The March on washington crowd est.

[JakeStarkey]

For alli: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Now show us where it is forbidden.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

... Oh? And one other thing? "General WELFARE" Clause doesn't cut it either.

Good form, AllieBaba. You happen to be correct.

lol... Yeah... the Left loves to 'interpret the "General Welfare' clause to represent a Federal mandate to promote welfare, generally...

ROFL...















Leftists...

 

[Polk]

For alli: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Now show us where it is forbidden.

It doesn't need to be forbidden because Congress doesn't have powers outside it's enumerated powers. That being said, it's a pretty clear case of falling inside the bounds of the Commerce Clause.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Oh brother. Calling someone a she is now a personal attack.

You folks are seriously whacked. <-- Note, that was an attack.

And True.

Well Leftists seem to be VERY defensive about being recognized as a female; even as they proclaim how equal woman are...

Now if being a female is equal to being a male, then what, pray tell, could be the source of this angst? Particularly given the effort they put towards advocating for feminizing the species...

But that's the nature of the irrational female, now isn't it?

 

[Si modo]

Oh brother. Calling someone a she is now a personal attack.

You folks are seriously whacked. <-- Note, that was an attack.

And True.

Making an observation about your obsession with a what a poster's gender is not or is not, is not a personal attack, but thanks for showing us how easliy you become offended. As I said before, you may want to consider dropping a valium or two before posting. You need to calm down and take a bweath.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-u8hi0RTbk]YouTube - Classic Sesame Street - Take a Bweaff[/ame]

 

[paperview]

Oh brother. Calling someone a she is now a personal attack.

You folks are seriously whacked. <-- Note, that was an attack.

And True.

Well Leftists seem to be VERY defensive about being recognized as a female; even as they proclaim how equal woman are...

Now if being a female is equal to being a male, then what, pray tell, could be the source of this angst? Particularly given the effort they put towards advocating for feminizing the species...

But that's the nature of the irrational female, now isn't it?

I'm pretty sure si modo is not a leftist, Mr. Chauvinistisches Schwein.

 

[Si modo]

Fascinating. Inside the conservative mind:

Are you not a she?

One must wonder why you think that and why it's so important to you.

I understnd that it's difficult for you to focus, but one must wonder what your obession is (I am hot and fascinating, but this really isn't a dating site), why you dodge explaining the vomit you spew up, and why you dodge my asking you why you think that was an attack.

I suspected your relevance was minimal, now it is confirmed. Your input is irrelevant.

Keep an online diary or something. Few care about your emotive tendencies in political discussions as your nonsensical ramblings and imagined affronts are getting a bit disturbing.

 

[AllieBaba]

For alli: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Now show us where it is forbidden.

? where what is forbidden, crackhead?

 

[paperview]

I understnd that it's difficult for you to focus, but one must wonder what your obession is (I am hot and fascinating, but this really isn't a dating site),

I really don't give a shit what your physical condition is, in any way shape or form - get that straight up front, kay?

why you dodge explaining the vomit you spew up, and why you dodge my asking you why you think that was an attack.

Your little routine here is quite the little game for you, isn't it?

"Vomit." Good use of the repulsive. "Obsession." "Emotional."
You're a dandy for poking sticks then standing back and watching what reaction you get. Even the word "she" seems to spur you. Last night it was the word First.

Now you go on about me dodging, what the hell I don't know.(and it was Tommytanks, "The T" who called it a "personal attack" - not me; ironically in the same post he attacked me)

I was astounded however, you called me obsessed with gender after simply referring to you as a she, in telling Polk
you. made. a. joke. (or so I thought)
- and for some bizarre reason you think I think it's important - cause I said What??

What??

For those who might have the unfortunate pleasure of reading this bizarre exchange, and wonder even slightly less than a half a crap (maybe cause they might be so utterly bored, or maybe cause its Sunday, or maybe cause they are as bewildered as I am - or not..)
but for the record -

This is what went down here today with Si...

Except it wasn't millions of people, and the protesters were much smaller than the anti-war protesters, which I'm going out on a limb and guessing you considered fringe.

Quote: Originally Posted by Si modo
Oh I don't know. I saw some protesters who were well over 6' tall yesterday.

