Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So does you calling me a little minion mean it is wrong to appeal a lower court's decision?So is it wrong to appeal a lower court's decision?
This is where I call you a good little minion and walk away from this discussion with you.
Profiling is profiling. Its wrong, its discriminatory, its anti-American, whether its the police, the FBI or the CIA- that's what the IRS scandal is all about.
The James Rosen/AP journalist scandal is about overreach when protecting government secrets. The government went to far.
Benghazi is a trumped up conspiracy theory. There isn't anything that has come out in that Republican investigation which points at a cover up or the POTUS or State Dept. allowing Americans to die. If some compelling evidence comes to light that suggests that, then I will be with you in condemning Obama.
Obama's expansion of the Patriot Act pissed me off, more than any of his other fuck ups. I believe a conservative President would've done no different since the leadership of the GOP seem to have no qualms with the Patriot Act and were even behind its drafting. So, I took a chance on Obama and got bit on the ass for it, but he is still pushing a progressive agenda- for the most part- and I would still vote for him before I would vote Republican.
Benghazi is more about this administration lying to the American people. It's about whether this administration was more concerned with protecting the narrative that Al Qaeda was dead and terrorism defeated in order to help sway an election than they were telling us the truth. It's about we know that Susan Rice deliberately lied to the American public and that our SoS was in on it... our SoS who is being touted as a contender for POTUS who is a demonstrable liar.. just like her husband before her.
Look, I'm not gonna debate with you on this because I think it would be pointless. I'll just state my opinion on the matter: the most compelling evidence, imo, suggests that it was either an intelligence failure on the part of the CIA or the CIA left out the Al Qaida connection in order to protect state secrets. Susan Rice was just the unfortunate spokesperson that delivered the talking points that Sunday.
Bob Dole supported social security, welfare, food stamps, etc. but all I've heard from Republicans since Newt took the speakership is privatize and gut. These programs are called socialism by Republicans. This isn't a narrative fed to me or MSNBC brainwashing me: that's what Republicans themselves propose.
If that's what you truly believe then I don't understand why you're a Republican.
I'm a Republican because I can do simple math, Mountain! I'm not caught up in hyperbole about pushing Grandma off a cliff and all of the other nonsense that's been trotted out there by liberals every time someone makes an effort to reform entitlements. I understand that we can't keep going on as we are now. It's not sustainable. Now do you honestly want to have a discussion about how to fix the problems we have with entitlements or do you want to turn this into a really stupid discussion about who hates old people?
I don't buy into that shit either. I don't think Republicans want to throw granny off the cliff. You will never read any post I write saying Republicans hate America or old or sick people. I don't believe that. One of my good friends is an active Republican getting his Masters in political science. He and I talk about politics a lot and it stays respectful (with some teasing on both sides i.e. Biden or Palin or Bachmann or Weiner). But he doesn't buy into the right wing shit either about the Benghazi conspiracy or death panels or communism, etc.
I'm more than willing to talk about entitlement reform. I agree something needs to be done. But let's do it in another thread. And I warn you, I don't even know what the facts are on entitlement reform. I've read and heard many many reports, stories, podcasts, etc. from different sources and the facts are different every time. Even on whether these programs need reform or not. So, I don't know how much I can contribute to such a discussion as I am too skeptical to believe conservative or liberal "facts" on these issues. But I'll listen to waht you have to say. The only thing I want out of these programs is a guarantee that they will not be dismantled and will provide security for those less fortunate or hit hard but an unfortunate event.
Profiling is profiling. Its wrong, its discriminatory, its anti-American, whether its the police, the FBI or the CIA- that's what the IRS scandal is all about.
The James Rosen/AP journalist scandal is about overreach when protecting government secrets. The government went to far.
Benghazi is a trumped up conspiracy theory. There isn't anything that has come out in that Republican investigation which points at a cover up or the POTUS or State Dept. allowing Americans to die. If some compelling evidence comes to light that suggests that, then I will be with you in condemning Obama.
