PDA

View Full Version : Spying Bush



Drop1
12-24-2005, 07:38 PM
Where are we going,into another form of terror? Is Bush right,is Bush wrong? Does America really matter in the world of today? "Freedom is just another word" You can bury America in Iraq.

pooltchr
12-24-2005, 08:07 PM
do you have a point, or are you just ranting?
/ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif
Steve

Drop1
12-24-2005, 08:25 PM
The last is a rant. The questions are things I think should be asked,and answered. Where are we going? What is Liberty,when not protected. Can you say this post is not recorded? Are we going back to UnAmericanism? A lot of questions but I would like to read how people on the Forum feel

pooltchr
12-25-2005, 07:19 AM
Well, in that case, you raise some interesting questions. I don't think there is a clear cut answer to some of them. Much as we on this forum would like to have everything in black and white, sometimes things are a little bit gray.
On 9-11, our world really changed. We finally figured out that there are people out there who will give up their lives in an effort to destroy our country. Why? Maybe they are jealous of the freedom on which our country was founded. So now, we have to fight those people in an effort to protect that freedom. The problem comes up that in order to fight this kind of enemy, many are willing to give up some of that freedom. How much we give up and for how long is not quite clear. If we don't give up any, we may lose the war on terror and ultimately the freedom some of us have fought for in the past and truely cherish. On the other hand, if we willingly give it up, then what are we fighting for anyway? There is a delicate balance that must be maintained, and it is not an easy question to answer. We can only hope that those in a position to make those decisions will keep the big picture in mind.
Personally, I would not want to be in that position.
Balancing Freedom with Security is not easy. Someone once said those who will give up freedom for security deserve neither. That may be true in the extreme, but I think it is a matter of degree. We face an enemy like none we have ever faced before, and we may need to answer some very tough questions as to how we deal with it.
Steve

Drop1
12-25-2005, 07:25 PM
I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said "those who would give up freedom for security deserve neither" I can understand there are times when it is necessary to suspend individual freedom for the good of all. What I can't understand is the lack of appreciation Bush demonstrates,for the struggle to be a free person,from the signing of the Magna Carta to the present the individual voice has been a call to be free. There is a process in place,where he could have received almost immediate approval to do what he did. He claims the right to invade the private tools of individual communication,are supported by his position as Commander and Cheif in a time of war. At the same time he says there is no telling how long the war will last. Does that mean from now on we all live under the cloud of a government without restrictions. Are we to throw probable cause out the window? I fully understand the delima,I wonder if President Bush does.

Alfie
12-25-2005, 07:50 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> If we don't give up any, we may lose the war on terror and ultimately the freedom some of us have fought for in the past and truely cherish. On the other hand, if we willingly give it up, then what are we fighting for anyway? There is a delicate balance that must be maintained, and it is not an easy question to answer. We can only hope that those in a position to make those decisions will keep the big picture in mind.
Personally, I would not want to be in that position.
Balancing Freedom with Security is not easy. <hr /></blockquote>I want them to listen in on the bad guys. I don't want them to listen in on the good guys. Possible?

pooltchr
12-26-2005, 05:33 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Alfie:</font><hr> <hr /></blockquote>I want them to listen in on the bad guys. I don't want them to listen in on the good guys. Possible? <hr /></blockquote>

I would like to think it is. I doubt that the average American is having their e-mail monitored on a daily basis. From what I understand, they monitor for specific "key words" and then focus on those specifically. Kinda like a Google search...you put in what you are looking for and get a reletively small group of choices. Some may be what you are looking for and others aren't. You focus on the ones that apply. I would hope that is what is happening, and will believe it is until I have evidence to the contrary.
Steve

Gayle in MD
12-26-2005, 07:05 AM
No, it is not possible. If you believe that absolute power corrupts absolutely, it is not possible.

The people who leaked the illegal actions of the president, were people at NSA, who were doing the listening, and felt uncomfortable with what they were doing. What does that tell you? Add to that, that there is absolutely no reason to support the need for this president to by-pass the checks and balances in place which would prevent him, and his administration from abusing power.

