FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Al Gore and GW





rwojick
Leave it to Al Gore to pick up on the fact that GW broke the law 30 DAYS LATER.

The law says you have to have a warrant to do a phone tap and GW says he did many with no warrant. It doesn't take me 30 days to see the law was broken.

Now, what to do about it?

I think if the President vows it will not happen again then that should be the end of it. There are far too many more people who need their rights violated to have the "good guys" slowed down by a law or too....

Rights are what our Country is about. I think we EACH AND ALL could do a better job of respecting other people's rights.
S3nd K3ys
rwojick wrote:
Leave it to Al Gore to pick up on the fact that GW broke the law 30 DAYS LATER.

The law says you have to have a warrant to do a phone tap and GW says he did many with no warrant. It doesn't take me 30 days to see the law was broken.

Now, what to do about it?

I think if the President vows it will not happen again then that should be the end of it. There are far too many more people who need their rights violated to have the "good guys" slowed down by a law or too....

Rights are what our Country is about. I think we EACH AND ALL could do a better job of respecting other people's rights.


I haven't taken Gore seriously in years. It's his (and YOUR) opinion that he broke the law. There's another topic for this, but in short, if Bush is spying on international targets tied to terrorists, I have no problem with it as long as it keeps working and keeps me safe.

On the other hand, if it's domestic spying, we're gonna have a HUGE problem and it'll be one Bush can't survive.
chiragcoolboy
Code:
I haven't taken Gore seriously in years. It's his (and YOUR) opinion that he broke the law. There's another topic for this, but in short, if Bush is spying on international targets tied to terrorists, I have no problem with it as long as it keeps working and keeps me safe.

On the other hand, if it's domestic spying, we're gonna have a HUGE problem and it'll be one Bush can't survive.
SunburnedCactus
Uh, yeah, that's good code... Confused
Dorsk82
S3nd K3ys wrote:

On the other hand, if it's domestic spying, we're gonna have a HUGE problem and it'll be one Bush can't survive.


Just for the record it was domestic spying and international spying has always been legal with the NSA! The legal issue lies with the fact that the NSA was being employed domestically without approval from the appropriate courts.
S3nd K3ys
Dorsk82 wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:

On the other hand, if it's domestic spying, we're gonna have a HUGE problem and it'll be one Bush can't survive.


Just for the record it was domestic spying and international spying has always been legal with the NSA! The legal issue lies with the fact that the NSA was being employed domestically without approval from the appropriate courts.


You must have a pretty high security clearance, because that information has not been released. Provide sources or STFU. Rolling Eyes

I may be wrong (but I doubt it), but perhaps you could stop trying to pass on your opinions as fact.
Dorsk82
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Dorsk82 wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:

On the other hand, if it's domestic spying, we're gonna have a HUGE problem and it'll be one Bush can't survive.


Just for the record it was domestic spying and international spying has always been legal with the NSA! The legal issue lies with the fact that the NSA was being employed domestically without approval from the appropriate courts.


You must have a pretty high security clearance, because that information has not been released. Provide sources or STFU. Rolling Eyes

I may be wrong (but I doubt it), but perhaps you could stop trying to pass on your opinions as fact.


You are wrong it is as simple as that! Stop and read the news before you post such a hostile response! Wink

Quote:
President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite previous legal prohibitions against such domestic spying, sources with knowledge of the program said last night.

The super-secretive NSA, which has generally been barred from domestic spying except in narrow circumstances involving foreign nationals, has monitored the e-mail, telephone calls and other communications of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of people under the program, the New York Times disclosed last night.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121600021.html

Note the words domestic spying in the above post. If you need more sources I can find them for you. Hell give me enough time and I could probably track down the US law that states the same thing. The NSA cannot be used domestically without court authorization. Bush used them domestically and that is why we have such a controversy over this issue! I can't believe I even have to explain this... Shocked

PS if you need more proof just ask and I would be more than happy to track down other similar sources (Bush even came clean about his use of the NSA for domestic spying in several news conferences so I am sure there are some clips of them left on the net!)
S3nd K3ys
Dorsk82 wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Dorsk82 wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:

On the other hand, if it's domestic spying, we're gonna have a HUGE problem and it'll be one Bush can't survive.