[

The number of protesters, not the physical size of each protester.

psst --Polk: I think she was making a phunny.

Actually, I was pointing out piss-poor communication. So common. She? What is your obsession with gender?

What???

My obsession with gender cause I refer to you as a she??

Are you not a she?

One must wonder why you think that and why it's so important to you.

Play your little games with someone else, he, she, it...whatever you are.

I'm quite done with your semantic tarantella's.

 

[Annie]

I understnd that it's difficult for you to focus, but one must wonder what your obession is (I am hot and fascinating, but this really isn't a dating site),

I really don't give a shit what your physical condition is, in any way shape or form - get that straight up front, kay?

why you dodge explaining the vomit you spew up, and why you dodge my asking you why you think that was an attack.

Your little routine here is quite the little game for you, isn't it?

"Vomit." Good use of the repulsive. "Obsession." "Emotional."
You're a dandy for poking sticks then standing back and watching what reaction you get. Even the word "she" seems to spur you. Last night it was the word First.

Now you go on about me dodging, what the hell I don't know.(and it was Tommytanks, "The T" who called it a "personal attack" - not me; ironically in the same post he attacked me)

I was astounded however, you called me obsessed with gender after simply referring to you as a she, in telling Polk
you. made. a. joke.
- and for some bizarre reason you think I think it's important - cause I said What??

What??

For those who might have the unfortunate pleasure of reading this bizarre exchange, and wonder even slightly less than a half a crap (maybe cause they might be so utterly bored, or maybe cause its Sunday, or maybe cause they are as bewildered as I am - or not..)
but for the record -

This is what went down here today with Si...

Are you not a she?

One must wonder why you think that and why it's so important to you.

Play your little games with someone else, he, she, it...whatever you are.

I'm quite done with your semantic tarantella's.

LOL! You are losing it, as I'm sure are Rahm and David. Obama seems clueless, your gut reflexes are correct.

 

[Si modo]

I understnd that it's difficult for you to focus, but one must wonder what your obession is (I am hot and fascinating, but this really isn't a dating site),

I really don't give a shit what your physical condition is, in any way shape or form - get that straight up front, kay?

why you dodge explaining the vomit you spew up, and why you dodge my asking you why you think that was an attack.

Your little routine here is quite the little game for you, isn't it? ....

As it's the weekend, I play with things that require little thought. Ya caught me red-handed.

.... "Vomit." Good use of the repulsive. "Obsession." "Emotional." ....

Your inanity is repulsive. As one must wonder why you continue to focus so much on me...in a political thread...if the shoe fits, as they say.

.... You're a dandy for poking sticks then standing back and watching what reaction you get. Even the word "she" seems to spur you. Last night it was the word First. ....

Well, when you make up shit that I didn't say, yeah, I call out inane strawmen. Here's an idea: If you don't like that, try focusing on what others type, not what you hallucinate is there.

.... Now you go on about me dodging, what the hell I don't know.(and it was Tommytanks, "The T" who called it a "personal attack" - not me; ironically in the same post he attacked me) ....

Perhaps. However, you are obsessed with me and you go on and on. I thought this was a place for political discussion, not your trolling for dates.

.... I was astounded however, you called me obsessed with gender after simply referring to you as a she, in telling Polk
you. made. a. joke. (or so I thought)
- and for some bizarre reason you think I think it's important - cause I said What??

What?? ....

Exactly what I have asked over and over and over and you dodge. Why is what you think is or is not another's gender so important to you? For someone who might be a feminist, I do wonder about this trait you show.

.... For those who might have the unfortunate pleasure of reading this bizarre exchange, and wonder even slightly less than a half a crap (maybe cause they might be so utterly bored, or maybe cause its Sunday, or maybe cause they are as bewildered as I am - or not..)
but for the record -

This is what went down here today with Si... ....

Actually, it seems you have well established your obession with me and my gender. Let it go; you'll be more at peace. I'm not avaliable.

Are you not a she?

One must wonder why you think that and why it's so important to you.

Play your little games with someone else, he, she, it...whatever you are.

I'm quite done with your semantic tarantella's.

Perhaps if you didn't focus so much on a gender, you wouldn't have gotten called out on it.





You don't like getting called out on your inane strawmen - don't make shit up.