Then remind yourself that this administration has tried to block investigations into such occurances as the attack on 9/11, and lobbied for torture. Yes, our oh so Christian, Evangelical, halo laden president wants to torture human beings.

Add to that information, all the other lies that have been told to us by this administration, along with their MO of using politics of personal destruction going back twenty years, and used against former POW's, like McCain, and highly respected former armed service career devote's such as John Murtha, and then ask yourself if you think it is wise for America to "Trust" George Bush to decide where our rights of privacy lines should be drawn.

Neither Bush or Cheney gives a damn about getting bin Laden, if they did, we'd have had him long ago. This war is about oil, that's what it has always been about, and all the fancy talk they give out about a war on terror, and "They hate us for our freedom" with backdrops of flags and cheering armed service personal is nothing more than Madison Avenue tactics used to BS Americans.

Then take a good long look at Dick Cheney's face, and tell me you don't see evil there. Study the body language of Bush and Cheney, you will see the essence of evil. Watch Bush's mouth when he speaks about the war, and the spying, and torture, his mouth gives him away. The contradictions are outstanding. He justifies his illegal spying on Americans under the guise of trying to protect Americans, yet he has failed to implement such basic things as putting a universal terrorist list into the hands of our Police, Transportation and Border officials, and protecting our Chemical factories and nuclear power plants. He got failing grades on implementing the transformation of our National Security. And worse, didn't bother to turn on the television when a possible category five hurricane was on a collison coarse with the most vulnerable area of our southern coast, he was too busy fund raising, money for his political party.

Now, we are hearing the bell ringing, Iran, Iran, Iran....we already know that we played into bin Laden's hands when we occupied Iraq, now we are about to learn whether we also played into the hands of Iran.

This is JMO, just a bit of balance to the opinions of the glazed eyed, trusting Bush supporters, who would relinquish their freedom to a known liar who can justify torture, and the destruction of our Constitutional Rights.


Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
12-26-2005, 10:43 AM
Gayle,
Once again you missed the question. He asked "is it possible" He did not ask if it is happening. You seem to jump at any chance to go into your standard rant about the administration. We've heard it all before. Why don't you save yourself some time and just store it somewhere so you can cut and paste your stock answer. Sure would save a lot of typing!

wolfdancer
12-26-2005, 12:38 PM
Gayle, doesn't quite fit the thread, but....




What Bush Could Learn from Lincoln
He has a tight circle of trust, and he likes it that way. But members of both parties are urging Bush to reach beyond the White House walls. How he governs—and how his M.O. stacks up historically.

Published on Saturday, December 24, 2005 by the Boston Globe

--What Bush Could Learn from Lincoln

by Robert Kuttner--

My Christmas present to George W. Bush is a copy of Doris Kearns Goodwin's splendid study of Lincoln and his Cabinet, ''Team of Rivals." President Bush believes in redemption, and so do I. Here are just a few things Bush might profitably learn from our first Republican president.

Lincoln assumed the presidency at a time when the nation was horribly divided, not into culturally warring ''blue" states and ''red" ones, but into a real civil war between blues and grays -- the states that stayed in the Union and those that seceded. Even among the unionists, Lincoln's own Republican Party and Cabinet were bitterly rent between those who wanted to accelerate emancipation and punish the South and those who gave top priority to keeping the Republic whole.

Lincoln's priority, always, was to preserve the Union and to reduce the sectional and ideological bitterness. As Goodwin brilliantly shows, he did so by the force of his personality and the generosity of his spirit. Lincoln had an unerring sense of when public opinion was ready for partial, then full abolition of slavery, and he would not move until he felt he had the people behind him. He governed by listening and persuading.

By contrast, Bush's entire presidency is about eking out narrow victories, not about building national consensus. Even when he prevails, Bush wins by manipulation and stealth. His legacy is deepened division and bitterness.

Bush is said to live in a bubble. His tiny inner circle protects him from realities that might upset him or challenge his dimly informed certitudes. Lincoln, by contrast, had the confidence to reach out to critics and seek out widely divergent viewpoints.

