New Poll: Majority of Americans Disapprove of Bush’s Warrantless Wiretapping
New Poll: Majority of Americans Disapprove of Bush’s Warrantless Wiretapping
A little more than a week ago, the right-wingers heralded the results of a poll that they claimed showed a majority of Americans supporting Bush’s illegal warrantless wiretapping policy. Here’s what that poll found:
Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States.
Michelle Malkin used the poll results to suggest “America Is OK With NSA.” Redstate and the National Review also celebrated the results.
But there was a big problem with the poll question — it failed to say that President Bush was conducting the wiretapping without a warrant. Today, a new AP poll was released showing what Americans truly think of Bush’s policy:
56 percent of respondents in an AP-Ipsos poll said the government should be required to first get a court warrant to eavesdrop on the overseas calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens when those communications are believed to be tied to terrorism.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
I guess we disapprove because it’s ILLEGAL. Impeach the bastards before they destroy our country.
January 7th, 2006 at 4:49 pmwriting as an overseas e-mailer (I know it’s in reverse) this is a serious question, how does the Bush Administration define ‘tied to terrorism’?
January 7th, 2006 at 4:56 pmGary, the answer to your question is “any way they want.” Thank goodness Americans see the problem with Bush’s policy. We need to increase that number.
January 7th, 2006 at 4:59 pmREAD THIS FROM THE CHICAGO SUN TIMES IF YOU WANT YOUR JAW TO DROP OFF…..CONCERNING YOUR RIGHT TO ( NOT ) PRIVACY
January 7th, 2006 at 5:00 pmMy high school students, usually indifferent to current political affairs, were actually incensed when I told them that Bush was wiretapping American citizens without the required warrants… If this offends teenagers generally entralled with only their iPods and local gossip, then how does it miss 44% of polled grown adults?
January 7th, 2006 at 5:00 pmRE POST NO. 4 - LINK FOR CHICAGO SUN ARTICLE
http://www.suntimes.com/ output/ news/ cst-nws-privacy05.html
January 7th, 2006 at 5:02 pmWhy is there any question as to the error(evil?) of the Bush/Rove/Cheney policy RE:wiretaps? He has had legal means to do the same thing all along.
January 7th, 2006 at 5:02 pmFINALLY POSTED CORRECTLY.
READ THIS FROM THE CHICAGO SUN TIMES IF YOU WANT YOUR JAW TO DROP OFF…..CONCERNING YOUR RIGHT TO ( NOT ) PRIVACY
http://www.suntimes.com/ output/ news/ cst-nws-privacy05.html
January 7th, 2006 at 5:03 pmSuzanne - that is yet another Orwellian step deeper into the invasion of our privacy, and the erosion of our civil rights. Anything to make a buck… Absolutely anything…
January 7th, 2006 at 5:05 pmThe results are a little different when the question is asked properly.
January 7th, 2006 at 5:06 pmTHE POLL IS STILL FLAWED! AP should have said should the president be required to obtain a warrant - keeping in mind that the president can apply for one 72 hours later.
The 72 hours would have bumped it up about 10 points.
January 7th, 2006 at 5:19 pmJames,
How about adding.
Knowing that the FISA court has only turned down 4-5 warrant request since 1978.
I am sure that would add another 10.
January 7th, 2006 at 5:23 pmLet me trying that again:
Knowing that the FISA court has only turned down 4-5 warrant requests, out of nearly 19,000 total requests, since 1978.
January 7th, 2006 at 5:24 pmMy high school students, usually indifferent to current political affairs, were actually incensed when I told them that Bush was wiretapping American citizens without the required warrants…
Personally, I’d be pretty incensed if you bring your politics into the classroom (especially if my child was in your class) … “wiretapping without the required warrants” is most certainly only one side of the story … if I were a teacher, would it be OK for me to say “wiretapping suspected terrorists is completely legal” thus entirely defining the issue by the way I interpreted it … of course not. There are legitimite reasons for believing the eavesdropping to be illegal … I cede this, but even if you were a political science teacher, is it your place to bring this up … knowing full well that they would likely take your side (some may not) because you are in a position of trust. Why not allow the students to debate the item back and forth without your personal opinion tainting either side … that way, they gain valuable experience from intelligently stating and supporting a claim and are allowed to arrive at their own conclusion … from this small case it would seem you’re less interested in education than ideological advocacy … what gives?
January 7th, 2006 at 5:27 pmNow I think the wingnuttery will claim
January 7th, 2006 at 5:28 pmthat polls mean nothing AGAIN.
Must be a drag to have to contradict yourself
ever other day, but when you spin one lie
after another to help the “boy-king”, it
is a predictable occupational hazard.
Gee, I don’t understand why “rule of law”
January 7th, 2006 at 5:30 pmconfuses wingnuts so much.
It must be hard when teaching the constitution
must be considered slanted because Chimpy
doesn’t follow it.
Just to make things clear:
January 7th, 2006 at 5:34 pmThe law is more important than Chimpy.
Sorry that your hero is a zero, but
the country is free and honorable because
of the rule of law.
Giacomo,
Actually, George Bush admitted to “wiretapping without a warrant” on national TV. At this point in time, every single person on the face of the Planet knows he admitted to doing it.
So, it is the ONLY side to the story. The left did not make this up. George Bush admitted to it. Warrantless wiretapping DID happen. The question is if it is legal or illegal. There is no other side to this story.
January 7th, 2006 at 5:35 pmAdding the 4-5 denials would be helpful, although it could be claimed such an addition is biased as it doesn’t also mention that warrants have been modified, etc.
The 72 hour deal just makes people realize that the government can act as fast as they like.
Thinkprogress, through their parent organization, has the funds to conduct such a poll (contracted through Zogby, etc). It would be nice if they did that - it’d likely hit the MSM.
January 7th, 2006 at 5:36 pmIt would likely hit the MSM (thinkprogress parent doing such a poll) simply because the numbers would be in the mid to high 60s range. That isn’t exactly something you can ignore - completely.
January 7th, 2006 at 5:38 pmThe results are a little different when the question is asked properly.
Spudge, I know you’re a bright individual … would you not cede that the answers to most poll often reflect the manner of the question?
Example
Do you feel it’s appropriate for President Bush to protect the United States from terrorist attack by eavesdropping on suspected terrorist calls without a warrant or not?
Any time you ask something and then a “or not”, most people go with the something … especially if you taint the question with “patriotic” language. I know this didn’t happen with the first poll, but it often does.
or
Do you feel that it is illegal for the US government to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant, even if those individuals might be in contact with suspected terrorists, or not?
Similar question … likely different answers. It’s why I tend to not put a lot of stock in opinion polls b/c they are rarely asked in a neutral manner and two similar polls can get completely different results … as we’ve seen here. Not to mention sample size, geographical location of the pollees, etc. …
January 7th, 2006 at 5:38 pmActually, George Bush admitted to “wiretapping without a warrant†on national TV. At this point in time, every single person on the face of the Planet knows he admitted to doing it.
You left out part of unbelievables comment … the one word that taints the comment … “required” …
Bush asmitted to eavesdropping sans warrant, but to say that they are required in this case is to mislead what Bush actually said, isn’t it. He claims it’s legal.