Just for the record it was domestic spying and international spying has always been legal with the NSA! The legal issue lies with the fact that the NSA was being employed domestically without approval from the appropriate courts.


You must have a pretty high security clearance, because that information has not been released. Provide sources or STFU. Rolling Eyes

I may be wrong (but I doubt it), but perhaps you could stop trying to pass on your opinions as fact.


You are wrong it is as simple as that! Stop and read the news before you post such a hostile response! Wink

Quote:
President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite previous legal prohibitions against such domestic spying, sources with knowledge of the program said last night.

The super-secretive NSA, which has generally been barred from domestic spying except in narrow circumstances involving foreign nationals, has monitored the e-mail, telephone calls and other communications of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of people under the program, the New York Times disclosed last night.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121600021.html

Note the words domestic spying in the above post. If you need more sources I can find them for you. Hell give me enough time and I could probably track down the US law that states the same thing. The NSA cannot be used domestically without court authorization. Bush used them domestically and that is why we have such a controversy over this issue! I can't believe I even have to explain this... Shocked

PS if you need more proof just ask and I would be more than happy to track down other similar sources (Bush even came clean about his use of the NSA for domestic spying in several news conferences so I am sure there are some clips of them left on the net!)


You've got sources that show who was spied on? Lets have them!
Dorsk82
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Dorsk82 wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Dorsk82 wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:

On the other hand, if it's domestic spying, we're gonna have a HUGE problem and it'll be one Bush can't survive.


Just for the record it was domestic spying and international spying has always been legal with the NSA! The legal issue lies with the fact that the NSA was being employed domestically without approval from the appropriate courts.


You must have a pretty high security clearance, because that information has not been released. Provide sources or STFU. Rolling Eyes

I may be wrong (but I doubt it), but perhaps you could stop trying to pass on your opinions as fact.


You are wrong it is as simple as that! Stop and read the news before you post such a hostile response! Wink

Quote:
President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite previous legal prohibitions against such domestic spying, sources with knowledge of the program said last night.

The super-secretive NSA, which has generally been barred from domestic spying except in narrow circumstances involving foreign nationals, has monitored the e-mail, telephone calls and other communications of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of people under the program, the New York Times disclosed last night.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121600021.html

Note the words domestic spying in the above post. If you need more sources I can find them for you. Hell give me enough time and I could probably track down the US law that states the same thing. The NSA cannot be used domestically without court authorization. Bush used them domestically and that is why we have such a controversy over this issue! I can't believe I even have to explain this... Shocked

PS if you need more proof just ask and I would be more than happy to track down other similar sources (Bush even came clean about his use of the NSA for domestic spying in several news conferences so I am sure there are some clips of them left on the net!)


You've got sources that show who was spied on? Lets have them!


I obviously don't have the security clearances that would be necessary to provide specific names of individuals who were spied on!! Laughing

That said though it is pretty clear from the above article as well as speeches that Bush has made that domestic spying was being conducted on suspected terrorists in the US by the NSA without consulting the appropriate courts. Whether or not that is a good or a bad thing I will leave up to you but saying it occurred is in no way "just my opinion being passed off as fact". Wink
S3nd K3ys
Dorsk82 wrote:

"just my opinion being passed off as fact".


Oh, I see. So when you said..

Dorsk82 wrote:


Just for the record it was domestic spying


..that was just an opinion? I've re-read it twice now and it still seems like you said it as fact. Wink
Soulfire
Well, since I'm no terrorist and I have nothing to hide from the government, I have no problem with it. You shouldn't have a problem with it unless you're going to be affected by it.

It keeps us safe right? It keeps incidents like 9/11 from happening right?

If they can catch the terrorists while they are still planning and whatnot, then they can thwart their plans.

While it may be a "violation of privacy," I think that your own patriotism and dedication for America should push that away. It's not like the government will act on it if nothing suspicious happens.

But alas, it's only my opinion.
Dorsk82
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Dorsk82 wrote:

"just my opinion being passed off as fact".


Oh, I see. So when you said..