Goodwin's unusual title, ''Team of Rivals," refers to the fact that Lincoln deliberately included in his Cabinet the prominent leaders of different factions of his party who had opposed him for the 1860 nomination. Some, like his treasury secretary, Salmon Chase, a fierce abolitionist, wanted Lincoln to proceed much more aggressively. Others feared that Lincoln was moving too fast and alienating border states like Maryland and Kentucky that permitted slavery but had voted not to leave the Union.

Goodwin, improbably finding something wholly new to illuminate this most heavily researched of historic figures, relies partly on the diaries of his contemporaries to reveal Lincoln's sheer genius at winning the trust and affection of rivals.

Can you imagine Bush including in his inner Cabinet such Republicans as John McCain, who opposes Bush on torture of prisoners, or Chuck Hagel, who challenges the Iraq war, or Lincoln Chafee, who resists stacking the courts with ultra-right-wingers? Not to mention Democrats, a group Lincoln also included among his top appointees.

Bush, despite today's ubiquity of media, doesn't read newspapers, much less the Internet, and he settles for carefully filtered briefings. Lincoln was a voracious reader; he haunted the War Department's telegraph office to get firsthand reports from the battlefield.

Lincoln gained incomparably in wisdom over four years. Does anyone think George W. Bush is wiser now than in 2001?

Despite civil insurrection, Lincoln resisted broad intrusions on democratic rights. Bush runs roughshod over liberties.

Bush's visits to Iraq are choreographed media events. Lincoln often went to the front on horseback or by ship, almost alone, shunning news coverage, to confer at length with his generals, thank the troops, and educate himself.

Bush relies on secondhand inspirations of a speechwriting staff. He blathers when he wanders off script. Lincoln wrote his own words, including the timeless eloquence of the Second Inaugural or the Gettysburg Address. More often, his eloquence was extemporaneous.

Lincoln was magnanimous almost to a fault. His personal generosity and numerous acts of kindness helped him win over critics and, too briefly, to ''bind up the nation's wounds." Salmon Chase, who never gave up his dream that he should have been elected in 1860, allowed his allies to seek to push Lincoln aside and nominate Chase in 1864. Urged to break irrevocably with the faithless Chase, Lincoln instead appointed him chief justice of the Supreme Court.

Critics of the more moderate William Seward, Lincoln's secretary of state, claimed that Seward functioned as acting president. Goodwin makes clear that this was fantasy. Dick Cheney, however, really does operate as de facto president.

When Lincoln was assassinated, three days after Robert E. Lee surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant, the nation lost the one man who might have spared America the awful years of inconclusive struggle between radical Reconstructionists and segregationists who wanted to restore slavery in everything but name. Much of today's red state versus blue state bitterness has its roots in the struggle for black liberty versus the wounded humiliation of the white South, something Lincoln wanted to avoid at all cost.

The crippled presidency of his successor, Andrew Johnson, who ended up a pitiful captive of radical reconstructionists in Congress, was one of the bleakest chapters in our history. But this Union of the people did not perish from the earth. Reading Goodwin's magnificent book, one has to believe that our nation, in a new birth of freedom, will survive even George W. Bush.

Submitted by: Bob Minott [Block]

12/26/05 - 02:26 PM Top of Page Previous Post Reply

Bush is too insecure to even hear opinions which might differ from his own. He's been shielded from reality for so long by that "born again" christian, know it all, macho persona of his that a breath of the truth would induce the bends."

wolfdancer
12-26-2005, 03:13 PM
web page (http://www.dailywav.com/0900/bluered.wav)

Gayle in MD
12-26-2005, 06:04 PM
Once again, YOU missed the point. He asked "Is it possible." I answered, "No, It is not possible." and followed with reasons why it is very impossible under conditions prevailing, George Bush in office. Try and keep up in the future...oh and, BTW, there is a very good paragraph about you at the end of Wolfdancer's post, you might consider reading it, then try and take responsibility for what you read, rather than trying to dictate what, and how others must post....

