hypocritical Repukes are freaking out and will tow the line to keep their jobs and benefits. This truly is a sad time for America...I think people are beginning to see how truly evil these bastards are. Once you start stepping on the Constitution you're screwed.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:55 amFor Barbara Boxer killing babies,
So you don't believe in balance of power, or a system of checks and balances, which is what our country was founded upon? Do you feel the Constitution is no longer applicable?
December 21st, 2005 at 10:57 am#58 I don't want to "win." That is for the republicans. They don't care as long as they are on the winning side - of what, they don't care.
They accuse progressives here of wanting Iraq to fail so that we would be "right" and that is merely their projection. Sometimes one wants to be "wrong." This is a concept that the neocons cannot understand. Why would anyone want to lose?
So, I don't so much want to win seats as much as I want to clear out corruption. I am not playing a game. If there is a republican who feels strongly about the environment, people's health and freedoms, balancing the budget and eliminating the death penalty, then they are fine by me whatever party they are with. But Delay, Hastert, Frist and of course, the Grinch from Alaska to name a small portion of the evil, they can kiss my ass and stop stealing my money.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:02 am#26, Unbelievable. Dont forget what He called that Piece of Paper. That G*DD*M Piece of Paper.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:08 amP.S. I have some more Q,s for you on
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/a-federal-judge-ruled-tuesday/
Yes, Pres, Bush is in fact, Impeachable. No One Is ABOVE The Law.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:09 amThat argument about protecting America trumps certain Constitutional guarantees rings hollow. How many policies could we implement that would make us safer but aren't implemented due to legal concerns? As a high school teacher teaching debate among other classes, I ask my students whether teen drug use is a problem, considering drugs kill far more teens than terrorists ever did. All agree it is. I then suggest requiring drug tests as a condition for attending public school. Wooooow, wait a minute, they all charge. That should be illegal. Exactly.
Patrick Henry in 1774 made his famous speech in front of the Virginai House of Common Wealth where he coined the cliche "Give me liberty or give me death." The republicants would certainly try to either alter his powerful words, pretending he said something different, or swiftboat him.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:19 amShoot, I wish they’d act this way in public so everyone could see how purile and stupid conservatives really are. Of course, they’re afraid to act this way in front of actual people, so they go out on the Internet to act like dopes anonymously. These people are pure Grade-A losers. They love to join up with the “winning side†and try to make themselves feel like big, tough men. Anonymously, of course :) Most of them don’t give a crap about the conservative agenda. They just like to make liberals mad and bash their fellow Americans.
Comment by sohei — December 21, 2005 @ 10:38 am
Exactly! Well siad. And when the liberal regain power, they'll claim that they were Democrats all along...
December 21st, 2005 at 11:35 amFunny how he disappeared at 11:30 like sohei said...
December 21st, 2005 at 11:38 amThat argument about protecting America trumps certain Constitutional guarantees rings hollow. How many policies could we implement that would make us safer but aren’t implemented due to legal concerns? As a high school teacher teaching debate among other classes, I ask my students whether teen drug use is a problem, considering drugs kill far more teens than terrorists ever did. All agree it is. I then suggest requiring drug tests as a condition for attending public school. Wooooow, wait a minute, they all charge. That should be illegal. Exactly.
Patrick Henry in 1774 made his famous speech in front of the Virginai House of Common Wealth where he coined the cliche “Give me liberty or give me death.†The republicants would certainly try to either alter his powerful words, pretending he said something different, or swiftboat him.
Comment by Steve — December 21, 2005 @ 11:19 am
Steve, I thought you were conservative?
So you teach high school? Me too... Right before the break, we had an assembly on drugs. There's a serious problem in our district with kids doing dangerous drugs (it was pot and alcohol when I graduated from the same school). After the assembly I asked the kids why they thought so many kids were doing drugs. The answers we all over the place, but one thing they all seem to agree on is legalizing drugs. Interesting considering the problem, huh? They still want the right to choose for themselves.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:42 amunbelieveable
Yea, this is my first time posting. I usually post at Americablog, crooks and liars, and atrios. When I'm really bored, I go toa rightwing blog (polipundit) just to stir up some trouble.
I teach in a very poor district. Lots of problems. She was one of my students (second hour American Lit).
December 21st, 2005 at 12:14 pm#74
Steve,
Sorry to confuse you with a troll... There's one who posts with the same name who is quite viscious. Glad to hear he's not a teacher!
