who's worse, bush vs nixon[views:13615][posts:40][poll! to vote:click here] to view:click here] _____________________________________ [May 9,2006 8:52pm - the_reverend ""] [img] [img] |
| _____________________________________ [May 9,2006 10:43pm - HailTheLeaf ""] Bush is worse, hands down... |
| _________________________________ [May 9,2006 10:57pm - pisscup ""] Hoser voted for Bush, but he'll never admit it. |
| _________________________________ [May 9,2006 11:57pm - sxealex ""] statistics supplied by fox news |
| _____________________________________ [May 10,2006 1:02am - Sacreligion ""] anyone of weak character appointed to a position of power will inevitably be hated by those beneath him we need a good president for once...not some marketable jackass dangling from a string i couldn't vote for both so i decided not to |
| ____________________________________ [May 10,2006 1:42am - PatMeebles ""] well, nixon's wiretaps were actually domestic... |
| _______________________________ [May 10,2006 4:55am - silky ""] nixon actually introduced a lot of very progressive social programs... and sent thousands of people to their deaths. |
| ____________________________________ [May 10,2006 8:00am - eddie NLI ""] i dunno, but this would be my order worst 1.Buchanan 2.Hoover 3.Mckinley 4.bush/nixon |
| ______________________________________ [May 10,2006 8:45am - the_reverend ""] what is buchanan ever do to you to get the #1 slot? is it cause you thought he was gay? look, the guy just didnt want to get married, ok? |
| ______________________________________ [May 10,2006 10:57am - HailTheLeaf ""] PatMeebles said:well, nixon's wiretaps were actually domestic... As are Bush's..in fact he's voilating a law that was put in place after Nixon to insure that it couldn't happen again. |
| _____________________________________ [May 10,2006 12:38pm - PatMeebles ""] HailTheLeaf said:PatMeebles said:well, nixon's wiretaps were actually domestic... As are Bush's..in fact he's voilating a law that was put in place after Nixon to insure that it couldn't happen again. The ignorance of that statement is laughable. |
| _______________________________________ [May 10,2006 12:51pm - the_reverend ""] I'm just mad bush isn't doing even more crazy things. c'mon there are so many things that guy could be doing. anyhow, his wire-taps are on both domestic and international. we've only seen a small part of what they are actually doing. it's not like they got exposed for 1 or 2 cases and then open their books fully. |
| _______________________________________ [May 10,2006 12:56pm - the_reverend ""] what pisses me off about bush today is the whole signing statments thing. the backdoor line item veto that noone cares about him doing. it's jefferson all over again. oh well, let them eat cake. |
| ___________________________________ [May 10,2006 2:22pm - ShadowSD ""] PatMeebles said:HailTheLeaf said:PatMeebles said:well, nixon's wiretaps were actually domestic... As are Bush's..in fact he's voilating a law that was put in place after Nixon to insure that it couldn't happen again. The ignorance of that statement is laughable. No, it's not. Whenever the Attorney General and others in the Bush administration are asked about whether any of these calls have both ends in the US, they never give a direct answer to rule out that possibility. Every analyst (and common sense) says they would rule it out unless it was true. Furthermore, FBI agents with expertise on the subject have gone on the news and stated that historically speaking, it is very likely there will be vast abuse of this obviously unchecked policy, because that's what always happens under these circumstances. The concern about the issue is so great it has resulted in many Republicans challenging the confirmation of Mike Haydn as new CIA chief, since he ran the NSA wiretapping program. Apparantely, those Republicans don't find the ignorance of her statement as laughable as you do. |
| __________________________________ [May 10,2006 3:13pm - pam nli ""] Nixon was a piece of shit, but I went with Bush. |
| ____________________________________________ [May 10,2006 3:24pm - Man_of_the_Century ""] They're almost even in thier crapitude. I voted for Nixon cause I knew just about everyone else was going to vote for Bush. We need another Bill Clinton... Greatest U.S. President since FDR! |
| ______________________________ [May 10,2006 3:24pm - Yeti ""] i am not a crook |
| _____________________________________ [May 10,2006 3:31pm - Sacreligion ""] Man_of_the_Century said:We need another Bill Clinton... Greatest U.S. President since FDR! but we can't have a man who likes getting his dick sucked in office! |