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
12-26-2005, 06:11 PM
Thanks, I think this article appeared somewhere else before the twenty-fourth, Time ro Newsweek? I think Bush read it also, or someone who is writing his speeches, or should we say producing his infomercials, LOL. Your last paragraph fits some on this board....

BTW, I think the article isn't off subject at all. anyone who would trust George Bush would have to be operating on "Faith" alone, blind faith.

Gayle in Md.

Drop1
12-26-2005, 06:33 PM
Mark Twain,said "Faith is believing in something you know ain't true" I have received some great answers to the original post after reading several articles on the probable results of Globalizatin, I wonder how you feel about the strong investments of China into Africa,and the sell of weapons to India,and Pakistan by the United States.This falls into that area,of where are we going.

Gayle in MD
12-26-2005, 06:48 PM
I think it was absurd for the United States to do such things, regardless of who was president, but just as absurd for Bush to wage war and cut taxes at the same time, and to do so while running up huge debt to China, is about the dumbest thing I have seen in my lifetime. The loss of manufacturing jobs, and the results of our failing educational system, rewarding the rich with huge tax relief, while increasing the poverty levels, and cutting programs to help the needy in our country, including veterans returning with no arms and legs, all these are fitting for a president who would allow the poor in New Orleans to drown and starve before he would turn on his GD television to check out how they were doing, and then pat the idiot he appointed on the back saying "Fine Job" while the bodies were floating in the streets....

Gayle in Md.

Drop1
12-26-2005, 07:09 PM
Twenty percent of all jobs in the United States are directly,or indirectly connected to the government. The only source of income for the government is taxation. Cut taxes,and you cut the quality of all the elements that provide resources for all.

pooltchr
12-27-2005, 05:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> Twenty percent of all jobs in the United States are directly,or indirectly connected to the government. The only source of income for the government is taxation. Cut taxes,and you cut the quality of all the elements that provide resources for all. <hr /></blockquote>

EXACTLY!!! The government's only source of revenue is tax dollars. There is not a single revenue producing department in government. Their job is to spend money. At the end of the year, they spend like crazy. Why? So next year they can get MORE money. Reduce the size of government, and you reduce the amount of tax dollars they take from us every year. Tax us less, and we have more to spend, and consumer spending is what drives our economy. Put more money in the hands of the people, and less in the hands of an inefficient government, and everyone prospers! (Even those poor people Gayle is always so worried about)
Now, how do the people get their money? From JOBS! Who creates jobs most efficiently? The business community. If you tax business to death, you kill the economy.
Those nasty old rich people do something else. They actually spend their money. They buy a car, and the car salesman makes money! They buy groceries and the cashier gets a pay check. They go on vacation, and the hotel clerk, rental car clerk, bell hop, wait staff at the restaurant, everybody benefits. How difficult is this concept to understand?????????????????
Free Enteprise Works when government will let it!
Steve

Gayle in MD
12-27-2005, 07:19 AM
The policies of this administration favor the rich, not only through taxes, but in many other ways. Bush policies also encourage out-sourcing, and illegal immigration, not to mention the raging deficit and trade deficit. To argue in favor of his policies, while completely ignoring the debt which his tax policies, and legislative changes, will impose on our children and grandchildren, is subjective, simplistic thinking, IMO.

A president who arranges for the wealthy to get hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax relief, while at the same time changes the backruptcy laws, so that the people who fall on hard times, 50% of which are single mothers, and victims of catestrophic illness, is a good example of the lack of compassion displayed by the Republican platform. One can't just lump all hard working Americans in with lazy freeloaders in order to justify having a country with no compassions for the downtrodden among us, IMO.

But, back to the subject of this post. Surely I am not the only one here who shudders at the thought of blind obedience to unchecked power, which seems to be the thrust of the Bush administration. Torture, spying, federalized education, unchecked executive power, tax policies which encourage Corporations to locate corporate headquaters outside our country in order to avoid paying their fair share of taxes, secret meetings with oil executives, it seems to be overwhelmingly obvious to me, atleast, that this president, at the very least, is not a unitor, but a divider, and a divider who favors the wealthy, of which he is one.