You don't like getting called out on your focus on gender - don't focus on it.

Take some responsibility for your actions. You don't like others mentioning them, don't do them. It's not rocket science. Hell, my neighbor's second grader understands that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

For alli: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Now show us where it is forbidden.

? where what is forbidden, crackhead?

Got no answer, do you? Somehow I knew that was coming, allicon.

 

[obama2ndterm]

stoopid_7af2a.jpg

What is it about stupidity that America seems to love so much?

This glorification of stupidity has been consistently promulgated by films like Dumb and Dumber, Legally Blonde, Dude, Where's My Car, Idiocracy, Borat and - god help me - Forrest Gump. We Americans love stoopid peepul. As much as I enjoy the series Eureka, it's telling that in a town full of geniuses, the schtick is that it&#8217;s the not-genius sheriff (at least he isn't portrayed as a slapstick idiot) who usually solves the problem by either shooting it, whacking it with a stick or driving his Jeep into it. The geniuses are stereotyped as bumbling, socially inadequate, skinny, malformed, couldn't get laid if their Nobel Prize depended on it geeks. (Not helped that Bill Gates fits the physical profile). Real life geniuses, like John Forbes Nash, are presented as more cautionary tales - See? See? That's what happens if you get too smart, you become paranoid and go insane. Told ya so. Pass the popcorn, Ma.
A,Americas IQ would go up if we just slaughtered these dopes!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Oh brother. Calling someone a she is now a personal attack.

You folks are seriously whacked. <-- Note, that was an attack.

And True.

Well Leftists seem to be VERY defensive about being recognized as a female; even as they proclaim how equal woman are...

Now if being a female is equal to being a male, then what, pray tell, could be the source of this angst? Particularly given the effort they put towards advocating for feminizing the species...

But that's the nature of the irrational female, now isn't it?

I'm pretty sure si modo is not a leftist, Mr. Chauvinistisches Schwein.

Who gives a red rats ass what you're sure about?

Leftism is the perspective of the irrational female... in the party politic... Leftists are the thoroughly HAMMERED chick who's yelling at the top of her lungs how much she hates everyone who is staring at her as she stumbles around rambling her deep seated 'feelings' of irrational discontent...

 

[Bfgrn]

There are no warrantless wiretaps.

And lots of peole expressed opposition to President Bush's profligate spending.

THOSE words could ONLY be spoken by a die hard STATIST...

Wrong AGAIN! Your consistency is impressive. The words can be and were spoken by me (a non Statist) because they are accurate.

Only the woefully and pathetically ignorant and a dishonest person (i.e., a dope like you) would attempt to deny a truthful claim and put a false label on the person who speaks the truth -- as you just did.

You don't even understand the basic meanings of the terms being used. You shine a bright light on your own abject ignorance with each such stupid post of yours.

...the woefully and pathetically ignorant and a dishonest person (i.e., a dope like you)

Don't be so hard on YOURSELF statist...



Bush Conducted Illegal Wiretaps of American Citizens

Bush has admitted to authorizing the NSA, a secretive spy agency, to conduct warrantless wire taps on American citizens. The spying even extends to postal mail. The NSA has also been collecting phone records in an attempt to build a database of every phone call that is made.

1. 2003 - Mark Klein, a retired AT&T communications technician, submitted an affidavit in support of the Electronic Fronteir Foundation's FF's lawsuit against AT&T. He testified that in 2003 he connected a "splitter" that sent a copy of Internet traffic and phone calls to a secure room that was operated by the NSA in the San Francisco office of AT&T. He heard from a co-worker that similar rooms were being constructed in other cities, including Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego. From "Whistle-Blower Outs NSA Spy Room", Wired News, 4/7/06 [Wired] [EFF Case]

2. 12/15/05 - The New York Times reveals that "Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials." The Bush wiretaps violated US law because he was required to get approval from FISA. He can start a wiretap of a suspected terrorist at any time but must then seek approval to continue within 72 hours.