If she said Bush is wiretapping without warrants … he says it’s legal but others say it’s not … let’s discuss the different sides and the factors that come into play” … it could be a huge learning excercie … if she made the statement as she posted here earlier, it wasn’t a debate … it was a turkey shoot.
January 7th, 2006 at 5:42 pmSee, you are changing our question to make your point.
Here is our question:
Because that is THE question.
January 7th, 2006 at 5:42 pmGiacomo,
Yes, George Bush “claims it’s legal,” but that doesn’t change the fact that it is not.
January 7th, 2006 at 5:43 pm“But there was a big problem with the poll question — it failed to say that President Bush was conducting the wiretapping without a warrant.” Text by Faiz -
January 7th, 2006 at 5:43 pm*****While you’re busy repeating this info, I will busy myself and repeat that anybody who is not aware of the warrantless searches of people in the US receiving Al Qaeda calls does not deserve to be polled. (As astute as you are, you know this story has been prominently featured on the nightly news since December 16.)
their sample makeups are pretty much the same - which still means those of us that stick with cells are not included as well as those who choose not to participate. That still makes for samples that are relatively equivalent.
They know the sample size they need - it’s basic statistics - and they follow it.
The main issue, as you say, is the wording of the question. Neutral questions must be asked, any others are simply biased noise.
Fox tends to ask the most leading questions - but not by much. As for ‘different’ results - are just as biased as each other. One has no mention of warrants. That’s all. The ‘warrant’ inclusion accounts for the jump, not a leading question relative to the first.
As for most polls, they are within the sampling standard error. As you likely know, sample sizes are picked with the maximum allowable error (at a given confidence level) allowable. They pretty much all tend to fall within the same error zones.
January 7th, 2006 at 5:44 pmSee, I told you the wingnuts would
claim polls don’t matter.
It’s why I tend to not put a lot of stock in opinion polls b/c they are rarely asked in a neutral manner and two similar polls can get completely different results … as we’ve seen here. Not to mention sample size, geographical location of the pollees, etc. …
January 7th, 2006 at 5:45 pmPersonally, I’d be pretty incensed if you bring your politics into the classroom (especially if my child was in your class) … “wiretapping without the required warrants†is most certainly only one side of the story … if I were a teacher, would it be OK for me to say “wiretapping suspected terrorists is completely legal†thus entirely defining the issue by the way I interpreted it … of course not. There are legitimite reasons for believing the eavesdropping to be illegal … I cede this, but even if you were a political science teacher, is it your place to bring this up … knowing full well that they would likely take your side (some may not) because you are in a position of trust. Why not allow the students to debate the item back and forth without your personal opinion tainting either side … that way, they gain valuable experience from intelligently stating and supporting a claim and are allowed to arrive at their own conclusion … from this small case it would seem you’re less interested in education than ideological advocacy … what gives?
Comment by Giacomo — January 7, 2006 @ 5:27 pm
You’re just pissed off that I think your religion is delusional.
There’s a thing called ‘current events’. I know you’ve never heard of it… but I give them an opportunity to talk about what’s going on in the world they are about to enter. Of course you’d be pissed off, you want your progeny to only believe what you believe. How dare they hear another side of the argument - or even worse - GASP! the truth!!
January 7th, 2006 at 5:49 pmSpudgeboy: overseas calls should be modified to incoming or outgoing. (same with email).
“knowing that the FISA court has only turned down 4-5 warrant requests, out of nearly 19,000 total requests, since 1978?”
This is the part that might be a problem. It makes the question long and the idea is to keep it short. I think it might get people to focus more on that last piece.
The FISA court would also have to be reworded to ‘the special secret court that approves such warrants’ or some similar thing. Most people don’t know there is a FISA court or what it is.
I’d still ask the full question - I do feel the 4-5 day part is relevent - simply because it is no more biased than other polls out there.
I would guess that you would get a 65-68 percent disapproval on such a question. At least.
January 7th, 2006 at 5:49 pmIs that what was asked? If so, do you see how most respondents would side with the positive in that case … ask that same question but like this …
Reverse the order of the questions if you like, but both sides need to be spelled out succinctly.
January 7th, 2006 at 5:50 pmWow, I agree with mighty aphrodite!!
I agree 100% with this. There are people out there who are completely out of touch with what is giong on in this country. And no I am not taking a shot at right wingers. I am talking about peolpe that don’t vote, are not conservative or liberal.
Those people should not be polled, as they don’t have an opinion. Not because they aren’t smart enough. They choose to not care about politics.
January 7th, 2006 at 5:50 pmJudd/Faiz - Could your parent organization afford such a contract poll (ie outsource it to Zogby to gain the needed credibility *plus* the fact that it would be available on his web site and picked up)? It would seem a worthy use of funds - 70 percent disapproval ratings are a bit more than even Bush can stand.
January 7th, 2006 at 5:52 pmI think Americans are suspicious of the government.
January 7th, 2006 at 5:53 pmThe sissy-Mary neo-con fear everything con-job is getting
pretty weak these days.
Grow up and realize that the founding fathers
were worried about fascists like Chimpy
when they wrote the constitution.
With all due respect, Giacomo, it doesn’t matter the excuse, the President violated the law. He publically stated that he approved of the wiretaps without obtaining a warrant. Another blogger also brought up the fact that Bush’s excuse that he has done so because ‘we are at war’ is a fallacy. Only the Congress can enact the war powers (which they have not) AND what about the bs on the USS Abraham Lincoln?
I’m glad to see teachers talking to their students about this! They will be voting members of our country very soon and they need to get involved. We all need to get involved. It’s not about simply electing someone and them ‘doing their job while I do mine’. It’s only so apparent now that we need to be diligent about sustaining contact with our elected leaders so that they understand we’re not going to be duped any longer.
Had Bush not wanted to piss all over the law and our Constitution, he would have played by the law. Remember, he’s the one that calls the Constitution a “goddamned piece of paper”.
January 7th, 2006 at 5:53 pmGiacomo,
I could even go with that question. WHy? because it focuses on US Citizen’s right and not the fear mongering “terrorist” crap.
I agreed with mighty aphrodite and Giacomo back to back. Uh oh. :)
January 7th, 2006 at 5:54 pmOK, what’s going on here?? I have tried 3 times to post a link to this site and I have not been able to!
Is it TP or is it Big Brother?
January 7th, 2006 at 5:55 pmWhy not allow the students to debate the item back and forth without your personal opinion tainting either side … that way, they gain valuable experience from intelligently stating and supporting a claim and are allowed to arrive at their own conclusion … from this small case it would seem you’re less interested in education than ideological advocacy … what gives?
Comment by Giacomo — January 7, 2006 @ 5:27 pm
Yeah, that’s how teaching works… I forgot, you know EVERYTHING! What was I thinking, I should have asked YOU how to do my job instead of the actual Education System and people in it with hundreds of years of prior experience.
Children aren’t as gullable or stupid as you think they are. If anything, they think they aren’t challenged enough or gieven enough credit to think for themselves. They always challenge me, so I frequently challenge them, and they love it. But they no more swallow things hook line and sinker just because an adult tells them something. In reality, they routinely complain about other teachers who they think are pulling something over on the kids. I’d recommend you do some research on that, but by now, we all know that all you have to offer is speculation and conjecture of how you think it should be, and aren’t willing to consider anything but your own two cents.