I have no problem with people who endeavor to accumulate wealth, honestly, through hard work. Certainly, we all aim to accomplish financial security, and comfort in our lives. I take exception to a president who displays in such evident and undeniable ways, a penchant for power, beyond our constitutional safegaurds, broad lack of caring for those who struggle to survive, whether it is from a hurricane, or from debt incurred from catestrophic illness, and policies which grow debt to unprecedented dangerous levels, as referred to by Alan Greenspan. I do not think that the policies of this president have been good for this country, in fact, they have been devastating, IMO.

Gayle in Md.

Simplistic thinking seems to be the hallmark of Bush supporters.

Gayle in MD
12-27-2005, 07:33 AM
If you think that this administration has reduced the size of government you are living in a dream world! It would be nice if you could just once in a while, address the issues being discussed, without displaying your irritation and dislike for those who don't agree with you.

Bush has expanded the government, period. Republicans have been pork barrel pigs. Those are facts. Poverty levels have climbed, and education has suffered, debt is raging and the war is militarily unwinnable, according to the generals on the ground.
Tax cuts favor the rich and target the poor and middle class. Anyone who thinks that our goal should be to trust this man to use his poor judgement regarding how broadly he thinks he has a right to spy without accountability to anyone, isn't paying much attention to the results of his policies, IMO.

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
12-27-2005, 08:24 AM
Gayle, this is way off topic, but I didn't want to start a new post.......
See, i think it is a waste of time for any God-Fearing, ultra conservative, far right winger, die hard Republican fanatic, to try to justify this war, or President Strangeglove to folks like you or I, that can't go over and participate in the war for them.
There is this wonderful opportunity here....a new poster, a 17 yr old young man.......they should be directing their reasoning at him, and his friends, convincing him that it's his patriotic duty... Mom, God, Apple pie, OIL...now that he is of age, to enlist,to go over and fight the terrorists that were there, and the people that have now become terrorists, after having their 6 yr old sons die in their arms, after having their homes bombed, their lives destroyed, their city in ruins. After all Saddam did bomb the WTC, right in the middle of an important Young Republicans meeting that the Pres was having....almost ruined his presentation. Fortunately, he was able to find that inner strength to continue......
Of course if his daddy is a wealthy Republican.....all bets are off.
Maybe 17 is too young to go over and get killed, or maimed...how about 18?....19?....what would be a good age, to help Bush fulfill his God directed destiny, his dream of being a War President, and receiving the heroic accolades that go along with that ????
Geez, I meant President Strangelove.....Michael Jackson is Dr. Strangeglove

DickLeonard
12-27-2005, 08:26 AM
Gayle my reply to creating Bankruptcy laws that cripple the working poor is this Question. Why would Sears funnel 50,000 to Tom Delay to spread around to the Texas Reps who supported the new bankruptcy laws? Tom was arrested for this why not Sears?####

pooltchr
12-27-2005, 08:56 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> If you think that this administration has reduced the size of government you are living in a dream world! <font color="red"> Where, in ANY of my posts, have I EVER made that statement????????????????? </font color> It would be nice if you could just once in a while, address the issues being discussed, without displaying your irritation and dislike for those who don't agree with you.

Bush has expanded the government, period. Republicans have been pork barrel pigs. Those are facts. Poverty levels have climbed, and education has suffered, debt is raging and the war is militarily unwinnable, according to the generals on the ground.
Tax cuts favor the rich and target the poor and middle class. Anyone who thinks that our goal should be to trust this man to use his poor judgement regarding how broadly he thinks he has a right to spy without accountability to anyone, isn't paying much attention to the results of his policies, IMO.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