Obama's expansion of the Patriot Act pissed me off, more than any of his other fuck ups. I believe a conservative President would've done no different since the leadership of the GOP seem to have no qualms with the Patriot Act and were even behind its drafting. So, I took a chance on Obama and got bit on the ass for it, but he is still pushing a progressive agenda- for the most part- and I would still vote for him before I would vote Republican.
Benghazi is more about this administration lying to the American people. It's about whether this administration was more concerned with protecting the narrative that Al Qaeda was dead and terrorism defeated in order to help sway an election than they were telling us the truth. It's about we know that Susan Rice deliberately lied to the American public and that our SoS was in on it... our SoS who is being touted as a contender for POTUS who is a demonstrable liar.. just like her husband before her.
Look, I'm not gonna debate with you on this because I think it would be pointless. I'll just state my opinion on the matter: the most compelling evidence, imo, suggests that it was either an intelligence failure on the part of the CIA or the CIA left out the Al Qaida connection in order to protect state secrets. Susan Rice was just the unfortunate spokesperson that delivered the talking points that Sunday.
So does you calling me a little minion mean it is wrong to appeal a lower court's decision?So is it wrong to appeal a lower court's decision?
This is where I call you a good little minion and walk away from this discussion with you.
What would "happen" to them that you would "be on them" about?
So its wrong to appeal a lower court's decision on a warrant application?
Dude, he went to two other judges and was told to, "go pound sand", because it wasn't warranted. He kept going until one finally caved.....makes me wonder if anything was promised to this judge.
Holder is in a lot of hot water over all of this.......and you just tote the water for him.....you're just a tool....no more.....no less. Keep making excuses and trying to make a case for him, it isn't flying anywhere but between those ears of yours.
So is it wrong to appeal a lower court's decision?
It is getting more and more interesting all the time though. Holder has now invited the media--ALL the media--to meet with him for a - get this - OFF THE RECORD conversation. I was just watching the news a few minutes ago and so far the New York Times, Washington Post, Huffpo, AP, McClatchy, Fox News and others have issued formal notices that they will not attend. To explain why he would not attend, one spokesperson pulled a line from the Watergate era that the duty of the press is to cast light into the darkest corners of government. Those organizations reporting on this overreach of government would be hypocritical to accept an invitation for a secret meeting about it.
Who will meet with the AG? MSNBC? Maybe Politico? But to what purpose? If the meeting is "off the record", won't that then hamstring them on what they are able to report at all if they uncover the information elsewhere?
It is getting more and more interesting all the time though. Holder has now invited the media--ALL the media--to meet with him for a - get this - OFF THE RECORD conversation. I was just watching the news a few minutes ago and so far the New York Times, Washington Post, Huffpo, AP, McClatchy, Fox News and others have issued formal notices that they will not attend. To explain why he would not attend, one spokesperson pulled a line from the Watergate era that the duty of the press is to cast light into the darkest corners of government. Those organizations reporting on this overreach of government would be hypocritical to accept an invitation for a secret meeting about it.
Who will meet with the AG? MSNBC? Maybe Politico? But to what purpose? If the meeting is "off the record", won't that then hamstring them on what they are able to report at all if they uncover the information elsewhere?
Holder's off-the-record meeting with the press is motivated by his impending demise. This is either an attempt to squelch the criticism of the Justice Department, or simply to strong arm the press into obedience.
This is the same Justice Department that literally screamed and cursed at a reporter for investigating Fast and Furious when most media outlets were content with reporting the facts as according to Justice. CBS News Reporter Says White House Screamed, Swore at Her Over Fast and Furious | The Weekly Standard
. . . .In a blockbuster report, John Solomon, the former Associated Press and Post reporter, has ferreted out the president’s daily brief that informed him within 72 hours of the Sept. 11 attack that the Benghazi attack was a jihadist operation.