January 7th, 2006 at 5:56 pmthey should be polled just because they vote or have the potential to vote. Excluding a segment of the population - one that has more republican leaning folks in it - discredits an entire poll - especially in the eyes of the policy makers.
Question #2 should be something regarding to - “If the Supreme Court (people trust it a bit more than lower courts) rules such actions to be illegal, should George Bush be impeached?”
Question #3 (conditional on #2): “If not, do you think President Clinton should have been impeached?” :)
January 7th, 2006 at 5:56 pmYou’re just pissed off that I think your religion is delusional.
Nah … you’re certainly not the only one to think that … I’d hardly be able to function if I got angry whenever someone disagreed with me …
There’s a thing called ‘current events’. I know you’ve never heard of it… but I give them an opportunity to talk about what’s going on in the world they are about to enter. Of course you’d be pissed off, you want your progeny to only believe what you believe. How dare they hear another side of the argument - or even worse - GASP! the truth!!
I’m all for current events … by all means allow them to talk, but why taint their conversation with your opinion. If there’s one thing I’ve learned about parenting, it’s that I can’t control what my children believes … I can certainly teach them to be good citizens and Christians as best I can, but if I’m poor at either, they’d eventually see right through me and reject everything (or most) of what I taught or said. I want them to hear the other side … 100% of the time … I never would shy away from honest and open debate … they’d be morons then. From your quote though, your students didn’t hear the “other side” … they heard “your side” … big difference … don’t get all pissy because I called you on it.
Again, I’ll ask. Would you be Ok with another teacher tainting the question in a pro-Bush manner … i think not (and neither would I by the way), because it’s thinking for the students and not allowing them to think for themselves. I know you understand what I’m driving at … I wonder if you’ll agree or just keep swiping at me defensively.
January 7th, 2006 at 5:56 pm#5 - “My high school students, usually indifferent to current political affairs, were actually incensed when I told them that Bush was wiretapping American citizens without the required warrants…”…in the meantime, I had to give the kids in my basket weaving class a gentlewoman’s ‘C’ because I wasted so much valuable time imparting THE “correct” knowledge to the future basket weavers of the world.
When I heard the various organizations the NEA supports and the infliction of your take on current events with your students, I’m THRILLED Mr. Aphrodite and I had the wherewithal NOT to subject our kids to public schools.
January 7th, 2006 at 5:57 pmIf she said Bush is wiretapping without warrants … he says it’s legal but others say it’s not … let’s discuss the different sides and the factors that come into play†… it could be a huge learning excercie … if she made the statement as she posted here earlier, it wasn’t a debate … it was a turkey shoot.
Comment by Giacomo — January 7, 2006 @ 5:42 pm
I love how you know the entire context of my conversation in that classroom based on a brief synopsis I posted here two days afterward. Stop trying to turn this into something it isn’t.
January 7th, 2006 at 5:59 pmLisa,
You are 100% correct. Politics should be talked about in school. DO we just kids be uninformed about any of the issues and then when they graduate, they are expected to vote when they are 18.
Give me a break. Politics are a public affair. The schools are funded by the federal government. Therefore what the federal government does IS important.
The children in California schools need to know about how Arnold has removed so much funding that my kids last school had to drop band. BAND!!! The kids need to know that a republican governor did that too them and that the Terminator is just that, part of an evil machine.
January 7th, 2006 at 5:59 pmthe bottom line is: people DO NOT want their phones tapped,email tapped, or any of it. It invades their freedom of speech,thought,assembly and on and on. There are NO results from it catching the bad guys,because they use OTHER METHODS talk. DUH! Bushie just wants to spy on anyone that doesn’t ‘fall in line’ with his dictatorship. Can it happen in America???…It IS happening. Nixon tried it and failed,and so will bushie. These idiots never learn how to properly use their power. How did bushie find out the paper was going to print the spy story?…HIS SPYS found out, then threatened them so they held it for a YEAR.
January 7th, 2006 at 6:02 pmChildren aren’t as gullable or stupid as you think they are. If anything, they think they aren’t challenged enough or gieven enough credit to think for themselves. They always challenge me, so I frequently challenge them, and they love it. But they no more swallow things hook line and sinker just because an adult tells them something. In reality, they routinely complain about other teachers who they think are pulling something over on the kids. I’d recommend you do some research on that, but by now, we all know that all you have to offer is speculation and conjecture of how you think it should be, and aren’t willing to consider anything but your own two cents.
You won’t say it will you … “I shouldn’t be brining my politics into a public classroom” … it’s not hard. You shouldn’t do it and neither should a republican/conservative. You keep blowing smoke up my proverbial butt with this “children are smart” mantra … of that, I’m well aware.
What I’m asking is why you feel it’s ok to slant your class toward a progressive mindset (in this case … who knows if you always do it … given the BS you keep tossing my way, maybe) … it’s not and you know it. I’m glad they challenge you and vice versa … this case you posted above was no challenge it was shooting fish in a barrell … don’t attack me because I noticed.
January 7th, 2006 at 6:03 pmI’m glad to see teachers talking to their students about this! They will be voting members of our country very soon and they need to get involved. We all need to get involved. It’s not about simply electing someone and them ‘doing their job while I do mine’. It’s only so apparent now that we need to be diligent about sustaining contact with our elected leaders so that they understand we’re not going to be duped any longer.
Comment by Lisa — January 7, 2006 @ 5:53 pm
Thanks Lisa… I appreciate the support. Most of their parents feel the same way, and because they love their children, want them to learn to think for themselves. If you have children of your own, they are fortunate to have a mother who values knowledge and education over blind subservience.
Giacomo is just miffed that he can’t convert me to his religion, so now he’s trying to vilify me. And as usual, it’s backfiring.
January 7th, 2006 at 6:04 pmUnbelievable - keep rockin with your students. Some of them will actually appreciate a teacher who challenged them to see the world with reality than just through a droning textbook. Hopefully, when my child gets into highschool, she’ll have teachers similar to you.
January 7th, 2006 at 6:06 pmby all means allow them to talk, but why taint their conversation with your opinion. If there’s one thing I’ve learned about parenting, it’s that I can’t control what my children believes
Giacomo - you just imploded right here. If you can’t control what they think (which is true), then my opinion doesn’t influence them…
January 7th, 2006 at 6:08 pmFrom your quote though, your students didn’t hear the “other side†… they heard “your side†… big difference … don’t get all pissy because I called you on it.
What other side would that be? You want me to lie to them? That other side? There is no other side…
You’re the pissy one, I’m just stating it like I see it.
January 7th, 2006 at 6:09 pmGiacomo, if you ask the question of students, without making them aware of the law that requires warrants and the ability to get them under FISA, that would be a political statement. Making them aware of the law, and then asking them their opinion on whether the President should be allowed to ignore it, is not.
If you asked me whether handguns should be restricted only to law enforcement personnel and carefully vetted other people with the need, but not allowed to be generally available to the public, I might answer yes, just looking at the amount of gun violence and knowing that handguns aren’t useful for anything other than shooting people. However, knowing that it is a protected right under the US Constitution, I would have to answer no.
January 7th, 2006 at 6:10 pmGiacomo - you just imploded right here. If you can’t control what they think (which is true), then my opinion doesn’t influence them…
Are you saying that I have no influence over my kids and that you have no influence over your classroom? I can’t control what they ultimately think, but I certainly can influence it … I’m sure you can see the difference.