wolfdancer
12-27-2005, 09:09 AM
Dick, I think what has contributed greatly to BK's is the unrealistic, compared to one's income, credit card offers that we are beseiged with on an almost daily basis.
Using credit cards, is like betting with chips in a casino....You don't realise how much you have spent/lost until the session is over.And it's as addictive as gambling for some folks.
My friend had his wife amass a huge credit card debt, without his knowledge. She also had the gambling bug, and gambled with cash advances from the cards.
He ended up losing his retirement funds, and at age 72, both he and his wife are still working...
I have no credit card debt....and funny thing the card offers have dwindled.....but get some debt, and make those min. payments on time.....and they'll form a line to get you "hooked".
I just read where the CC companies now count on late payment penalties for a large percentage of their profits.
And when the balloon payments hit, on those interest only mortgage loans......there will be a serious financial blow to what is left of this economy.

pooltchr
12-27-2005, 09:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>
I have no problem with people who endeavor to accumulate wealth, honestly, through hard work. <hr /></blockquote>

Of course you don't. As long as the government can continue to take away their hard earned money through the higher taxes you seem to support for those nasty rich people. The more wealthy, hard working people around, the more money for the government, and the more they can give away!

Chopstick
12-27-2005, 10:06 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>
I have no problem with people who endeavor to accumulate wealth, honestly, through hard work. <hr /></blockquote>

Of course you don't. As long as the government can continue to take away their hard earned money through the higher taxes you seem to support for those nasty rich people. The more wealthy, hard working people around, the more money for the government, and the more they can give away! <hr /></blockquote>

Government policies that favor or do not favor rich people are a myth. Tax shelters are the name of the game for them. They don't pay taxes regardless of what administration is in power.
Teresa Heinz Kerry pays something like $12K in taxes and always will. There is no law that can be passed that can change that.

When the government changes tax policy the rich just move their money in different shelters. When tax policy makes it advantagious for them to invest in business, they do and the economy thrives. When it doesn't, they move it into sheltered bonds and the econony starves. If you eliminate all the shelters then they'll just take their money to another country. Is that a solution?

When they talk about raising taxes it's the upper middle class that gets hammered. Not the rich and there is nothing that any politician can do about it.

Gayle in MD
12-27-2005, 10:09 AM
You lump your ideas together as though you are speaking of the present administration, so I respond to them that way. I don't support the idea of funding lazy people, who work the system, nor do I support a tax structure based on the trickle down theory, so please stop posting to me as though I am for taking away money from the rich, to give to the poor. I am against tax policies which are destructive to the country and the economy, and pork barrell spending, which the republicans have done for years. I do not support cutting taxes when we have a raging deficit, and are spending upwards of $17,000.00 a second to fight a war we never should have started in the first place.

You tend to post your thoughts in "Middle of the road" language, but you never address the results of what this president's tax policies have done to this country in terms of debt. This, of course, is subjective thinking.

The President has an obligation to "Faithfully execute the law," and to protect the Constitution. The constitution does not provide to him to spy on Americans unlawfully, IOW, without abiding by the laws which were put into place in order to protect Americans from abuse of power, and to protect their right to privacy. He has broken our laws over and over, and I think he sould be impeached.

Whether he is or isn't, the republicans will be falling like dominos before the next election. Jack Abramoff will work out a deal which will require him to bring down atleast six comgressional republicans, and some of their wives, and maybe more, some in the Senate.

Karl Rove will be indicted for obstructing justice. Dick Cheney just may go down with him.

Unfortunately, the civil war which has been raging in Iraq, will continue to rage, and the deficit will continue to rise. George Bush will go down as the worst president in history, and American will be smarter when faced with another born again candidate claiming to be the chosen candidate of Christ.

You and the rest of the right will be blaming Democrats for things that republicans did. Some things never change.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
12-27-2005, 10:17 AM
That is very true. This is not a economic policy which grows economic expansion in lasting ways. Losing manufacturing jobs, and exporting even more jobs, while running up debt, waging war, and cutting taxes, is a policy of disaster and can only lead to rough economic times in the future. IMO, it will take this country twenty years to overcome the damage done by George Bush and the pork barrell republican spenders on the hill. Bush has set this country back fifteen years.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
12-27-2005, 10:24 AM
LOL, and just WHEN are the twins going to enlist???? Oh, and BTW, what ever happened to Laura's little project, working to eliminate "Gangs," LOL. Haven't heard a word from her about that since she said it was her project???? Maybe George thought is was more important for her to continue to just dress up, smile and nod, smile, nod, eat, travel,..... and the repubs critisized Hilliary? Hilliary worked her butt off.