Citing officials directly familiar with the information, Solomon writes in the Washington Guardian that Obama and other administration officials were told that “that the attack was likely carried out by local militia and other armed extremists sympathetic to al-Qaida in the region.” . . . .
. . . .This report indicates that the president certainly knew that Benghazi wasn’t a rogue movie review gone bad. He had information that plainly spelled out what was later confirmed by additional intelligence. If this information was too confidential to share with the public, at the very least the president and others should not have mislead voters.
This is a full-blown scandal, and in light of this information, the press corps’s slothful indifference to uncovering the truth at Wednesday’s news conference with Obama is all the more shocking. It is time for the president to come clean. The scandal has now enveloped the Oval Office and will define his second term, if not resolved satisfactorily. . . .
BREAKING: The president knew the truth about Benghazi - Right Turn - The Washington Post
Was it illegal?
Last I checked one needed a Judge to sign those things.
Even with the Patriot Act?
If what he did was illegal, full steam ahead with investigations. BUT, if it is currently legal, can anyone explain why we are investigating LEGAL actions?
Benghazi is more about this administration lying to the American people. It's about whether this administration was more concerned with protecting the narrative that Al Qaeda was dead and terrorism defeated in order to help sway an election than they were telling us the truth. It's about we know that Susan Rice deliberately lied to the American public and that our SoS was in on it... our SoS who is being touted as a contender for POTUS who is a demonstrable liar.. just like her husband before her.
Look, I'm not gonna debate with you on this because I think it would be pointless. I'll just state my opinion on the matter: the most compelling evidence, imo, suggests that it was either an intelligence failure on the part of the CIA or the CIA left out the Al Qaida connection in order to protect state secrets. Susan Rice was just the unfortunate spokesperson that delivered the talking points that Sunday.
With all due respect, Mountain? The talking points being reworked dozens of times until they came to the "approval" of folks in the State Department isn't an "intelligence failure" by the CIA nor was it an effort to protect "state secrets" unless the State secrets you're speaking of are that the Obama White House didn't respond well to a crisis! What you're looking at in Benghazi is a good old fashioned cover-up...something that was done for political reasons in the heat of a campaign and Susan Rice was the dupe that they got to go out on those 5 Sunday morning talk shows in Hilary's place and tell their lies.
I'm a Republican because I can do simple math, Mountain! I'm not caught up in hyperbole about pushing Grandma off a cliff and all of the other nonsense that's been trotted out there by liberals every time someone makes an effort to reform entitlements. I understand that we can't keep going on as we are now. It's not sustainable. Now do you honestly want to have a discussion about how to fix the problems we have with entitlements or do you want to turn this into a really stupid discussion about who hates old people?
I don't buy into that shit either. I don't think Republicans want to throw granny off the cliff. You will never read any post I write saying Republicans hate America or old or sick people. I don't believe that. One of my good friends is an active Republican getting his Masters in political science. He and I talk about politics a lot and it stays respectful (with some teasing on both sides i.e. Biden or Palin or Bachmann or Weiner). But he doesn't buy into the right wing shit either about the Benghazi conspiracy or death panels or communism, etc.
I'm more than willing to talk about entitlement reform. I agree something needs to be done. But let's do it in another thread. And I warn you, I don't even know what the facts are on entitlement reform. I've read and heard many many reports, stories, podcasts, etc. from different sources and the facts are different every time. Even on whether these programs need reform or not. So, I don't know how much I can contribute to such a discussion as I am too skeptical to believe conservative or liberal "facts" on these issues. But I'll listen to waht you have to say. The only thing I want out of these programs is a guarantee that they will not be dismantled and will provide security for those less fortunate or hit hard but an unfortunate event.
Gotta be honest with you, Mountain...you talk about how you could never vote for a Republican and one of the reasons you list is that they want to do away with Social Security. Then you turn around and admit that you REALLY don't know the facts on entitlement reform? Are you kidding? If you don't know the facts...then how have you made up your mind that the Republicans are doing what you seem to THINK that they're doing? Don't you think it's time that you DO know the facts?