Dorsk82 wrote:


Just for the record it was domestic spying


..that was just an opinion? I've re-read it twice now and it still seems like you said it as fact. Wink


I did say that Bush was conducting domestic spying as a fact because if you read the aforementioned source I cited you can see that that is in fact what occurred i.e. making my previous statement not an opinion but a FACT! What about that you couldn't understand is rather beyond me...

PS If you still need more proof that my statements about domestic spying being conducted by the US government is in fact what happened this is a quote from CNN today...
Quote:
President Bush and other officials Monday intensified their defense of a domestic surveillance program that supporters say protects against terrorism and critics say threatens civil liberties.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/23/nsa.strategy/index.html

What about the words domestic surveillance as cited by both this article and the last one I posted you can't understand is still beyond me but hey the more proof I guess the better right!? Wink
Dorsk82
Soulfire wrote:
Well, since I'm no terrorist and I have nothing to hide from the government, I have no problem with it. You shouldn't have a problem with it unless you're going to be affected by it.

It keeps us safe right? It keeps incidents like 9/11 from happening right?

If they can catch the terrorists while they are still planning and whatnot, then they can thwart their plans.

While it may be a "violation of privacy," I think that your own patriotism and dedication for America should push that away. It's not like the government will act on it if nothing suspicious happens.

But alas, it's only my opinion.


I completely agree but it is a bit of a dangerous precident to let the president redictate law without the approval of congress...unfortunately right now it is unclear whether he was given approval or not so it is too early to pass judgement but that is the concern.
S3nd K3ys
Dorsk82 wrote:


I completely agree but it is a bit of a dangerous precident to let the president redictate law without the approval of congress...unfortunately right now it is unclear whether he was given approval or not so it is too early to pass judgement but that is the concern.


He has gone thru both houses REPEATEDLY and gotten approval throughout his administration, just like several presidents before him. There is NO PROOF OF WHO, DOMESTICALLY OR INTERNATIONALLY, was spied on.

Can someone please show me ONE complaint that has been filed for the so called domestic spying? No. Because none have been.

It's just the sore loser Dems trying to dig up more dirt on Bush for something that's been going on for decades AND BEEN ACCEPTED. (Well, accepted until the Dems realized they could spin it into something the MSM will spread as something new and use it as another feeble attempt to discredit the administration...)
Dorsk82
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Dorsk82 wrote:


I completely agree but it is a bit of a dangerous precident to let the president redictate law without the approval of congress...unfortunately right now it is unclear whether he was given approval or not so it is too early to pass judgement but that is the concern.


He has gone thru both houses REPEATEDLY and gotten approval throughout his administration, just like several presidents before him. There is NO PROOF OF WHO, DOMESTICALLY OR INTERNATIONALLY, was spied on.

Can someone please show me ONE complaint that has been filed for the so called domestic spying? No. Because none have been.

It's just the sore loser Dems trying to dig up more dirt on Bush for something that's been going on for decades AND BEEN ACCEPTED. (Well, accepted until the Dems realized they could spin it into something the MSM will spread as something new and use it as another feeble attempt to discredit the administration...)


I never said he wasn't given approval I merely said that that is the concern and that the jury is still out on whether or not the domestic spying by the NSA was approved by congress or not!! I am not taking sides as to what I believe about it merely framing the debate!! That said complaints have been filed so I suggest you check your news sources a little more closely next time before ranting! (And you tried to say I posted opinion as fact...LoL...)

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10891444/
S3nd K3ys
Dorsk82 wrote:
That said complaints have been filed so I suggest you check your news sources a little more closely next time before ranting! (And you tried to say I posted opinion as fact...LoL...)

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10891444/


Oh, yeah. The ACLU brought a suit. Rolling Eyes Big surprise there. So after that one gets tossed out of court, we'll see if a legit suit comes up.
Talk2Tom11
All gore is going to start looking like john kerry is he keeps taking a stance on both sides of an issue. When clinton did no-warrent searches in 1994 it was perfectly fine in al gores eyes. But when bush does it when there is real reasons to, it is against the law.

Liberals need to start having one standard. Bashing Bush Doesn't work!

liberals tried to bash bush for 5 years now... and what did the get

Senate = Rep.
House = Rep.
White House = Rep.
Court = Soon to be Rep. 5-4

You liberals are losing everything... time to get a new plan maybe
lessthanchet22
my problem with the whole domestic spying issue and the patriot act...

THERE IS NO WAY TO TELL WHO IS A TERRORIST!!!!!

there are only two ways to detect a terrorist

1) Racial profiling

to show how wrong this is, all you have to do is look at who committed the SECOND largest terrorist attack on US soil. Timmothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were two, regular old white guys from the Midwest who were against the government. There was very little indicating that they were terrorists, especially due to their race.

2) Due cause from records

Well, if you have the due cause, you can take the case to the judges who are especially assigned to see if you have due cause to take out a terrorist. thats kinda what they're there for


and the reason i am against it:

when is power too much?

our consitution seperates power so that noone can become too powerful. now, the executive branch has the power to spy without warrants, arrest without charges and essentially break every right guaranteed by the bill of rights. next thing we know, they'll be mobilizing their armies of "anti-terror taskforces" to eliminate all of their opposition and anyone who isnt a bible thumping christian. their capitalization on 911 can go just so far

it just really bugs me when people are passive and take a "if its not hurting me it wont hurt anyone", Ostrich in the sand view. have a spine and stand up to injustice
horseatingweeds
Do the Dems get their candidates from the circus some times? If they don’t they should think about starting on. They could raise money to mach the evil corporate driven Republicans….that freed the slaves.
S3nd K3ys
Talk2Tom11 wrote:
All gore is going to start looking like john kerry is he keeps taking a stance on both sides of an issue. When clinton did no-warrent searches in 1994 it was perfectly fine in al gores eyes. But when bush does it when there is real reasons to, it is against the law.

Liberals need to start having one standard. Bashing Bush Doesn't work!

liberals tried to bash bush for 5 years now... and what did the get

Senate = Rep.
House = Rep.
White House = Rep.
Court = Soon to be Rep. 5-4

You liberals are losing everything... time to get a new plan maybe


Shocked



Dorsk82
Talk2Tom11 wrote:
All gore is going to start looking like john kerry is he keeps taking a stance on both sides of an issue. When clinton did no-warrent searches in 1994 it was perfectly fine in al gores eyes. But when bush does it when there is real reasons to, it is against the law.

Liberals need to start having one standard. Bashing Bush Doesn't work!

liberals tried to bash bush for 5 years now... and what did the get

Senate = Rep.
House = Rep.
White House = Rep.
Court = Soon to be Rep. 5-4

You liberals are losing everything... time to get a new plan maybe


As someone who usually is fairly left on most issues I would have to totally agree... just bashing Bush doesn't solve ANYTHING and I think that most reasonable people on either side of the political spectrum would like to see politicians with more honesty, integrity and consistency in their positions.
S3nd K3ys
Dorsk82 wrote:
Talk2Tom11 wrote:
All gore is going to start looking like john kerry is he keeps taking a stance on both sides of an issue. When clinton did no-warrent searches in 1994 it was perfectly fine in al gores eyes. But when bush does it when there is real reasons to, it is against the law.

Liberals need to start having one standard. Bashing Bush Doesn't work!

liberals tried to bash bush for 5 years now... and what did the get

Senate = Rep.
House = Rep.
White House = Rep.
Court = Soon to be Rep. 5-4

You liberals are losing everything... time to get a new plan maybe


As someone who usually is fairly left on most issues I would have to totally agree... just bashing Bush doesn't solve ANYTHING and I think that most reasonable people on either side of the political spectrum would like to see politicians with more honesty, integrity and consistency in their positions.


The left has been consistant. Very consistant: They constantly disagree with Bush on everything no matter the situation. They constantly fail to have a plan. They constantly make themselves look stupid, (I'm still laughing at Ted Kennedy's head blowing up in that video clip of him screaming and turning red after Alito got nominated )
Related topics
The Unofficial Jokes Thread
Le dernier film que vous avez vu ...
Control or Freedom of Internet
What did Bush lie about?
Michael Moore says...
Urban Legends About the Iraq War
Al Gore = :OWNED: (again)
Al Gore
Aquecimento Global
Al Gore´s video
Gore calls Tories' green plan a 'total fraud'
Al Gore, Global Warming and The American Healthcare System
should we care about antartic ice melting?
Real surprise - Al Gore and Tipper separation
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.