What other side would that be? You want me to lie to them? That other side? There is no other side…
So when 40% to 60% (depending on the poll) of the nation feels differently than you do, somehow you can claim ignorance to the other side … the fact that you can’t allow for another side is what scares me … you’re so ingrained in your own thinking that you can’t even tell when the contrary point of you may be legitimate (notice I said earlier that your side has merit) … wow. Let’s hope you teach math or something empirical and not political science …
January 7th, 2006 at 6:14 pmAgain, I’ll ask. Would you be Ok with another teacher tainting the question in a pro-Bush manner … i think not (and neither would I by the way), because it’s thinking for the students and not allowing them to think for themselves. I know you understand what I’m driving at … I wonder if you’ll agree or just keep swiping at me defensively.
Comment by Giacomo — January 7, 2006 @ 5:56 pm
I do know what your driving at. I always know. I just don’t agree. There are pro-Bush teachers and they do state things in a Pro-Bush way. Just like the local news states things in a Pro-Bush way and I don’t think you’re harrassing them over it. It’s just human nature to have preferences. And it does not bother me (again this is a Progressive forum, I’m not in a conservative one spouting off). Unlike you, I respect the kids’ ability to think and decide for themselves at this age (typically 14-18). They weren’t born yesterday. And the biggest influence in their lives are their parents, not me. That’s the difference here. I don’t believe I can control anyone but myself. And I don’t think children are as gullable as you are infering in your posts.
January 7th, 2006 at 6:14 pmWhen I heard the various organizations the NEA supports and the infliction of your take on current events with your students, I’m THRILLED Mr. Aphrodite and I had the wherewithal NOT to subject our kids to public schools.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 7, 2006 @ 5:57 pm
And it will show in 20 years when they are featured on America’s Most Wanted.
January 7th, 2006 at 6:16 pmBack in the late 50’s when I was in high school, there was a course offered, called “Civics”, and I actually took it as an elective. There was parental control so as not to stomp on parental rights, but my folks did not restrict my choice of subjects. In that class, we took a bi-weekly bus trip down to the city library and read the national rags. The rest of the time we discussed items in the two city newspapers affecting city and state government as well as the Constitution and the laws at all levels from local to federal, internationals, and the UN.
January 7th, 2006 at 6:18 pmWhy did W’s parents bar him from a similar experience? I lived in Dallas at the time.
PLEASE, unbelievable and Giacomo, get personal attitudes and presumptions about the other out of this thread. My experience with discussion leading and facilitating leans toward opening the classroom forum with G’s “Bush is wiretapping without warrants … he says it’s legal but others say it’s not … let’s discuss the different sides and the factors that come into play.†While U’s “I told them that Bush was wiretapping American citizens without the required warrants.” is certainly a factual statement and teachers do have to “tell” students things. My approach would have been to open with “Who knows how wiretapping is in the news this week? If no student responds, which sometimes happens, then start off down G’s route. It is encouraging to know that the topic got some play in the classroom. Way to go Ms/Mr U!
January 7th, 2006 at 6:18 pmI do know what your driving at. I always know. I just don’t agree. There are pro-Bush teachers and they do state things in a Pro-Bush way. Just like the local news states things in a Pro-Bush way and I don’t think you’re harrassing them over it. It’s just human nature to have preferences. And it does not bother me (again this is a Progressive forum, I’m not in a conservative one spouting off).
And if they taint the issue, they’re wrong … so are you. 2 wrongs make a right now?
And the biggest influence in their lives are their parents, not me. That’s the difference here. I don’t believe I can control anyone but myself. And I don’t think children are as gullable as you are infering in your posts.
Parents are more influential you’re right … but yet you excuse the tainting of your classroom because 1) everyone else does it and 2) kids are smart. Unbelievable … you are unbelievable. I’ll be sure to tell a Christian to start talking about the Bible in schools because “kids aren’t gullible” … they shouldn’t and you shouldn’t.
January 7th, 2006 at 6:18 pmWhat I’m asking is why you feel it’s ok to slant your class toward a progressive mindset (in this case … who knows if you always do it … given the BS you keep tossing my way, maybe) … it’s not and you know it. I’m glad they challenge you and vice versa … this case you posted above was no challenge it was shooting fish in a barrell … don’t attack me because I noticed.
Comment by Giacomo — January 7, 2006 @ 6:03 pm
Once again you assume the worst in others who don’t think exactly like you. You really should get over that, because everyone your kids come incontact with is trying to sell them something - whether an education, a viewpoint, or even drugs. Don’t kid yourself into thinking I have so much power that I’m corrupting children… I just casually pointed it out in response to a conversation we were having on why Congress is investigating the President.
And I did tell them that 20% of this country will believe anything a ham sandwich says just so as long as it supports their delusions (okay unclench, I’m joking).
January 7th, 2006 at 6:22 pmPublic school is exactly the place where politics should be discussed. Students will be voting soon (or in the army). Having discussions in class in political science, or current events, or civics (do they even teach that any more?)is precisely what a good education should include. Private schools may have their good points, but like home-schooling, the tendency to prosyletize is strong. The country is diverse, and not to teach children as much as possible about all positions of the issues is to do a disservice. Kids must be taught to think for themselves, to think about what they feel and what it means.
January 7th, 2006 at 6:23 pmUnfortunately, the politicians in charge today are more narrowly focused, and public school children are suffering.
Elective classes that make for well-rounded individuals are being eliminated for lack of funds.
To the topic however, when people are asked the question in a clear manner, the answers will undoubtedly reflect that Americans believe that unwarranted eavesdropping and wiretapping is against basic American foundations.
Bush claims that leaking this story has lessened our security somehow, as if the terrorists are idiots who don’t know we are spying on them. Bush is the idiot.
The poll is bogus. The sample is too heavily weighted towards Democrats — 52% Democrat, 40% Republican.
In any case, executive branch powers are not determined by opinion polls.
January 7th, 2006 at 6:26 pm“Once again you assume the worst in others who don’t think exactly like you. ”
LOL Pot-Kettle-Black
January 7th, 2006 at 6:27 pmYou won’t say it will you … “I shouldn’t be brining my politics into a public classroomâ€
You have heard of the Bill of Rights haven’t you? There’s this little thing in there called Freedom of Speech.
The school would rather teachers bring their politics to school (why they offer courses on government, ethics and history in teh first place), than their neurosis. I feel sorry for your kid’s teachers if you getthis bent out of shape about a conversation over something Peeping George actually admitted…
Unbelievable - keep rockin with your students. Some of them will actually appreciate a teacher who challenged them to see the world with reality than just through a droning textbook. Hopefully, when my child gets into highschool, she’ll have teachers similar to you.
Comment by Lisa — January 7, 2006 @ 6:06 pm
Thanks Lisa, you can count on it… while Giacomo loses sleep and begins crafting the Inquistion II for his kid’s school district…
January 7th, 2006 at 6:29 pmWally, you should go and tell the prez that you need to be replaced because your not being successful in your job.
January 7th, 2006 at 6:29 pmRemoveBush, you should bang on the basement door and tell your mommy to let you out into the real world for a while, it’d do you a lot of good.
January 7th, 2006 at 6:30 pmIf unbelievable was my kid’s teacher, I’d tranfer him to another school, and implore the school board to fire her ASAP.
January 7th, 2006 at 6:31 pmPLEASE, unbelievable and Giacomo, get personal attitudes and presumptions about the other out of this thread. My experience with discussion leading and facilitating leans toward opening the classroom forum with G’s “Bush is wiretapping without warrants … he says it’s legal but others say it’s not … let’s discuss the different sides and the factors that come into play.†While U’s “I told them that Bush was wiretapping American citizens without the required warrants.†is certainly a factual statement and teachers do have to “tell†students things. My approach would have been to open with “Who knows how wiretapping is in the news this week? If no student responds, which sometimes happens, then start off down G’s route. It is encouraging to know that the topic got some play in the classroom. Way to go Ms/Mr U!
Comment by David K. — January 7, 2006 @ 6:18 pm
Funny how you did exactly what you criticized… If you don’t like human behavior, you shouldn’t hang around them.
You people need to get a clue. I didn’t post a verbatim conversation, just gave the gist of it. At least I told them the truth.
January 7th, 2006 at 6:33 pmI agree Bush must be Impeached
In the UK were getting there 109 MPs so far I can give you there names http://edmi.parliament.uk/ EDMi/ EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=29437&SESSION=875
if you sort by Party you will see even 21 Labour MP’s
you can start here http://www.impeachblair.org/article26.shtml
and then Click on EARLY DAY MOTION
where in America can I find the equivelant data
January 7th, 2006 at 6:34 pmAnd if they taint the issue, they’re wrong … so are you. 2 wrongs make a right now?
I love how you think you’re some authority on right and wrong. You’re so silly Giacomo… And all the spinning… just because you cannot ever admit you are wrong.
Parents are more influential you’re right … but yet you excuse the tainting of your classroom because 1) everyone else does it and 2) kids are smart. Unbelievable … you are unbelievable. I’ll be sure to tell a Christian to start talking about the Bible in schools because “kids aren’t gullible†… they shouldn’t and you shouldn’t.
Comment by Giacomo — January 7, 2006 @ 6:18 pm
Go right ahead, some of the little Giacomos and Aphrodities of teh world already do it all the time. And the other kids call them names or ignore them. Pretty much exactly like it is in here. And I don’t have to say a word… I can just stand back and watch them work it out themselves. And they will.
January 7th, 2006 at 6:38 pmYou have heard of the Bill of Rights haven’t you? There’s this little thing in there called Freedom of Speech.
That’s your defense? The bill of rights. Keep grasping. “I can slant my class any way I want to because this is America”. I don’t even think you buy that … great, we have a bunch of teachers guiding students down whatever ideological road the teacher holds … who cares about actaully opening their minds to all angles.
The school would rather teachers bring their politics to school (why they offer courses on government, ethics and history in teh first place), than their neurosis. I feel sorry for your kid’s teachers if you getthis bent out of shape about a conversation over something Peeping George actually admitted…
You know exactly why I’m bent out of shape … you’re proselytizing … it’s not about one case … yet you defend it. I bet you’d be pissed if someone told your kid they “were going to hell without Jesus” … thats the extreme example but under your logic, teachers should be allowed to bring their politics and ethics to school … it’s pure BS and you know it.
January 7th, 2006 at 6:39 pmIf unbelievable was my kid’s teacher, I’d tranfer him to another school, and implore the school board to fire her ASAP.
Comment by walllace — January 7, 2006 @ 6:31 pm
Nutcases like this do exist. The Board never sides with them. They know that if they did, THEY would be the next ones fired…
January 7th, 2006 at 6:42 pmThat’s your defense? The bill of rights. Keep grasping. “I can slant my class any way I want to because this is Americaâ€. I don’t even think you buy that … great, we have a bunch of teachers guiding students down whatever ideological road the teacher holds … who cares about actaully opening their minds to all angles.
According to you, that’s what their Pro-Fascism teachers will do, balance me out. Gieacomo, I’m flattered that you think I have so much influence on these kids, (especially for someone who claims to not believe in the Devil), but the reality is that 85% of children will be whatever their parents are. So don’t fret - your kids will mostly likely be fearful little Republicans just like you.
January 7th, 2006 at 6:45 pmI bet you’d be pissed if someone told your kid they “were going to hell without Jesus†…
Comment by Giacomo — January 7, 2006 @ 6:39 pm
Nope. I’m not wound like you. Sticks and stones, Giacomo, it’s all just sticks and stones.
January 7th, 2006 at 6:47 pmWhat I’m asking is why you feel it’s ok to slant your class toward a progressive mindset (in this case … who knows if you always do it … given the BS you keep tossing my way, maybe)
If the facts are “biased” against Chimpy they must be kept out of the classroom. Gotcha.
Why not allow the students to debate the item back and forth without your personal opinion tainting either side … that way, they gain valuable experience from intelligently stating and supporting a claim and are allowed to arrive at their own conclusion
LOL… Fine. Except he hasn’t let “his personal opinion taint either side” by noting the basic facts surrounding this issue.
I’m intrigued by your teaching theories. What do you think of this idea that you gave me? We’ll let the kids debate whether marijuana is bad for you, and allow them to arrive at their own conclusion.
January 7th, 2006 at 6:48 pmI think a better question would have been, “Should the Bush Administration be required to comply with the current law and get a warrant from a judge within 72 hours of monitoring phone and Internet communications between American citizens in the United States and suspected terrorists, or should the government be allowed to monitor such communications without a warrant?”
As it reads now, I’m sure most respondents think he has to WAIT before he gets a warrant to start monitoring calls.
January 7th, 2006 at 6:50 pmInteresting that most Americans oppose wiretapping and that upsets the trolls so much. Funny how much. Guess you burn in Hell or something for being wrong…
Time for dinner… Just worked up an apetite in here.
Have a good evening everyone!
January 7th, 2006 at 6:50 pmAccording to you, that’s what their Pro-Fascism teachers will do, balance me out. Gieacomo, I’m flattered that you think I have so much influence on these kids, (especially for someone who claims to not believe in the Devil), but the reality is that 85% of children will be whatever their parents are. So don’t fret - your kids will mostly likely be fearful little Republicans just like you.
Keep excusing it … “everyone else does it” … “Republicans do it too” … “I can’t really hurt anyone” … “i don’t have the influence, the parents do” … I really can’t believe how many roadblocks you keep erecting.
Say it with me “NO teacher should ever slant a class ideologically, the fact that some do changes nothing” …
Nope. I’m not wound like you. Sticks and stones, Giacomo, it’s all just sticks and stones.
I call BS … the only reason you’re “pro-slant” in the classroom is beacuse you’re the one doing it … if a family member of yours fell victim to it, you’d be pissed off because it’s not right …
If the facts are “biased†against Chimpy they must be kept out of the classroom. Gotcha.
And again … a clear example of why this phenomenon is so dangerous. Because you don’t agree with the opposing viewpoint means the opposing viewpoint is not valid … you have no room for any other ideas that don’t adhere to what you aldready think … how blissfully ignorant.
LOL… Fine. Except he hasn’t let “his personal opinion taint either side†by noting the basic facts surrounding this issue.
“The basic facts” … here it is again. This is the same as saying “the only reality that exists is the reality that I believe in” … all others are wrong or irrelevant. Tell me, where does that “progressive” moniker come from … obviously it’s not earned from being open-minded>
We’ll let the kids debate whether marijuana is bad for you, and allow them to arrive at their own conclusion.
If you want to let them debate about medicinal use or about why it’s illegal … in a high school, go for it. Why would I think that subject should be taboo.
Time for dinner… Just worked up an apetite in here.
Enjoy … catch you later.
January 7th, 2006 at 7:04 pmRepeat after me, they dont care about Laws. Consitutions. Abortion. You, as a Political State, must be kept in a Crisis management position. (think Terror alerts, the Commies, AL Qaeda, Bird Flu..) Synarchy. Let me bolster this ‘lack of Laws’ Argument.
January 7th, 2006 at 7:04 pmVice President Dick Cheney, the “Herman Göring” of the Bush Administration, has come out with the blunt admission that everything that LaRouche said back in January 2001 was true. On Dec. 20, while traveling to Oman on Air Force Two, the Vice President spoke to reporters, and delivered an unabashed defense of Carl Schmitt’s Führerprinzip (Leader Principle) of absolute executive power. Cheney, facing a growing revolt from the Congress, the military and intelligence institutions, and the American people, against his over-the-top push for Presidential dictatorship and his promotion of Nuremberg war crime offenses, let it all hang out, admitting that he came into the Vice Presidency, fully committed to the imposition of rule-by-decree government.
The way I’ve heard it described, republicans always ’stick’ to their opinions, because the only ’stones’ they have are in their head :)
Funny …
You’ve been clear minded in the past. What do you think about High School teachers tainting a classroom toward their particular political ideology … I’m betting you’re against it, but I could be wrong.
January 7th, 2006 at 7:06 pm#17 - “Gee, I don’t understand why “rule of lawâ€
January 7th, 2006 at 7:16 pmconfuses wingnuts so much.” - afterthought
****Gosh, moonbat, you shouldn’t be so surprised - progs and Dems had an IMPOSSIBLE time understanding the application
of sexual harrassment law, cronyism, illegal foreign political contributions, rape, and perjury. Your hypocrisy demonstrates your short memory.
“And it will show in 20 years when they are featured on America’s Most Wanted.”
January 7th, 2006 at 7:20 pmComment by unbelievable — January 7, 2006 @ 6:16 pm
*****Only if people like you outlaw conservative political expression (a danger with the intolerant left)or religion.
“The basic facts†… here it is again. This is the same as saying “the only reality that exists is the reality that I believe in†… all others are wrong or irrelevant.
I believe that apples fall down. The only reality that exists is the reality in which apples fall. I suppose that for you they might fall up, then.
Tell me, where does that “progressive†moniker come from … obviously it’s not earned from being open-minded
And insisting that there is no such thing as objective truth makes one “open-minded”? LOL- actually it puts you in the same intellectual camp as the Maoists in China when they said “All truth is politics.”
Do you really think the laws just mean whatever you say they mean instead of what was written in black and white and voted on? Fascism has always depended on people such as yourself who are willing to discount simple facts as “mere politics”.
January 7th, 2006 at 7:29 pmIsn’t it interesting that many public school teachers are willing to indoctrinate their students - but not surprising as liberalism is a lazy and convenient mindset. (Want to see the “tolerant” left - watch them try to shut down speakers of the opposition viewpoint. It is easier to remove controversial speakers as it might take some brains to engage in an argument exercise.) Hatching new moonbats should prove easy in the incubated environment of many schools.
January 7th, 2006 at 7:36 pmHey aphrodite and Guacamole, its me Joe checking in. Boy, the subject of this post sure does get us by our shorthairs, don’t it? What disasterous polls for us Repuglicans! Phew!
Correct me if I’m wrong, but did you see the rest of the polls released yesterday? Boy, he’s really stinking up the Oval Office isn’t he? I mean, he really SUCKS, man.
How about that one on junior’s job ratings: 40% approve, 59% disappove. As a rightwing conservative, I think I am entited to throw up Bill Clinton here and mention that never once, not even when he was impeached, did Clinton’s job performance fall below 54%.
January 7th, 2006 at 7:40 pmYou’ve been clear minded in the past. What do you think about High School teachers tainting a classroom toward their particular political ideology … I’m betting you’re against it, but I could be wrong.
The Problem here lies in the Word ‘TAINT’, to ‘teach’ a class History is one thing, to method act the parts, or to TAINT the pupils in ANY direction wouldnt be teaching now would it? The Problem, to me with the Nutty Professors, Democratic, Republican and Otherwise. Sure you can TEACH a dog to attack, and thats a BAD thing right? But truly, If the Dog followed the order given, it then did so because it believed it did the right thing? Or did it only do the Thing it was taught? Such is Why we are Human. A human should never taint another is that a Suitable answer that bypasses the hot button issue of Politics?
January 7th, 2006 at 7:42 pmMA,
That’s a pretty interesting characterization, considering the fact that right wingers are the ones taking the easy way out.
Thousands of Americans gave their lives for our liberties, and you wingnuts would throw it all away for the easy fix of Bush saving you from the big, scary terrorists.
I see your “lazy” and raise you a “cowards”.
January 7th, 2006 at 7:43 pmCould any conservatives posting on this site suggest a legitimate reason WHY Bush did not seek warrants, when he had 72 hours to do so?
January 7th, 2006 at 7:45 pm“The poll is bogus. The sample is too heavily weighted towards Democrats — 52% Democrat, 40% Republican.
In any case, executive branch powers are not determined by opinion polls. ”
The executive branch governs with at least one eye on opinion polling. More importantly, a body that can check the executive branch likes strong backing from opinion polling when they take a particular course.
No one is saying that an opinion poll determines POWERS, just that it can influence ACTIONS.
As for the poll being flawed - 50+42=92. 8 percent are “independent”. People who are proud of their party broadcast it - those that don’t like to call themselves independents, as well as those who are sick of their party. Things have changed since the last elections…
January 7th, 2006 at 7:49 pmGiacomo,
Last thing I’m gonna say on the issue… I wasn’t tainting them, or trying to sway them. You weren’t in the classroom. You don’t know the full context. You don’t know the relationship I have with them, with their parents or with the school district. You assumed an awful amount of paranoid delusion and reacted to it as if you’d literally been set on fire. You freaked out without asking a single question first on the context, or what else followed the information. You never assume the positive. Ever. Only the negative Devil is ruining the children mentality… watch, you’ll do it again in response to this post.
One rule in my classroom is that anything I say is fair game. They are not only allowed to challenege what I say, but I actually give them bonus points if they can catch me saying something that they can refute with facts and evidence (opinions and emotion do not qualify). And believe me, if they put as much effort into studying as they do trying to correct me, they’d all be Rhodes scholars.
It was no different with this information either. I don’t have an evil ‘agenda’ to convince them to vote Democrat (because I’m not one), but simply an agenda to get them interested in the world and to vote.
They frequently come to me to ‘talk’ about a variety of things. They say it is because I do not judge them or invalidate their opinions. Mostly, I listen. I don’t believe in lecturing kids in that condescending old school way that you, IRI and Afro constantly use without considering their perspectives. My father was like that and I hated it. So in my classroom they are always feel to speak their minds, knowing everyone has and is entitled under the Constitution to have their own perspectives - including me.
January 7th, 2006 at 7:57 pmExcuse me, but this is not “American Idol.” Polling has nothing to do with the FACT that Bush committed a felony.