3. Attorney General Gonzales claims HJR114 gave Bush authority to conduct the wiretaps. But HJR114 only grants use of the "Armed Forces". HJR114 does not explicitly suspend the Constitution. Also HJR114 requires "The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3". Congress was not notified of these wiretaps. [HJR114]

4. Bush may have bypassed FISA because he wanted to listen to and analyze all international signals, not just those of suspected terrorists. He knew this was blatantly illegal so he hid it. Bush says "We use FISA still. But FISAs is for long-term monitoring. What is needed in order to protect the American people is the ability to move quickly to detect." Then later "There is a difference between detecting, so we can prevent, and monitoring. And it's important to note the distinction between the two." The distinction is that "detecting" requires listening to lots of calls with a computer to see if someone says certain keywords like "bomb" in Arabic, or maybe even "impeach Bush" in English. Monitoring is listening to a specific suspected terrorist. The problem with detection is that you have to listen to all calls, including yours and mine. [This NY Times article confirms this interpretation. Also CNN.]

5. More evidence that Bush wants to listen to all signals is in Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War," on page 303. " Bush summarized his strategy: 'Listen to every phone call and close them down and protect the innocents.'" [WaPost]

6. James B. Comey, acting Attorney General, refused to sign an authorization for the NSA program because it "did not comply with the law". On March 10th, 2004, Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card tried to bypass Comey be getting a disoriented John Ashcroft to sign an authorization from his hospital bed. Comey rushed to the hospital to stop them. On March 11th, Bush intervened personally to get the Justice Department to authorize the program. [NYTimes]

7. Investigators may have found that Bush applied for an expansion of wiretap capability from FISA, was rejected, and then went ahead and did it anyway. [FindLaw] [FAS]

8. Bush claims going through FISA is too slow but legal emergency wiretaps helped capture terrorist Mosquera.

9. According to a report in USA Today, the NSA is collecting the phone records of tens of millions of Americans - most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders. The stated goal is to be able to identify who is involved in a network of terrorists. But this same technique can be used to determine who is involved in a network of political activists who might, for example, oppose the Bush administration. Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers' calling habits. All of the major telecommunications companies cooperated with this program except for Qwest. Joe Nacchio, CEO of Qwest, was troubled by the fact that there was no FISA approval and that the program was so pervasive.

10. 8/18/06 - In response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU, US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled that the wiretaps are unconstitutional. [NYTimes] [WashPost]

11. 8/19/07 - New York Times says "Broad new surveillance powers approved by Congress this month could allow the Bush administration to conduct spy operations that go well beyond wiretapping to include — without court approval — certain types of physical searches on American soil and the collection of Americans’ business records..."

Primary Sources

* 12/17/05 - Transcript of Bush at a Radio Address revealing that he had authorized the program more than 30 times. [White House Transcript]
* 12/19/05 - Transcript of Bush at a Press Conference discussing the wiretaps [White House Transcript]
* US Code Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, Sec 1805 defining the operation of the FISA Court.
* US Code Title 18, Chapter 121 "Stored Wire and Electronic Communications and Transactional Records Access" controlling access to telephone records.
* US Code Title 18, Chapter 206 "Pen Registers and Trap and Trace Devices" controlling devices used to monitor communications.
* US Code Title 47, Chapter 5 "Wire or Radio Communication" - AKA "Communications Act of 1934"
* 2/2006- "Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency’s Surveillance Authority" - Hearings before Senate Judiciary Committee
* 1/6/06 - Letter from Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe to John Conyers stating that "the presidential program of surveillance at issue here is a violation of the separation of powers — as grave an abuse of executive authority as I can recall ever having studied."
* Collection of FISA Documents at Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
* 12/15/05 - "Bush Secretly Lifted Some Limits on Spying in U.S. After 9/11, Officials Say" By JAMES RISEN and ERIC LICHTBLAU , NY Times
* 4/7/06 - "Whistle-Blower Outs NSA Spy Room", by Ryan Singel, Wired News
* Electronic Frontier Foundation lawsuit against AT&T for domestic spying.