Dude, he went to two other judges and was told to, "go pound sand", because it wasn't warranted. He kept going until one finally caved.....makes me wonder if anything was promised to this judge.
Holder is in a lot of hot water over all of this.......and you just tote the water for him.....you're just a tool....no more.....no less. Keep making excuses and trying to make a case for him, it isn't flying anywhere but between those ears of yours.
So is it wrong to appeal a lower court's decision?
No.
Did Holder appeal a decision with a higher court?
in this case they didn't need to provide notice to Rosen if they obtain a warrant! Not only did the DOJ make proper use of the appeals process - the plain language of the law is on the DOJ and Chief Judge's side!(1) A governmental entity may require a provider of remote computing service to disclose the contents of any wire or electronic communication to which this paragraph is made applicable by paragraph (2) of this subsection—
A) without required notice to the subscriber or customer, if the governmental entity obtains a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or, in the case of a State court, issued using State warrant procedures) by a court of competent jurisdiction; or
So does you calling me a little minion mean it is wrong to appeal a lower court's decision?This is where I call you a good little minion and walk away from this discussion with you.
There was no lower court decision that was appealed to a higher court, you dolt! When you go "judge shopping" for warrants as Holder did...all that means is you go to multiple judges until you find one that will give you what you want. There aren't trials. There aren't decisions that are appealed.
I don't buy into that shit either. I don't think Republicans want to throw granny off the cliff. You will never read any post I write saying Republicans hate America or old or sick people. I don't believe that. One of my good friends is an active Republican getting his Masters in political science. He and I talk about politics a lot and it stays respectful (with some teasing on both sides i.e. Biden or Palin or Bachmann or Weiner). But he doesn't buy into the right wing shit either about the Benghazi conspiracy or death panels or communism, etc.
I'm more than willing to talk about entitlement reform. I agree something needs to be done. But let's do it in another thread. And I warn you, I don't even know what the facts are on entitlement reform. I've read and heard many many reports, stories, podcasts, etc. from different sources and the facts are different every time. Even on whether these programs need reform or not. So, I don't know how much I can contribute to such a discussion as I am too skeptical to believe conservative or liberal "facts" on these issues. But I'll listen to waht you have to say. The only thing I want out of these programs is a guarantee that they will not be dismantled and will provide security for those less fortunate or hit hard but an unfortunate event.
Gotta be honest with you, Mountain...you talk about how you could never vote for a Republican and one of the reasons you list is that they want to do away with Social Security. Then you turn around and admit that you REALLY don't know the facts on entitlement reform? Are you kidding? If you don't know the facts...then how have you made up your mind that the Republicans are doing what you seem to THINK that they're doing? Don't you think it's time that you DO know the facts?
This is what I know: Republicans have tried to privatize SS. They talk about privatizing it. That takes away its guarantee. Therefore it is no longer social security but then becomes social not security. Am I wrong?
Republicans have tried to institute a voucher system for medicare/medicaid which wouldn't help old or sick people to purchase health insurance. It nullifies the purpose of that program. It was part of the Romney/Ryan platform. Am I wrong?
Republicans seem to not like welfare, apparently. There are abuses that happen with this program (as with all programs of this nature there is fraud), but its meant to help people who fall on hard times and it does. I want to keep it in place in case I or any of my loved ones ever need it. Republicans seem to want to dismantle this program because of "welfare queens". I want to keep it and reform it smartly so that there is less abuse but it still helps people get back on their feet. Same with food stamps. My mother was on food stamps when I was very young, and I'm grateful that the program was there to help her raise me and my brother. Am I wrong about this?
Is this what Republicans want to do to these programs or am I wrong?
So is it wrong to appeal a lower court's decision?
No.
Did Holder appeal a decision with a higher court?
The DOJ appealed decisions by low level magistrates to Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Is that OK with you or do we need to re-write the rules of procedure now that Obama is in office? The magistrate judges were in fact in error. Have you actually looked at the relevant law?