| __________________________________________ [May 10,2006 4:13pm - Pat Meebles nli ""] ShadowSD said:PatMeebles said:HailTheLeaf said:PatMeebles said:well, nixon's wiretaps were actually domestic... As are Bush's..in fact he's voilating a law that was put in place after Nixon to insure that it couldn't happen again. The ignorance of that statement is laughable. No, it's not. Whenever the Attorney General and others in the Bush administration are asked about whether any of these calls have both ends in the US, they never give a direct answer to rule out that possibility. Every analyst (and common sense) says they would rule it out unless it was true. Furthermore, FBI agents with expertise on the subject have gone on the news and stated that historically speaking, it is very likely there will be vast abuse of this obviously unchecked policy, because that's what always happens under these circumstances. The concern about the issue is so great it has resulted in many Republicans challenging the confirmation of Mike Haydn as new CIA chief, since he ran the NSA wiretapping program. Apparantely, those Republicans don't find the ignorance of her statement as laughable as you do. No, the opposition on the Republican side to Hayden is led by Rep. Hoekstra, who doesn't want a military man running the CIA. The reasoning for this is that Hoekstra believes that instead of being an advocate for the intelligence community, Hayden would turn the CIA into the defense department's bitch. I disagree with that assessment, but it's a fairly reasonable conclusion. And of course domestic calls will end up in the computers in a data mining operation. The deal is that they're supposed to be deleted unless they're followed up on constitutionally. Have any of you read FISA? Hell, you don't even need a warrant AT ALL for any type of intelligence gathering if the target is a non-US person. A US Person is defined as either a citizen or a legal alien who's living here permanently. So any tourist from another country can be spied on without any warrants according to FISA. And if you read any federal court case on the matter of eaves-dropping, the courts will say over and over again that the government CAN spy without a warrant to gather foreign intelligence. Everyone says the system is unchecked, but nobody complained about Clinton's unchecked domestic physical search (as opposed to eaves dropping). Nobody complained about Carter's eavesdropping, or FDR's spying. |
| _________________________________ [May 10,2006 4:14pm - pisscup ""] Where the fuck is Hoser when you need him??? |
| __________________________________________ [May 10,2006 4:15pm - Pat Meebles nli ""] http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/012631.php Finally, in 2002, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review decided Sealed Case No. 02-001. This case arose out of a provision of the Patriot Act that was intended to break down the “wall” between law enforcement and intelligence gathering. The Patriot Act modified Truong’s “primary purpose” test by providing that surveillance under FISA was proper if intelligence gathering was one “significant” purpose of the intercept. In the course of discussing the constitutional underpinnings (or lack thereof) of the Truong test, the court wrote: The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power. The question before us is the reverse, does FISA amplify the President’s power by providing a mechanism that at least approaches a classic warrant and which therefore supports the government’s contention that FISA searches are constitutionally reasonable. That is the current state of the law. The federal appellate courts have unanimously held that the President has the inherent constitutional authority to order warrantless searches for purposes of gathering foreign intelligence information, which includes information about terrorist threats. Furthermore, since this power is derived from Article II of the Constitution, the FISA Review Court has specifically recognized that it cannot be taken away or limited by Congressional action. That being the case, the NSA intercept program, which consists of warrantless electronic intercepts for purposes of foreign intelligence gathering, is legal. Read the whole thing. THE WHOLE THING. |
| ______________________________________________ [May 10,2006 4:29pm - BobNOMAAMRooney nli ""] I wish that when people are arguing politics on the internet they would try to find unbiased sources rather than posting links to blogs and sites with banner ads advertising either "FU*K BU$H" or "LUCK FIBERALS" t-shirts. |
| ____________________________________ [May 10,2006 6:26pm - PatMeebles ""] Biased, yes. Unqualified? Not at all. I don't really see how you can argue against their piece when all their doing is quoting court cases in their proper context. These guys are lawyers by trade. It isn't Cletus Buckeye's hick-loving law analysis. |
