View Full Version : Why aren't the dembots in the streets?

12-29-2012, 11:36 AM
Congress just authorized warrantless wiretaps, and next week the regime begins new taxes on families with special needs children, the sick and disabled who require medical devices and the woking poor struggling to pay non covered medical expenses.

At what point did honorable men such as Hubert Horatio Humphrey, JFK and Scoop Jackson become too far to the right for the moonbat wing of the party.

12-30-2012, 06:15 AM
I guess it really is because they are hyperpartisan tools with no real capacity for independent thought.

12-30-2012, 07:24 AM
Congress just authorized warrantless wiretaps,

Where is the Tea Party?

This is their thing and still not a squeak from them about this Big Govt power grab.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, approved by the House of Representatives Republican dominated! in September, passed the Senate with a 73-23 vote and broad bipartisan support, and now goes to President Barack Obama for his signature.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/senate-renews-controversial-law-which-allows-warrantless-wiretapping-of-us-citizens-2012-12#ixzz2GXYzl5x9

Your question should really be,

"Why aren't the TP "Don't tread on me" nutjobs silent on this?

You claim that its the dems that are all FOR more Govt control and that its the TP mob that are fighting against Big Govt.

The absence outrage from them says a lot. That's because its a fake Party controlled by special interests.


12-30-2012, 07:47 AM
Are you mad?

This topic was a moonbat feeding frenzy ... until 2009. What changed then.







Luckily the regime can count on you to faithfully invoke doublethink and deny that any of it ever happened ... ths is just amazing, after 8 years of bleating about this, the cabal now asks me to believe they have always supprted warantless wiretaps.

Prattle on dude.

12-30-2012, 01:14 PM
Moonbat feeding frenzy until 2009. ????

Then why do your examples all end in mid-2006?

What kind of feeding frenzy is really evident on the record, when your list features one post with absolutely no replies, two others with 3 and 4 posts, respectively? Padding, much?

Fact is, at the time of the complaints, this was illegal, and it was being lied about (W said he was obeying the law and getting the wiretap orders from the FISA court as the law provided).

In their wisdom (?), just as in the illegal suspension of habeus corpus under Lincoln, the Congress went back and retroactively, or after the fact, MADE IT LEGAL.

It's been legal for some time now. Another warrant (heh!) of its legality simply is now old news, and apparently wholly uncontroversial. That's what precedents do, over time. They make what was once feared and decried, instead a commonplace situation that no one comments upon. As you likely supported the W moves (not sure as you hadn't arrived here at that time and are not in the threads you cite), you should be proud that he was vindicated by the Congress, and his novel and aggressive moves have been codified in law for the use of any and all subsequent presidents.

As for your citing of JFK? His attorney general (RFK), while JFK was still alive, authorized the FBI to wiretap MLK, Jr., without court order.

On October 10, 1963, U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy committed what is widely viewed as one of the most ignominious acts in modern American history: he authorized the Federal Bureau of Investigation to begin wiretapping the telephones of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. Kennedy believed that one of King's closest advisers was a top-level member of the American Communist Party, and that King had repeatedly misled Administration officials about his ongoing close ties with the man. Kennedy acted reluctantly, and his order remained secret until May of 1968, just a few weeks after King's assassination and a few days before Kennedy's own. But the FBI onslaught against King that followed Kennedy's authorization remains notorious, and the stains on the reputations of everyone involved are indelible.

From the Atlantic's piece, The FBI and Martin Luther King, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/07/the-fbi-and-martin-luther-king/302537/#

12-30-2012, 02:44 PM
1 - I assumed that linking the first six would make my point.

2 - Around 2007/8 this forum suffered a crash causing the loss of a lot of it's history.

Anything else I can help you with?

12-30-2012, 05:26 PM
1 - I assumed that linking the first six would make my point.

2 - Around 2007/8 this forum suffered a crash causing the loss of a lot of it's history.

Anything else I can help you with?

'its" Anything else i can help you with?

12-31-2012, 12:04 PM
1 - I assumed that linking the first six would make my point.

It hardly did. You have one person in a 'thread,' two people in another, and the lengthier threads mainly involve people we don't see around here anymore.

But hopefully you will notice I gave you an explanation as you asked-- since it has been LEGAL since 2008, this is now not so controversial as when it was ILLEGAL, and being LIED ABOUT.

Here's the comparison: Then: ILLEGAL/LIED ABOUT. Now: LEGAL/ADMITTED.