Sad story. Sorry to hear about your student. Hateto see them go like that - so young too.
Not as much poverty here as there used to be, the city sprawl has brought some money out this way, but there's still a lot of old school mentality here in the South, so in many ways we are still dirt poor when it comes to intelligence and forward progress.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:05 pmGuys and Gals,
It is quite obvious that Sen. Boxer Likes to kill Babies is the same person as Northeast Dillema. Just stop for a second and read a couple of the posts. Same sentence structure, same words used, same tone, same empty comments.
A troll not worth your time. This is not somebody that came to debate. It is a person who acts like a little child on the playground of and elementary school.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:59 pmSpudge,
NED's just upset because I outted him through his blogger identity for the creepy closted gay ugly man that he clearly is. He can't handle the light of truth, so that's why he hides behind lies, deception and harrassing messages. The truth scares him, because he's weak and unstable...
December 21st, 2005 at 3:47 pmIt is quite obvious that Sen. Boxer Likes to kill Babies is the same person as Northeast Dillema.
Comment by Spudge_Boy — December 21, 2005 @ 2:59 pm
I agree -I thought so after reading a few of his posts.
NeD, please stop being such a troll and post under your own name.
December 21st, 2005 at 4:01 pmI don't know guys, but from personalities, slip ups, sentance structire and so on, there seems to be about four or five of them maybe.
And they're all equally inane...
December 21st, 2005 at 6:03 pmStop feeding the trolls. Much better ignored.
December 21st, 2005 at 6:17 pm@ morgan — December 21, 2005 @ 8:13 am
Tank, the program may indeed yield useful intelligence. But the problem is that it’s against the law.
The problem isn't that it's against the law. The only problem is that you found out about it.
At this point every single one of you knows that for decades all of your phone calls and emails have been snooped on without warrants or court orders etc. And there's not one single complaint about that. Not one.
Unlike that THIS is actually restricted in its scope and there is a reason for doing it. The only difference is it involves Bush.
These wankers here think I actually support this monkey because I say these things. I don't support any politician or party anywhere. What I do support are actual security solutions to the REAL threat of terrorism.
Just take a minute to consider the Hamburg cell or any of dozen that have operated out of Europe. You already know you had nobody who could pass themselves off so rule out human penetration of cells. So have a think about how you do penetrate networks in the 21st century. This is it.
December 22nd, 2005 at 4:40 am@ Democrat Soldier — December 21, 2005 @ 8:16 am
Tank, So, you’re saying that it’s find and dandy for the current President to declare parts of the Constitution dead?
The PATRIOT act passed pretty much unapposed and unread so all of your represetatives were fine with this.
You’re fine with the current President deciding that he’s above the law, and can spy on anyone just because?
Pay attention. Bush didn't decide to do this. It was already in place and operating just as it was under Clinton. All Bush decided to do was inject himself into the chain overseeing it.
Maybe you can explain it to me, how can breaking constitutional law help preserver constitutional law?
Why ? Nobody anywhere has suggested these measures were taken to protect constitutional law.
December 22nd, 2005 at 4:45 amI don't usually respond to RNC paid off trolls but Tank is a complete asshole. To say that the intention of "these measures" was never to protect Constitutional law is essentially saying exactly what Boy George said: "It's just a goddam piece of paper!"
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:53 am@ Comment by purvis ames — December 22, 2005
I don’t usually respond to RNC paid off trolls...
Whereas I always make it a point to ridicule those with paranoid delusions.
but Tank is a complete asshole. To say that the intention of “these measures†was never to protect Constitutional law is essentially saying exactly what Boy George said: “It’s just a goddam piece of paper!â€
I may be an asshole but you are an idiot.
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:52 amCounterterrorism investigations undertaken in the wake of 9/11 were about protecting constitutional law in the same way investigations into bank robberies are. Not at all. Get a grip on reality chump.
Teen Girls Teen Titans Raven Tiffany Teen
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 31st, 2008 at 4:21 pmGay Incest Gay Male Sex Gay Brothers
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:42 aminternet fly fishing
Very interesting post. A little bit confusing, but still ok.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:15 pmTeen Petite Teens Teen Titans Hentai
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 9th, 2008 at 10:15 amGay Sex Gay Sex Videos Black Gay Men
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 9th, 2008 at 8:28 pm