Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 While I appreciate his support of the Bills, the guy lied to our face. Anybody care? 538225[/snapback] No, not really. I might if it were somehow unusual, but they all !@#$ing lie. The last President that regularly told the truth was...Carter?
VABills Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 No, not really. I might if it were somehow unusual, but they all !@#$ing lie. The last President that regularly told the truth was...Carter? 538284[/snapback] Yeah and he did such a wonderful job. Of course prior to carter, you have to go back to .............................................. ummmmmm............. Washington?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 Yeah and he did such a wonderful job. Of course prior to carter, you have to go back to .............................................. ummmmmm............. Washington? 538286[/snapback] I didn't say he did a wonderful job, I just said he didn't lie. Maybe. Actually, as indicated by the question mark, I was asking.
Mickey Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 No, not really. I might if it were somehow unusual, but they all !@#$ing lie. The last President that regularly told the truth was...Carter? 538284[/snapback] Certainly he is not the first Presidential liar nor will he likely be the last. I just want clear agreement that he lied so that in the future I don't have to deal with a bunch of yelping attacks of partisanship when and if I refer to him as "Liar".
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 Certainly he is not the first Presidential liar nor will he likely be the last. I just want clear agreement that he lied so that in the future I don't have to deal with a bunch of yelping attacks of partisanship when and if I refer to him as "Liar". 538354[/snapback] Right. We couldn't even get a clear agreement on what distinguishes public property from private.
meazza Posted December 21, 2005 Posted December 21, 2005 Right. We couldn't even get a clear agreement on what distinguishes public property from private. 538369[/snapback] it's pretty simple im guessing google wasn't working at the time eh?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 21, 2005 Posted December 21, 2005 it's pretty simpleim guessing google wasn't working at the time eh? 538628[/snapback] Maybe you could clear it up for VABills then. In return, he might even help you out with that whole "Is sound faster than light in space?" question you were having problems with.
Terry Tate Posted December 21, 2005 Posted December 21, 2005 I would take a wild guess that non-law-enforcement-derived (for the folks focusing on the warrant aspect) communications intercepts that include a US citizen as a participant, a person on US soil as a participant, or even reference a US citizen are destroyed. Chances are they probably cannot be recorded, transcribed, reported on, or otherwise used in any manner without prior authorization on that specific individual by the Attorney General. That's just the kind of Executive Order that might have come down after the abuse of the intelligence agencies against US citizens that occurred, say, in the 1970's. Possibly. Unless a President were to sign an Executive Order, such as the one that maybe outlined the above restrictions, that eased those restrictions under certain specific circumstances and allowed collection on individuals who were communicating with known terrorists. Hypothetically speaking, that'd be my guess. So no, I am not worried about it. But it is an interesting discussion.
Kelly the Dog Posted December 21, 2005 Posted December 21, 2005 Yeah and he did such a wonderful job. Of course prior to carter, you have to go back to .............................................. ummmmmm............. Washington? 538286[/snapback] Actually, if you knew your history, you would know that George Washington was indeed a pathological liar. And historians favorable to his legacy almost always leave off his qualifier of, "but I fukked the goat" off the end of the famous "I cannot tell a lie, I cut down the cherry tree".
Kelly the Dog Posted December 21, 2005 Posted December 21, 2005 To add more fuel to the fire: WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 - A surveillance program approved by President Bush to conduct eavesdropping without warrants has captured what are purely domestic communications in some cases, despite a requirement by the White House that one end of the intercepted conversations take place on foreign soil, officials say. The officials say the National Security Agency's interception of a small number of communications between people within the United States was apparently accidental, and was caused by technical glitches at the National Security Agency in determining whether a communication was in fact "international." Telecommunications experts say the issue points up troubling logistical questions about the program. At a time when communications networks are increasingly globalized, it is sometimes difficult even for the N.S.A. to determine whether someone is inside or outside the United States when making a cellphone call or sending an e-mail message. As a result, people that the security agency may think are outside the United States are actually on American soil. Well, that's pretty convenient. http://nytimes.com/2005/12/21/politics/21n...artner=homepage
meazza Posted December 21, 2005 Posted December 21, 2005 Maybe you could clear it up for VABills then. In return, he might even help you out with that whole "Is sound faster than light in space?" question you were having problems with. 538648[/snapback] mr repetitive are we? so i guess you went from being mr !@#$ to mr jerkface to this... at least you're moving up
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 21, 2005 Posted December 21, 2005 mr repetitive are we?so i guess you went from being mr !@#$ to mr jerkface to this... at least you're moving up 538709[/snapback] Thank you, by the way, for taking one of the rare useful and productive discussions on this board and lowering it with your typical cesspool musings.
meazza Posted December 21, 2005 Posted December 21, 2005 Thank you, by the way, for taking one of the rare useful and productive discussions on this board and lowering it with your typical cesspool musings. 538711[/snapback] you started this sh-- you could finish it
Alaska Darin Posted December 21, 2005 Posted December 21, 2005 you started this sh-- you could finish it 538757[/snapback] Keep up your little stalking role and I'll finish it.
Mickey Posted December 21, 2005 Posted December 21, 2005 A FISA Court Judge has resigned in protest over the President's illegal wiretaps apparently the other judges are just as concerned that Bush turned them into a "Potemkin Court". Senators Hegel and Snowe have joined up with Arlen Specter to lengthen the list of republicans calling for an investigation. Judge Resigns
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 21, 2005 Posted December 21, 2005 Senators Hegel and Snowe have joined up with Arlen Specter to lengthen the list of republicans calling for an investigation. 538816[/snapback] Which is absolute bull. There is NO WAY the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees weren't aware of this.
Johnny Coli Posted December 21, 2005 Posted December 21, 2005 Senators Hegel and Snowe have joined up with Arlen Specter to lengthen the list of republicans calling for an investigation. 538816[/snapback] It took five years, but it looks like Dubya really is a unifier, and not a divider.
Alexander Hamilton Posted December 21, 2005 Author Posted December 21, 2005 Which is absolute bull. There is NO WAY the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees weren't aware of this. 538834[/snapback] The stories seem to be that several members of Intelligence had questions about this program that were never answered by the administration.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 21, 2005 Posted December 21, 2005 The stories seem to be that several members of Intelligence had questions about this program that were never answered by the administration. 538858[/snapback] So they kept quiet until the NYT broke the story? Isn't that a tacit acceptance of the administration's actions?
Johnny Coli Posted December 21, 2005 Posted December 21, 2005 So they kept quiet until the NYT broke the story? Isn't that a tacit acceptance of the administration's actions? 538867[/snapback] No. Because of the classification of the material, they weren't allowed to divulge anything that they had read or heard. But when Bush openly admitted to the program over the weekend, it opened the door for them to speak freely about what they knew.
Recommended Posts