| ___________________________________ [May 10,2006 7:23pm - ShadowSD ""] Pat Meebles nli said:http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/012631.php None of this addresses one basic problem. The FISA laws that were created in the late 1970's were meant to prevent the executive branch from violating the Constitution's fourth amendment. So even if we are to believe that courts judged that 72 hour waiting period unconstitutional because it meant the FISA court was encroaching on Presidential authority, it still not does do away with the issues concerning why that original law was created in the first place: to prevent the executive branch from violating the fourth amendment. It is a basic legal principle (and basic logic) that if any law protecting the constitution is later deemed unconstitutional, that the original consitutional question that inspired that law is not settled and tucked away, but rather remains unresolved. |
| ___________________________________ [May 10,2006 7:31pm - ShadowSD ""] That's the legal answer, here's the common sense one: Is it more likely that the administration wants unchecked power, or that all these people would be trying so hard to challenge them in the courts when they have no legal ground to stand on? |
| _____________________________________ [May 10,2006 9:45pm - HailTheLeaf ""] Not to mention the Patriot Act in and of itself is unconsitutional and violates our rights. And why does Bush need to spy on groups that promote peace here in the U.S. to gather foreign intelligence on "terrorists"? |
| _____________________________________ [May 10,2006 11:33pm - PatMeebles ""] Bush isn't the first to do this, and he won't be the last. And who are "all these people" that want to try him in court? ACLU? Ray McGovern? Cynthia McKinney? And if a law is unconstitutional, the president does not have to follow it. Period. And I'm going by what FISA judges said when they were on a panel discussing the NSA program with senators. The FISA court was, in fact, one of the courts that wrote that the president does have the authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps for intelligence gathering. |
| ___________________________________ [May 12,2006 3:19pm - ShadowSD ""] I suppose no one told that to the FISA judge who resigned in protest when he found out about the warrantless wiretaps. |
| _____________________________________ [May 12,2006 3:27pm - HailTheLeaf ""] yes, because in a true democracy, to truly have FREEDOM the government can completely invade your life, spy on it's own citizens, and find out whatever it wants about you. It's the American way! |
| ___________________________________ [May 15,2006 1:09pm - ShadowSD ""] PatMeebles said:And who are "all these people" that want to try him in court? ACLU? Ray McGovern? Cynthia McKinney? The favorite argument of Bush loyalists, marginalize any dissent as extremist. In reality, though, there are plenty of people from across the political spectrum who want the wiretapping laws examined, many of them conservatives. You say that Republicans only have issues with Hayden's military status and not the eavesdropping, but House Majority Leader Republican John Boehner, among many conservatives in Congress, is focusing on the wiretaps, demanding information on their scope. According to a recent poll, 53% of the public is against warrantless domestic wiretapping, and conservatives have been some of the most vocal against it: "It means that we're changing our whole concept of what liberty is. People used to think that they could make a phone call, and the fact that they were doing that and who it was to would be confidential between themselves, and in fact there's a law on the books that says it's supposed to be confidential."- Former Republican Party Chairman Jim Gilmore (MSNBC - Thursday, 5/11) "You know this program scares the hell out of me... I was always frightened by it. I'd go home to the district, I would complain about it; liberals would agree with me, conservatives would agree with me, but the teeming masses in the middle couldn't care less. Their attitude is simple: if I'm not a member of Al Qaeda, I've got nothing to worry about. And that is a dangerous position to take." - Former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough (MSNBC - Friday, 5/12) "I don't care for it at all... it's interesting, though, people are still calling Bush a conservative. Since when are conservatives so willing to trust the government? This stuff stays on the books, its purpose always expands, that's the nature of goverment. We're using it to go after Al Qaeda now, what will it be used for twenty years from now?" - Conservative Commentator Tucker Carlson (MSNBC - Friday, 5/12) Responding to Carlson on that same program, Scarborough replied: "Just imagine if Bill Clinton tried to pass something like this. Even after 9/11, Republicans would not stand for it." Carlson agreed. |