Says right here:
18 USC § 2703 - Required disclosure of customer communications or records | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute
in this case they didn't need to provide notice to Rosen if they obtain a warrant! Not only did the DOJ make proper use of the appeals process - the plain language of the law is on the DOJ and Chief Judge's side!(1) A governmental entity may require a provider of remote computing service to disclose the contents of any wire or electronic communication to which this paragraph is made applicable by paragraph (2) of this subsection
A) without required notice to the subscriber or customer, if the governmental entity obtains a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or, in the case of a State court, issued using State warrant procedures) by a court of competent jurisdiction; or
Does the law actually matter or does it only matter what Breitbart.com says?
I don't buy into that shit either. I don't think Republicans want to throw granny off the cliff. You will never read any post I write saying Republicans hate America or old or sick people. I don't believe that. One of my good friends is an active Republican getting his Masters in political science. He and I talk about politics a lot and it stays respectful (with some teasing on both sides i.e. Biden or Palin or Bachmann or Weiner). But he doesn't buy into the right wing shit either about the Benghazi conspiracy or death panels or communism, etc.
I'm more than willing to talk about entitlement reform. I agree something needs to be done. But let's do it in another thread. And I warn you, I don't even know what the facts are on entitlement reform. I've read and heard many many reports, stories, podcasts, etc. from different sources and the facts are different every time. Even on whether these programs need reform or not. So, I don't know how much I can contribute to such a discussion as I am too skeptical to believe conservative or liberal "facts" on these issues. But I'll listen to waht you have to say. The only thing I want out of these programs is a guarantee that they will not be dismantled and will provide security for those less fortunate or hit hard but an unfortunate event.
Gotta be honest with you, Mountain...you talk about how you could never vote for a Republican and one of the reasons you list is that they want to do away with Social Security. Then you turn around and admit that you REALLY don't know the facts on entitlement reform? Are you kidding? If you don't know the facts...then how have you made up your mind that the Republicans are doing what you seem to THINK that they're doing? Don't you think it's time that you DO know the facts?
This is what I know: Republicans have tried to privatize SS. They talk about privatizing it. That takes away its guarantee. Therefore it is no longer social security but then becomes social not security. Am I wrong?
Republicans have tried to institute a voucher system for medicare/medicaid which wouldn't help old or sick people to purchase health insurance. It nullifies the purpose of that program. It was part of the Romney/Ryan platform. Am I wrong?
Republicans seem to not like welfare, apparently. There are abuses that happen with this program (as with all programs of this nature there is fraud), but its meant to help people who fall on hard times and it does. I want to keep it in place in case I or any of my loved ones ever need it. Republicans seem to want to dismantle this program because of "welfare queens". I want to keep it and reform it smartly so that there is less abuse but it still helps people get back on their feet. Same with food stamps. My mother was on food stamps when I was very young, and I'm grateful that the program was there to help her raise me and my brother. Am I wrong about this?
Is this what Republicans want to do to these programs or am I wrong?
No.
Did Holder appeal a decision with a higher court?
The DOJ appealed decisions by low level magistrates to Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Is that OK with you or do we need to re-write the rules of procedure now that Obama is in office? The magistrate judges were in fact in error. Have you actually looked at the relevant law?
Says right here:
18 USC § 2703 - Required disclosure of customer communications or records | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute
in this case they didn't need to provide notice to Rosen if they obtain a warrant! Not only did the DOJ make proper use of the appeals process - the plain language of the law is on the DOJ and Chief Judge's side!(1) A governmental entity may require a provider of remote computing service to disclose the contents of any wire or electronic communication to which this paragraph is made applicable by paragraph (2) of this subsection—
A) without required notice to the subscriber or customer, if the governmental entity obtains a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or, in the case of a State court, issued using State warrant procedures) by a court of competent jurisdiction; or
Does the law actually matter or does it only matter what Breitbart.com says?
The law matters. Did Holder appeal a decision with a higher court?