Collections

* ACLU v. NSA: The Challenge to Illegal Spying - extensive research and court cases
* Electronic Frontier Foundation resource center on NSA spying
* Timeline of NSA Wiretaps by CooperativeResearch.org (Excellent)
* Timeline of Wiretaps by Jodin Morey
* "NSA warrantless surveillance controversy" on Wikipedia

Other Resources

* EPIC - details on FISA from Electronic Privacy Information Center
* "An Update on President Bush's NSA Program: The Historical Context, Specter's Recent Bill, and Feingold's Censure Motion", in FindLaw, 3/24/06, by JOHN W. DEAN
* "Bipartisan call for wiretapping probe", 12/21/05 [CNN]
* Oregan court case determines that reasons for FISA approved wiretaps can remain secret. 3/18/03 [CNN]
* 'What are the "Inherent" Powers of the President? How the Bush Administration Has Mistaken Default Rules for Exclusive Right' By Michael C. Dorf, Feb. 13, 2006 - analyses legality of wiretaps.
* "Judge Rules Against Wiretaps NSA Program Called Unconstitutional" by Dan Eggen and Dafna Linzer, Washington Post Staff Writers, Friday, August 18, 2006
* Articles on Surveillance and infiltration of protestors before the Republican Convention
o NY Times, 8/7/07
o WashPost, 8/7/07
* 12/6/07 - John Conyers blog "Setting the Story Straight on FISA" and the RESTORE Act. Has good links.

 

[NYcarbineer]

26 October 2002 - 100,000 in Washington and 50,000 in San Francisco
18 January 2003 - 500,000 in Washington and 150,000 in San Francisco
15 February 2003 - 1,000,000 in New York City, 250,000 in San Francisco, 100,000 in Los Angeles, 50,000 in Seattle, with smaller protests in Minneapolis, Sacramento, Chicago, Detroit, Austin, Buffalo, and San Diego

Once again. Protesting a war is not the same as protesting violations of citizens' rights.

People always protest wars. What's going on now is a serious movement against restructuring of the US.

Indeed so. And when there is no Constitutional MANDATE in doing so. I have yet for ONE person show me where it says Congress or the POTUS may do these things.

And before ANY lib gets started? I don't care a WIT of the past or precidents.

Still is unlawful as to the Constitution. Oh? And one other thing? "General WELFARE" Clause doesn't cut it either.

Good form, AllieBaba. You happen to be correct.

Then why is Social Security constitutional?

 

[Liability]

Once again. Protesting a war is not the same as protesting violations of citizens' rights.

People always protest wars. What's going on now is a serious movement against restructuring of the US.

Indeed so. And when there is no Constitutional MANDATE in doing so. I have yet for ONE person show me where it says Congress or the POTUS may do these things.

And before ANY lib gets started? I don't care a WIT of the past or precidents.

Still is unlawful as to the Constitution. Oh? And one other thing? "General WELFARE" Clause doesn't cut it either.

Good form, AllieBaba. You happen to be correct.

Then why is Social Security constitutional?

Are you sure it is?

And before you reflexively reply, note: there can be a difference between a law or program being "ruled" to be Constitutional and it actually being Constitutional.

EDIT: After hitting submit, I decided to see what I could find. I quickly found the Helvering case.* It has been found by SCOTUS to be Constitutional. BUT, along those lines, peruse this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/attarian7.html

(I am not a huge fan of Lew Rockwell offerings, but that one seems pretty good.)

___________________________
* Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937).

 

[paperview]

The number of protesters, not the physical size of each protester.

psst --Polk: I think she was making a phunny.

See, that's what happens when you don't know people.

I don't know the twit from a hole in the ground either, but whatever you do, don't call her a she. She'll think you're obsessed with her, and assume you are trolling for dates.


(Just what this place needs, another Malcontent. lol.)

Best to put it on ignore. That's what I'm doing.

 

[Si modo]

psst --Polk: I think she was making a phunny.

See, that's what happens when you don't know people.

I don't know the twit from a hole in the ground either, but whatever you do, don't call her a she. She'll think you're obsessed with her, and assume you are trolling for dates.


(Just what this place needs, another Malcontent. lol.)

Best to put it on ignore. That's what I'm doing.

Honey flanks, I already told you I'm not available. You're cringeworthy.

 

[Polk]

psst --Polk: I think she was making a phunny.

See, that's what happens when you don't know people.

I don't know the twit from a hole in the ground either, but whatever you do, don't call her a she. She'll think you're obsessed with her, and assume you are trolling for dates.


(Just what this place needs, another Malcontent. lol.)

Best to put it on ignore. That's what I'm doing.

We live, we learn.