| ___________________________________ [May 17,2006 1:19pm - ShadowSD ""] That last part really says it all. |
| ____________________________________ [May 17,2006 1:28pm - PatMeebles ""] You do realize that the government could not spy on everyone, even if it wanted to, right? People spend soooooo much time on the phone, it's an astronomical number even when you're only counting international phone calls (something like 2 billion minutes last year). And that last poll you cited is from a gallup poll that was surveying about the latest leaked story. That specific poll's questions did not mention that 1) The name, address, time, or content of the phone call is not being collected. 2) The data collected is stored in a computer, and is never seen by human beings. 3) The computer is looking for numbers that are already being investigated. When these factors are mentioned (at least the first one) in a different poll, the numbers become 2-1 in support of it. 60+% support versus 30+% dissaproval. |
| ___________________________________ [May 17,2006 4:51pm - ShadowSD ""] And conversely, if you were to mention how there is no oversight that would ever prevent that information for being used for other purposes, you can bet the survey would be affected in the other direction. And how about if the people surveyed heard about this? "Federal Source to ABC News: We Know Who You're Calling A Senior federal law enforcement agent tells ABC News the government's tracking the numbers we (Brian Ross and Richard Esposito) call in an effort to root out confidential sources." - ABC Reporters Brian Ross and Richard Esposito, 5/15 |
| ____________________________________ [May 17,2006 5:47pm - PatMeebles ""] Actually, they don't know who I'M calling. There's no name, or content included in the call. They don't even have the resources to look at everyone's call, because there's simply too much data to collect in that instance. They're only looking at numbers that were called from a certain number that they've already looked at. And since leaking is illegal, I'm honestly surprised that ABC would be shocked to find out that the government is looking for leakers. They didn't even mention if a warrant was involved. If they knew that warrant weren't not used, you'd know they stress it when talking about it. |
| ___________________________________ [May 17,2006 6:03pm - ShadowSD ""] Because if there was a warrant, the agent would be risking prosecution by tipping off ABC,whereas if there was no warrant, he couldn't violate it by warning them. Furthermore, such whistleblowing would serve no purpose if there WERE a warrant, and makes perfect sense if there's no warrant (given the timing). |
| ____________________________________ [May 17,2006 6:15pm - PatMeebles ""] I was talking about a warrant served to tap phones to find a leaker. You seem to be referring to the program that's being "whistleblowed" (I can't think of another suffix to make that word work). That is, if I'm reading this right. "such whistleblowing would serve no purpose if there WERE a warrant" |
| ___________________________________ [May 17,2006 6:44pm - ShadowSD ""] I know, I was referring to the difference between the two. If there IS a warrant to tap the phone, it has nothing to do with the current NSA story, so why would the agent risk violating a warrant by tipping them off? On the other hand, if there is NO warrant to tap the phone, then the whistleblowing is both relevant to the current wiretapping controversy and less of a risk for the agent doing it in terms of being prosecuted. Therefore, given the two options, it is more likely that there was no warrant here. |
| ___________________________________ [May 17,2006 6:58pm - ShadowSD ""] The main issue here though is what would stop the government from doing that to ABC, circumventing not only the fourth amendment but the first amendment? Nothing, given the President's attitude towards the law, a boundless authority that goes beyond anything Nixon attempted. |
| ____________________________________ [May 17,2006 8:08pm - PatMeebles ""] Leaks are illegal. Finding out who's leaking the information isn't circumventing free speech. |
| _______________________________ [May 17,2006 9:39pm - hoser ""] I vote hail the queef! |
| _______________________________________ [May 17,2006 11:13pm - hungtableed ""] hoser said:I vote hail the queef! I dont even know what this is about, but she gets my vote as well. |