January 7th, 2006 at 7:58 pmMy formative years were spent in North Dallas at Walnut Hill Elementary, Hillcrest HS and Thomas Jefferson HS. At none of those schools was I steered towards one political belief or another. 35 years later, my sons were asked only to make sure that mom and dad voted. Now black moms and dads can’t vote because they might vote democratic? Is that really fair?
January 7th, 2006 at 7:59 pmI agree with Jonathan #84. My fellow wingnuts, I ask you who said the following:
“I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
He also said: “If Tyranny and Oppression comes to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it was President James Madison. I mean, if this was about Clinton and the war in Bosnia, the Repuglicans would be in the streets screaming, “Off with his head!”
January 7th, 2006 at 8:00 pm#85 - Lily - that’s the question I’ve been asking as well! Since FISA specifically allowed for taps to start immediately with warrant requests to come within 72 hours LATER, why weren’t the warrants asked for? I’d like to know WHO was tapped and why the Administration was afraid to go to a secret court for the warrants? Given the track record of the court (handful of denials out of the tens of thousands granted…)
That is the question. If you want to spy on someone - and have all of the legal ways to do it (FISA), why are you spying on that someone without using the tools you have - unless you are concerned that the court would through out your request based on the WHO it is. Makes one wonder.
January 7th, 2006 at 8:08 pmInteresting news story.
Three Algerians arrested in an anti-terrorist operation in southern Italy are suspected of being linked to a planned new series of attacks in the United States, Interior Minister Giuseppe Pisanu said Friday.
The attacks would have targeted ships, stadiums or railway stations in a bid to outdo the September 11, 2001 strikes by Al-Qaeda in New York and Washington which killed some 2,700 people, Pisanu said.
I haven’t seen this covered in the media here.
It would also be interesting to know whether NSA intercepts played a role in catching these terrorists.
January 7th, 2006 at 8:12 pm#92
January 7th, 2006 at 8:14 pmIt doesn’t make one wonder at all. Obviously Bush was spying on his political opponents.
Troll#93
January 7th, 2006 at 8:20 pmWell, which one is it? A ship, a stadium, or a railway station? If you believe a Berlusconi stooge like Pisanu, you’re a complete fool.
I’m sure this will incite the trolls again, but figure it’s worth passing it along to the progressives…
I have a nephew who was going a project for history class. The teacher gave them each two words that they had to define, use in a sentance, and then present on poster board with supporting photographs.
My nephew got ‘Impeachment’ and ‘Pro Tempore’.
Disclaimer: My brother was telling me this. I was not involved. My brother and his wife are not political people and generally tend to vote Republican.
For Impeachment, my nephew pasted photos of Nixon, Clinton and Bush Jr.
For Pro Tempore he pasted all of these psychedelic old photos of Ted Stevens from the 60’s because he thought the guy was funny looking (’like the Six Flags geezer’ he told my brother).
My nephew is in fifth grade…
January 7th, 2006 at 8:20 pm#85
Could any conservatives posting on this site suggest a legitimate reason WHY Bush did not seek warrants, when he had 72 hours to do so?
Comment by Lily — January 7, 2006 @ 7:45 pm
Lily,
Good question. Since no cons. has answered it, I think it deserves repeating. However, I’d be surprised if anyone responded. It’s been my experience that rightwingers here will ignore questions that deal with the heart of an issue.
I also would like to take this opportunity to ask a 2nd question: Bush and the conservatives have been blabbing about how this revelation has damaged national security. In what way?
January 7th, 2006 at 8:23 pm#93, Comment by richb
January 7th, 2006 at 8:25 pmI would doubt it as they are still not hiring Arabic translators. I know at least two in the military who have applied and have been ignored. One understands about ten dialects.
#92
I think that’s why no wingers here will respond. The answer is pretty much obvious.
January 7th, 2006 at 8:26 pmBush doesn’t govern via polls like Clinton does. Bush does what’s right.
January 7th, 2006 at 8:28 pmCould any conservatives posting on this site suggest a legitimate reason WHY Bush did not seek warrants, when he had 72 hours to do so?
Comment by Lily — January 7, 2006 @ 7:45 pm
I think it was IRI, maybe, who said that Bush didn’t need them. Something about it being a matter of him doing what his position affords him to do to protect us (as in the situation trumphs the Constitution). I can’t seem to get an answer which qualifies it in light of the law, and not just their opinions on the matter though. Probably because they don’t have an answer. So, good luck!
January 7th, 2006 at 8:29 pmBush doesn’t govern via polls like Clinton does. Bush does what’s right.
Comment by Gary Ruppert — January 7, 2006 @ 8:28 pm
This should be good… While you’re here Gray, how about answering Lily’s question for us?
January 7th, 2006 at 8:31 pmLast thing I’m gonna say on the issue… I wasn’t tainting them, or trying to sway them. You weren’t in the classroom. You don’t know the full context. You don’t know the relationship I have with them, with their parents or with the school district.
Fine … then why not just say that without all the excuses to begin with … I wish this post was your first one …
January 7th, 2006 at 8:35 pm#79
Mighty Aphro, you are an ass. Please…tell us how people like Unbelievable are trying to outlaw religion.
As for conservative political expression, again I ask the same question. Would “people like you” include the fine folks who run this site? Well, your sorry ass is still here, isn’t it? I don’t see the administrators banning anyone from this site based on their political views.
If you want to go after anyone for restricting political views, I think you need to go after a few of the conservative blogs. I haven’t posted to any, nor have I visited very many to read the comments, but from feedback seen on this site and crooksandliars.com, folks posting leftwing views are kicked out.
Finally, I seem to believe that it was the rightwingers who were essentially telling the Democrats to shut up about any comments or opinions that were in opposition to the President. Any negative comments about him or the War on Terror were met with accusations of treason and labels of “traitor.” You really do make me laugh.
January 7th, 2006 at 8:36 pmGary Ruppert what kind of drugs are you taking? Let’s see the things that Bush has done that’s right.
1) Failed to get off his sorry a*s on 9/11 when he was told we were under attack and begin acting like a leader.
2) Falsified information and lied to the American People as well as to Congress, which by the way in its self is an Impeachable offense.
3) Outed a CIA agent for retrobution because someon stood up against him and said his facts were incorrect.
4) Spied on Americans without a warrant. Not just terrorists, but Americans who had nothing to do with terrorists. By throwing out a huge net to spy illegally he violated our constitutional rights.
5) Returned only 6K dollars of over 100K in money from Abromaf.
Yeah! I would say that the Bush Crime Family is doing whats right!
January 7th, 2006 at 8:36 pmThe warrants were not sought because we needed to monitor the terrorists immediately without the risk of the court dismissing a warrant on a technicality.
As well, list of the people who have FISA warrants against them is not really secret either.
January 7th, 2006 at 8:37 pmWell bozo, that’s what the law is about. I say that the MIB’s should go over to your house and turn it upside down just because they can. I would bet that you would then scream about your rights being violated.
Besides, what part of 72 hours do you not understand?? Incase you cant do the math, I’ll do it for you. That’s 4 days.
January 7th, 2006 at 8:41 pm1) Failed to get off his sorry a*s on 9/11 when he was told we were under attack and begin acting like a leader.
Bush had a very elaborate system in place where our defense efforts were undertaken on that morning. Bush didn’t need to stomp out of the classroom to do anything.
2) Falsified information and lied to the American People as well as to Congress, which by the way in its self is an Impeachable offense.
Prove one lie he told Congress.
3) Outed a CIA agent for retrobution because someon stood up against him and said his facts were incorrect.
Plame was not a covert agent, therefore she could not be outed.
4) Spied on Americans without a warrant. Not just terrorists, but Americans who had nothing to do with terrorists. By throwing out a huge net to spy illegally he violated our constitutional rights.
No he didn’t. There’s nothing that proves that innocent people were “spied” on.
5) Returned only 6K dollars of over 100K in money from Abromaf.
Harry Reid only returned 0K out of over 100K given to him by Abramoff.
As well, Bush feels no need to donate legal donations.
January 7th, 2006 at 8:42 pmYou can do it for 72 hours. If you find something, warrant granted. If you don’t find anything, evidence destroyed. That is how it works Gary.
January 7th, 2006 at 8:44 pmGary, you need to get a clue. I’m done talking to you as it’s like talking to a chair. No matter how much information and truth I present to the chair that chair is just going to stay there. Even if the house is on fire and I tell the chair to run, you will just stand there.
January 7th, 2006 at 8:44 pm“The warrants were not sought because we needed to monitor the terrorists immediately without the risk of the court dismissing a warrant on a technicality.”
_____
In other words, we ignored the law because we were afraid the taps were illegal. Great defense!
PS: How do you know these taps were on “terrorists”? Answer: You don’t.
January 7th, 2006 at 8:45 pm107: Gary - Proof (of the list). And as for the warrants - of the thousands issued, a handful were denied over the 26 years since FISA. Risk of dismissing? What risk?
What an ass.
January 7th, 2006 at 8:46 pmCheck out the photos from the protest of Bushie’s
visit to Chicago at
htpp://bushinchicago.bravehost.com
Coming soon to the site is a link to the audio of the
protest, “Primal America”.
“Primal America” is raw, unedited audio footage from
the January 6, 2006 protest against George W. Bush’s
visit to Chicago.
George W. Bush gave a speech at the Chicago Hilton
while hundreds of American’s demanded the impeachment
of Geroge W. Bush.
“Primal America” is raw audio with a primal beat.
It is History in the Making.
The Creation of American
Memorabilia.
In “Primal America” you will hear the beat to:
FIRE THE LIAR
GEORGE BUSH HAS GOT TO GO
STEP DOWN STEP DOWN
BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW
SHAME ON YOU
2008 IS MUCH TOO LATE
DRIVE OUT THE BUSH REGIME
MOCK EXECUTION
MARCH TO THE STREETS
THE DEBTONATOR
“Primal America” is raw, unedited and uplifting.
It possesses the true American Spirit.
Check out the scene at
http://bushinchicago.bravehost.com and make sure you
January 7th, 2006 at 8:46 pmcheck back for the link to the audio of “Primal America”.
Fine … then why not just say that without all the excuses to begin with … I wish this post was your first one …
Comment by Giacomo — January 7, 2006 @ 8:35 pm
‘Excuses’ would be what you call my explanations that you don’t agree with… I see.
First? I did…
#41
I love how you know the entire context of my conversation in that classroom based on a brief synopsis I posted here two days afterward. Stop trying to turn this into something it isn’t.
Comment by unbelievable — January 7, 2006 @ 5:59 pm
January 7th, 2006 at 8:48 pm113: RDL: and that’s the bottom line. But, the wingnuts refuse to listen. (I’m not surprised)
January 7th, 2006 at 8:48 pm#102
Bush doesn’t govern via polls like Clinton does. Bush does what’s right.
Comment by Gary Ruppert — January 7, 2006 @ 8:28 pm
No…Bush does what he, and only he, thinks is right. To hell with anyone else’s opinion. And speaking of opinion, he recently told NBC’s Brian Williams, during some time that he spent with the president, that he (Bush) reads the news, but that he doesn’t like to read opinions. That much is true.
As for Clinton, I’d be interested to know which decisions he made based on public opinion that you feel were wrong.
January 7th, 2006 at 8:48 pmThe fact is that the FISA court had numerous activist judges who would have been likely to deny warrants for spurrious reasons
January 7th, 2006 at 8:49 pmThe warrants were not sought because we needed to monitor the terrorists immediately without the risk of the court dismissing a warrant on a technicality.
As well, list of the people who have FISA warrants against them is not really secret either.
Comment by Gary Ruppert — January 7, 2006 @ 8:37 pm
Gary, thanks for the answer. Would you mind telling us why the 72 hour rectroactive warrant application was also dismissed when FISA almost never turns them down… ?
January 7th, 2006 at 8:51 pm#95, I’m not a troll here, I’ve posted often, why the nasty tone calling me a fool, I quoted a newstory opinion.
January 7th, 2006 at 8:52 pmGary, you need to get a clue. I’m done talking to you as it’s like talking to a chair. No matter how much information and truth I present to the chair that chair is just going to stay there. Even if the house is on fire and I tell the chair to run, you will just stand there.
Comment by RemoveBush — January 7, 2006 @ 8:44 pm
Too funny… (and, sadly, too true with these trolls)!!!
January 7th, 2006 at 8:53 pmThe fact is that the FISA court had numerous activist judges who would have been likely to deny warrants for spurrious reasons
So that’s the new talking point? I guess you’ve finally conceded that a warrant is necessary so you have to blame the judges for not granting the warrants. But of course, you stubbornly refuse to blame Bush for this. Is there anything you’re willing to blame Bush for?
January 7th, 2006 at 8:54 pmI do blame Bush somewhat for repeating the claims that there were no WMDs in Iraq.
January 7th, 2006 at 8:56 pm“The fact is that the FISA court had numerous activist judges who would have been likely to deny warrants for spurrious reasons
Comment by Gary Ruppert”
–
What are you smoking? So, a handful of denials over 26 years out of what 20,000 (more? less?) approved requests? That’s activist? Too funny. (Oh, and please provide proof that the FISA court had these activist judges - doh!)
It’s clear, the wingnuts are in a different universe.
Now, go back and really answer the question.
January 7th, 2006 at 8:56 pmThe fact is that the FISA court had numerous activist judges who would have been likely to deny warrants for spurrious reasons
Comment by Gary Ruppert — January 7, 2006 @ 8:49 pm
Like who? And why would any judge, activist of otherwise, not want to stop terrorists? It’s like people who are afraid to fly in airplanes without ever considering that the pilot doesn’t want to die either…
January 7th, 2006 at 8:56 pmThat one judge who quit was an activist judge
January 7th, 2006 at 8:58 pmI do blame Bush somewhat for repeating the claims that there were no WMDs in Iraq.
Comment by Gary Ruppert — January 7, 2006 @ 8:56 pm
How much is ’somewhat’, and why only somewhat? Who gets the rest of that blame?
January 7th, 2006 at 8:59 pmunbelievable: - unbelievable! :) I really didn’t think there were people this dense. Gary Puppet…er….Ruppert is a trip (or is tripping) :)
January 7th, 2006 at 8:59 pmThat one judge who quit was an activist judge
How was he an activist judge? Was it because he committed the unconstitutional sin of disagreeing with Gary Ruppert?
January 7th, 2006 at 9:00 pm