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
12-27-2005, 10:27 AM
Steve, from your posts I take it that you think Gayle is living near the poverty line. From what I know....you might be surprised.....
You don't have to be a poor,but honest, hard working American, to rail against the economic disaster, and the loss of young American lives, as a result of this war, and the arrogance, and deceptions of Bush, trying to justify it.
All you have to be, regardless of your income, and net worth, is a person proud of this country, and concerned about it's future, and aware that a handful of domestic, economic profiteers/terrorists, are the ones holding the reins....

Gayle in MD
12-27-2005, 10:28 AM
Good question, but I guess Sears may not have known in advance that he would break the Texas laws when he funnelled the money out of the state. He's going down anyway. Abramoff will offer him up to the prosecutor for bribes. Amramoff is going to save his own butt, and this will make Watergate look like desparate housewives, lol.
Hang on friend, we're gonna have some fun now!

Gayle in Md.

Fran Crimi
12-27-2005, 11:32 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Alfie:</font><hr> I want them to listen in on the bad guys. I don't want them to listen in on the good guys. Possible? <hr /></blockquote>

Probably not with 100% assurance. They'd have to be able to do it without advance disclosure in order for it to be effective, then account for it after the fact. That's where it gets sticky. If they pick the wrong guy to spy on, the damage has already been done---nor would there be any guarantee that they wouldn't leave out a name or two in subsequent disclosures. I imagine there would be some controls that could be put into place that would help keep everybody honest, but there's never going to be a 100% guarantee.

However, despite the down-side, it's a powerful deterrent. Every time we cut off a method of communication between terrorists, we make it more difficult for them to plan their attacks.

Fran

Stretch
12-27-2005, 02:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Alfie:</font><hr> <hr /></blockquote>I want them to listen in on the bad guys. I don't want them to listen in on the good guys. Possible? <hr /></blockquote>

I would like to think it is. I doubt that the average American is having their e-mail monitored on a daily basis. From what I understand, they monitor for specific "key words" and then focus on those specifically. Kinda like a Google search...you put in what you are looking for and get a reletively small group of choices. Some may be what you are looking for and others aren't. You focus on the ones that apply. I would hope that is what is happening, and will believe it is until I have evidence to the contrary.
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

It's simple really. First the government uses thier unchecked power to look for terrorist. Then they use those same powers to destroy political enemy's. St.

nAz
12-27-2005, 03:15 PM
http://www.buckfush.com/images/bush_Telephone_Spy.jpg

Assassinate,terror,bush,blair,kill,explosives,whit e house,parliament,747,c4,pentagon,iraq,afganistan,a llah,imperialist,infidel,castro,bin laden,suicide bomber,martar,korea,iran,muslim
Assassinate,terror,bush,blair,kill,explosives,whit e house,parliament,747,c4,pentagon,iraq,afganistan,a llah,imperialist,infidel,castro,bin laden,suicide bomber,martar,korea,iran,muslim
Assassinate,terror,bush,blair,kill,explosives,whit e house,parliament,747,c4,pentagon,iraq,afganistan,a llah,imperialist,infidel,castro,bin laden,suicide bomber,martar,korea,iran,muslim
Assassinate,terror,bush,blair,kill,explosives,whit e house,parliament,747,c4,pentagon,iraq,afganistan,a llah,imperialist,infidel,castro,bin laden,suicide bomber,martar,korea,iran,muslim
Assassinate,terror,bush,blair,kill,explosives,whit e house,parliament,747,c4,pentagon,iraq,afganistan,a llah,imperialist,infidel,castro,bin laden,suicide bomber,martar,korea,iran,muslim

That should keep those Goverment keyloggers buzy for a while /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif