[quote]pookie wrote:
That’s hogwash of course.
[/quote]
You haven’t been paying attention.
The current dem party isn’t known to be “strong” on national security.
Don’t take my word for it, ask around.
JeffR
[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
It’s like letting a bill die in committee or filibustering.
How? They offered an extension on the current bill. If the Reps hadn’t turned it down, it would be business as usual until they got around to voting on the bill.
If anyone’s playing around with national security, it’s the GOP, and just so they can have a little political ammo to attack the Democrats this coming election… petty and pathetic.
[/quote]
You really aren’t reading what I’m writing.
That’s ok, it usually doesn’t end up well when you try to think it through.
Go back and read what I wrote again. Compare how the Senate responded versus how the House responded.
You’ll see they’ve already had an extension, they pissed it away.
JeffR
The Dems in control of congress is bad enough. If they get the White House too, things could get really bad, really soon.
The guy who said Republicans supporting small government being a gone era, I think you’re right. There aren’t many true conservatives left, especially not in the running for President.
Security and defense, along with immigration, are the biggest issues the government needs to spend the most time and money on right now. The Dems are on the wrong side of both issues. Giving illegals amnesty? Pretty much demilitarization? Not exactly what I want from the government.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
The current dem party isn’t known to be “strong” on national security.[/quote]
Let’s see: The House didn’t pass the motion to extend the earlier extension further.
So the law reverts to it’s previous FISA statute with the Patriot Act amendments, right?
That means the government can still intercept calls between two foreign parties, just as they’ve always been allowed to do. Right?
If one of the parties is a US citizen, they can intercept the call at will, BUT they have three days to ask the secret FISA court for a retroactive warrant. Right?
To get the warrant, they don’t even have to show probable cause; they simply need to indicate that the wiretap is part of an ongoing national security investigation, and the judge, according to the Patriot Act modifications, has to grant it.
Right?
So where’s the fucking problem?
The increase in danger from foreign enemies is exactly zero.
Ongoing investigations can continue unimpeded, and new ones are entirely possible as long as a retroactive warrant is requested.
Basically, one check (and a weak one at that) has been restored on the government’s ability to spy on its own citizen.
You think that’s a bad thing?
The Reps had their bluff called and are running around like headless chickens trying to get traction on this. And since most citizens are grossly uninformed when it comes to FISA, the Patriot Act and all those others laws that get passed without anyone paying attention to them, they’ll probably buy the Rep story.
Nothing new. The Republicans lying themselves into the “we’re the best at national security” position, yet again.
So, why are you crying little Jeff?
[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
The current dem party isn’t known to be “strong” on national security.
Let’s see: The House didn’t pass the motion to extend the earlier extension further.
So the law reverts to it’s previous FISA statute with the Patriot Act amendments, right?
That means the government can still intercept calls between two foreign parties, just as they’ve always been allowed to do. Right?
If one of the parties is a US citizen, they can intercept the call at will, BUT they have three days to ask the secret FISA court for a retroactive warrant. Right?
To get the warrant, they don’t even have to show probable cause; they simply need to indicate that the wiretap is part of an ongoing national security investigation, and the judge, according to the Patriot Act modifications, has to grant it.
Right?
So where’s the fucking problem?
The increase in danger from foreign enemies is exactly zero.
Ongoing investigations can continue unimpeded, and new ones are entirely possible as long as a retroactive warrant is requested.
Basically, one check (and a weak one at that) has been restored on the government’s ability to spy on its own citizen.
You think that’s a bad thing?
The Reps had their bluff called and are running around like headless chickens trying to get traction on this. And since most citizens are grossly uninformed when it comes to FISA, the Patriot Act and all those others laws that get passed without anyone paying attention to them, they’ll probably buy the Rep story.
Nothing new. The Republicans lying themselves into the “we’re the best at national security” position, yet again.
So, why are you crying little Jeff?
[/quote]
pookie,
I think it was Sun Tzu who first said that a man should choose his fights carefully.
You have violated that. The usual suspects have come and gone on this thread. They, at least, understand that allying themselves with this Congress is a poor strategic decision.
You fail to acknowledge that what the democrats are doing is due to partisan politics. Politics over principle. I know that you favor democrats as they are least likely to worsen your already massive inferiority complex. They are least likely to remind you quebecois of how insignificant you are on the world stage. They are far more likely to act like we are holding queens, when we really have all the aces.
I’ll try one more time. Suppose you are correct. Suppose the democrats are acting on motives other than Bush Derangement Syndrome. Suppose they truly wanted to examine this bill.
Why would they piss away the first extension? Where are the hearings? Where are the speeches?
If they really needed another extension to consider this bill, why go on a planned recess? If they needed another 3 weeks, why spend 10-12 days of it ON VACATION?
Now, I know, and you know, that if the Republicans were pulling these sorts of stunts, you’d be up in arms in “righteous indignation.”
Therefore, before we discuss the merits of the bill in question, I need you to acknowledge the obvious: The democrats are playing political games.
If you don’t, then I’ll just chalk it up to another one of your temper tantrums. If you can’t bring yourself to admit the obvious, then I’d be happy to discuss bill in detail.
JeffR
So, this is the bill including retroactive immunity for telecoms that participated in the warrantless wiretap program from 2001 and up? Sounds like some ass covering to me.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
I think it was Sun Tzu who first said that a man should choose his fights carefully.
You have violated that. The usual suspects have come and gone on this thread. They, at least, understand that allying themselves with this Congress is a poor strategic decision.
You fail to acknowledge that what the democrats are doing is due to partisan politics. Politics over principle. I know that you favor democrats as they are least likely to worsen your already massive inferiority complex. They are least likely to remind you quebecois of how insignificant you are on the world stage. They are far more likely to act like we are holding queens, when we really have all the aces.
I’ll try one more time. Suppose you are correct. Suppose the democrats are acting on motives other than Bush Derangement Syndrome. Suppose they truly wanted to examine this bill.
Why would they piss away the first extension? Where are the hearings? Where are the speeches?
If they really needed another extension to consider this bill, why go on a planned recess? If they needed another 3 weeks, why spend 10-12 days of it ON VACATION?
Now, I know, and you know, that if the Republicans were pulling these sorts of stunts, you’d be up in arms in “righteous indignation.”
Therefore, before we discuss the merits of the bill in question, I need you to acknowledge the obvious: The democrats are playing political games.
If you don’t, then I’ll just chalk it up to another one of your temper tantrums. If you can’t bring yourself to admit the obvious, then I’d be happy to discuss bill in detail.
JeffR
[/quote]
Jeff, Jeff, Jeff… it’s so sad to see you carry on like you do when you realize someone has shown your “righteous indignation” to be little more than blatant misinformation hiding behind partisan hackery and demagoguery.
It’s sadder still that you then always bring up the same non-issue: Yes, I’m quite aware that Quebec - even Canada - does not have the same geopolitical impact the US has. How is that pertinent to the topic at hand? How does that make your fabrications any more believable?
All I get from your post is that I’m entirely right on each point I previously posted.
Knowing your habitual proclivity to jump with both feet on any factual mistake you can manage to spot, seeing you address none of my questions can only mean they are all correct.
You simply chose the most roundabout and, quite frankly, boring way of saying “Pookie, you’re right. I should get my facts straights before posting foolishness.”
Ergo, national safety is not affected one iota by that bill expiring.
Are the Dems playing games? Let’s assume they are. Are the Reps? Of course. Does a bear shit in the woods? BOTH parties play the game.
I’d be surprised to find a political party anywhere in the world who doesn’t play political games.
And why ask me to acknowledge that games are being played when I’ve done exactly that in my previous “hogwash” post? Oh, right, you don’t react well when your little kiddie ploys are exposed, and then spew a lot of nonsense to try and divert the attention somewhere else.
Unlikely to work.
The real question - the non-partisan one - is: Are those games putting national security in jeopardy?
The answer is no, they aren’t.
Case closed.
[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
I think it was Sun Tzu who first said that a man should choose his fights carefully.
You have violated that. The usual suspects have come and gone on this thread. They, at least, understand that allying themselves with this Congress is a poor strategic decision.
You fail to acknowledge that what the democrats are doing is due to partisan politics. Politics over principle. I know that you favor democrats as they are least likely to worsen your already massive inferiority complex. They are least likely to remind you quebecois of how insignificant you are on the world stage. They are far more likely to act like we are holding queens, when we really have all the aces.
I’ll try one more time. Suppose you are correct. Suppose the democrats are acting on motives other than Bush Derangement Syndrome. Suppose they truly wanted to examine this bill.
Why would they piss away the first extension? Where are the hearings? Where are the speeches?
If they really needed another extension to consider this bill, why go on a planned recess? If they needed another 3 weeks, why spend 10-12 days of it ON VACATION?
Now, I know, and you know, that if the Republicans were pulling these sorts of stunts, you’d be up in arms in “righteous indignation.”
Therefore, before we discuss the merits of the bill in question, I need you to acknowledge the obvious: The democrats are playing political games.
If you don’t, then I’ll just chalk it up to another one of your temper tantrums. If you can’t bring yourself to admit the obvious, then I’d be happy to discuss bill in detail.
JeffR
Jeff, Jeff, Jeff… it’s so sad to see you carry on like you do when you realize someone has shown your “righteous indignation” to be little more than blatant misinformation hiding behind partisan hackery and demagoguery.
It’s sadder still that you then always bring up the same non-issue: Yes, I’m quite aware that Quebec - even Canada - does not have the same geopolitical impact the US has. How is that pertinent to the topic at hand? How does that make your fabrications any more believable?
All I get from your post is that I’m entirely right on each point I previously posted.
Knowing your habitual proclivity to jump with both feet on any factual mistake you can manage to spot, seeing you address none of my questions can only mean they are all correct.
You simply chose the most roundabout and, quite frankly, boring way of saying “Pookie, you’re right. I should get my facts straights before posting foolishness.”
Ergo, national safety is not affected one iota by that bill expiring.
Are the Dems playing games? Let’s assume they are. Are the Reps? Of course. Does a bear shit in the woods? BOTH parties play the game.
I’d be surprised to find a political party anywhere in the world who doesn’t play political games.
And why ask me to acknowledge that games are being played when I’ve done exactly that in my previous “hogwash” post? Oh, right, you don’t react well when your little kiddie ploys are exposed, and then spew a lot of nonsense to try and divert the attention somewhere else.
Unlikely to work.
The real question - the non-partisan one - is: Are those games putting national security in jeopardy?
The answer is no, they aren’t.
Case closed.
[/quote]
pookie,
You clearly stated that Republicans are playing games. “Of course” for Republicans. But, the closest you can bring yourself to castigate the democrats is: “Let’s assume they are.”
That just isn’t good enough.
I want to discuss the merits of the bill. I welcome it. First, you are going to have to prove that I’m not wasting my time. I’ve made it easy for you. Just say something along the lines of: “The democrats are playing political games.”
It’s so easy.
Then, I’ll be happy to discuss why I think you are wrong- headed in your interpretation of the bill.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Just say something along the lines of: “The democrats are playing political games.”
[/quote]
Not too fast on the uptake are you? Let’s use short, simple sentences.
See “hogwash” post above.
Note: “Both parties are playing the game.”
Parse and translate: “Both” here means “The Democrats and the Republicans,” “are playing the game” means… well, even you can figure that one out.
Get it?
The smart thing to do here, Jeff, is to say “I was wrong; I jumped the gun before getting my facts straight. Thanks for setting me right, Pooks.”
[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Just say something along the lines of: “The democrats are playing political games.”
Not too fast on the uptake are you? Let’s use short, simple sentences.
See “hogwash” post above.
Note: “Both parties are playing the game.”
Parse and translate: “Both” here means “The Democrats and the Republicans,” “are playing the game” means… well, even you can figure that one out.
Get it?
The smart thing to do here, Jeff, is to say “I was wrong; I jumped the gun before getting my facts straight. Thanks for setting me right, Pooks.”
[/quote]
pookie,
Your last post was crap. It didn’t acknowledge the obvious truth of the matter.
The democrats are playing political games with national security. They are so afraid of giving George Bush a “win” that they’ll stall and hide behind procedure. The Congressional democrats have been so ineffectual in their aims that they are bitter and entrenched.
When you have a President and a Senate that overwhelmingly support a measure, you had better take a serious look at the issue at hand.
The House democrats have chosen to not address the issue. They’ve asked for and received an extension. They didn’t treat the issue seriously and essentially have stalled until the current provisions have expired.
If they were serious about studying the bill, wouldn’t they have called a special session of Congress instead of going on vacation? If they were seriously considering the merits of the bill at hand, why let it expire? They are de facto proclaiming, by their tactics, that they disagree with the provisions.
AT LEAST, put it to a vote.
They know that it would pass.
That is legislative malfeasance.
JeffR
Well Jeff, I’m bored.
All you do is repeat the same canards about national security being threatened when I’ve explained to you above, in clear and simple terms, why that assertion does not stand up to scrutiny.
I have zero interest in debating your opinion of the Dems and Reps… your bias precludes any honest debate, so don’t waste my time.
If you don’t like being schooled, come prepared next time.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Well Jeff, I’m bored.
All you do is repeat the same canards about national security being threatened when I’ve explained to you above, in clear and simple terms, why that assertion does not stand up to scrutiny.
I have zero interest in debating your opinion of the Dems and Reps… your bias precludes any honest debate, so don’t waste my time.
If you don’t like being schooled, come prepared next time.
[/quote]
You don’t deserve this because you are a weasel.
However, I’m feeling charitable.
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=C27E296F-ABE2-4168-A7D3-6DE7076A8B5B
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
You don’t deserve this because you are a weasel.
However, I’m feeling charitable.
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=C27E296F-ABE2-4168-A7D3-6DE7076A8B5B
JeffR
[/quote]
Your little article is wrong. It mentions FISA, but conveniently avoids mentioning the Patriot Act provisions that apply to it.
They make it seem as though getting a warrant for a new investigation is now a huge red-tape endeavor, when in reality they can be granted retroactively and automatically.
Keep typing away like a good little puppet. If it’s posted on a website backed by David Horowitz, it’s obviously true and unbiased, right?
If nothing else, we’ve learned who you let do your thinking for you. It will save us some time.
[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
You don’t deserve this because you are a weasel.
However, I’m feeling charitable.
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=C27E296F-ABE2-4168-A7D3-6DE7076A8B5B
JeffR
Your little article is wrong. It mentions FISA, but conveniently avoids mentioning the Patriot Act provisions that apply to it.
They make it seem as though getting a warrant for a new investigation is now a huge red-tape endeavor, when in reality they can be granted retroactively and automatically.
Keep typing away like a good little puppet. If it’s posted on a website backed by David Horowitz, it’s obviously true and unbiased, right?
If nothing else, we’ve learned who you let do your thinking for you. It will save us some time.
[/quote]
You are such an asswipe. You’d besmirch any source.
There are undeniable truths to that article.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
You are such an asswipe. You’d besmirch any source.
There are undeniable truths to that article.
JeffR
[/quote]
Let’s try it this way:
Any laws broken?
If not, who gives a crap?
[quote]JeffR wrote:
You are such an asswipe. You’d besmirch any source.[/quote]
Besmirch? How is pointing out that your source leaves out half the story “besmirching” anything? Do you see the Patriot Act being mentioned anywhere? No? Why not? It’s still in effect and has direct relevance to the FISA statutes.
Don’t you think it would be a good idea to take what it says into account? It’s just law, after all.
If anything, you should be, again, thanking me for pointing out the missing information. You are now able to better assess the situation and come to a conclusion that won’t make you look like a loon to the informed, adult world.
Well, yes, but not those you think.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
pookie wrote:
That’s hogwash of course.
You haven’t been paying attention.
The current dem party isn’t known to be “strong” on national security.
Don’t take my word for it, ask around.
JeffR
[/quote]
Factually, “stronger” on national security (more terror = less safe…if you asked around that is.) As always the goal is LESS terror.
[quote]100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:
pookie wrote:
That’s hogwash of course.
You haven’t been paying attention.
The current dem party isn’t known to be “strong” on national security.
Don’t take my word for it, ask around.
JeffR
Factually, “stronger” on national security (more terror = less safe…if you asked around that is.) As always the goal is LESS terror.
[/quote]
lumpy/100meters:
Bless my soul, I’m glad to see you!!! We haven’t had a pure dem around for a while. I’m forced to slap around pseudo-dems (canadians). It’s like an appetizer.
Just out of curiosty, please tell me what segment of the population thinks you guys are strong on terrorism?
As a follow-up, what exactly have you done to deserve the mantra of “strong on terrorism?”
Thanks in advance.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:
pookie wrote:
That’s hogwash of course.
You haven’t been paying attention.
The current dem party isn’t known to be “strong” on national security.
Don’t take my word for it, ask around.
JeffR
Factually, “stronger” on national security (more terror = less safe…if you asked around that is.) As always the goal is LESS terror.
lumpy/100meters:
Bless my soul, I’m glad to see you!!! We haven’t had a pure dem around for a while. I’m forced to slap around pseudo-dems (canadians). It’s like an appetizer.
Just out of curiosty, please tell me what segment of the population thinks you guys are strong on terrorism?
As a follow-up, what exactly have you done to deserve the mantra of “strong on terrorism?”
Thanks in advance.
JeffR
[/quote]
I don’t know the answer to number one,
as for number two, my contention is that “we” are “stronger” on terrorism for the most obvious reason of having been against, for the most part, the policies that have factually made us less safe against terrorism.
It’s very simple more terror means less safe. “We” want to have less terror (be more safe)
[quote]100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:
100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:
pookie wrote:
That’s hogwash of course.
You haven’t been paying attention.
The current dem party isn’t known to be “strong” on national security.
Don’t take my word for it, ask around.
JeffR
Factually, “stronger” on national security (more terror = less safe…if you asked around that is.) As always the goal is LESS terror.
lumpy/100meters:
Bless my soul, I’m glad to see you!!! We haven’t had a pure dem around for a while. I’m forced to slap around pseudo-dems (canadians). It’s like an appetizer.
Just out of curiosty, please tell me what segment of the population thinks you guys are strong on terrorism?
As a follow-up, what exactly have you done to deserve the mantra of “strong on terrorism?”
Thanks in advance.
JeffR
I don’t know the answer to number one,
as for number two, my contention is that “we” are “stronger” on terrorism for the most obvious reason of having been against, for the most part, the policies that have factually made us less safe against terrorism.
It’s very simple more terror means less safe. “We” want to have less terror (be more safe)
[/quote]
lumpy/100 meters:
Thanks for the honest answer. I was worried you’d come up with something I hadn’t heard about. I need not have worried.
Being against something doesn’t make you stronger.
Less safe against terrorism? Seems like the U.S. has been doing pretty well thwarting a repeat of 9/11. What’s the count? 6.5 years?
Hell, even your “attacking in Iraq will lead to more terrorism” is failing miserably.
If you were intellectually honest, you’d compare the attacks before and after the surge was instituted.
I won’t hold my breath.
In short, dems are weak on fighting terrorism.
JeffR