Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Have the Dems Finally Grown a Pair?Follow

#1 Feb 14 2008 at 9:57 PM Rating: Good
House Defies Bush on Wiretaps

Quote:
The House of Representatives defied the White House yesterday by refusing to make an expiring surveillance law permanent, prompting a harsh exchange between Republicans and Democrats as they prepared for an extended, election-year battle over national security.

The episode was a rare uprising by Democrats against the White House on a terrorism issue, and it inspired caterwauling on both sides about the dire ramifications of the standoff.

Republicans said Democrats were putting the nation at risk, while President Bush offered to delay his scheduled departure for Africa today to reach a deal. Democrats responded with charges of administration recklessness and fearmongering.

The conflict erupted on the same day that House Democrats approved contempt citations against White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers over their refusal to cooperate with an investigation into the mass firings of U.S. attorneys.

That vote -- resulting in the first citations ever issued against White House officials -- infuriated the Bush administration and helped torpedo a short-lived political truce with Democrats, who had celebrated the signing of a bipartisan economic stimulus package on Wednesday. Republicans staged a walkout before the vote.

The surveillance dispute centers on the Protect America Act, a temporary law approved over Democratic misgivings last August. It expanded the powers of the government to monitor the communications of foreign suspects without warrants, including international phone calls and e-mails passing through or into the United States. It is set to expire at the end of the day tomorrow.

The Bush administration wants to make the law permanent, while adding legal immunity for telecommunication companies that were sued for invasions of privacy after helping U.S. intelligence agencies conduct warrantless wiretapping. The Senate has approved a bill backed by the White House, but the House has balked at the immunity provision and raised other objections because of civil-liberties concerns.

Without the law, administration officials said yesterday in interviews and statements, the monitoring of terrorist groups overseas will be severely hampered. Telecom firms may also become reluctant to help the National Security Agency and other U.S. intelligence agencies conduct surveillance, officials said.

"If Congress does not act by that time, our ability to find out who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying, and what they are planning will be compromised," Bush said in a hastily arranged news appearance on the South Lawn of the White House. He said that intelligence officials were "waiting to see" if Congress would "tie their hands."

Democrats immediately said that the expiration of the temporary law would have little, if any, immediate impact on intelligence gathering. "He has nothing to offer but fear," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters after Bush's address.

"I regret your reckless attempt to manufacture a crisis over the reauthorization of foreign surveillance laws," Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said in a letter to Bush, in defense of his colleagues in the House. "Instead of needlessly frightening the country, you should work with Congress in a calm, constructive way."


After taking over both houses of congress last year after a voter fueled referendum on the war in Iraq, and failing to do much of anything about that, it looks like the Dems just might be willing to start fighting with the Bush administration. Sure, it's a year too late, and most likely little will come of this or the contempt citations. However, I for one, am happy that they've given up bending over for Bush, at least for the time being, & are willing to fight with him about something.

Although, I suppose this could all be just a clevar misdirection. Albeit, not quite akin to the Afghanistan==> Iraq one, but at the very least, it shouldn't cost any lives.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#2 Feb 15 2008 at 5:13 AM Rating: Decent
I typically reject the idea of associating with a specific party when it comes to politics, but this I agree with the democrats on. I don't know the specific details of every code of law involved, but I'm fairly certain the government can still do the exact same wiretaps and surveillance, provided they have enough evidence to support getting a warrant. The argument at this point seems to be Bush and co.'s reliance on acting without accountability, something I disagree with, even in the most dire of situations.

#3 Feb 15 2008 at 9:40 AM Rating: Decent
*****
18,463 posts
Any House measure must also go through the Senate. I'm unsure what you refer to when you talk about "growing a pair". Just because something does or doesn't pass doesn't mean there wasn't strong opposition at some point.
#4 Feb 15 2008 at 9:53 AM Rating: Decent
Atomicflea wrote:
Any House measure must also go through the Senate. I'm unsure what you refer to when you talk about "growing a pair". Just because something does or doesn't pass doesn't mean there wasn't strong opposition at some point.


I'm going to guess his statement was based on things like:

Quote:
The episode was a rare uprising by Democrats against the White House on a terrorism issue

Quote:
Democrats responded with charges of administration recklessness and fearmongering.


In other words, they've chosen not to mince words on the issue.
#5 Feb 15 2008 at 10:13 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Perhaps a pair of tits or ovaries, maybe. Preventing our government the ability to keep an eye on foreigners via wiretaps is just stupid. We should actually go further and ankle bracelet anyone not a US citizen just to keep tabs on the sneaky sumbitches.

Totem
#6 Feb 15 2008 at 10:17 AM Rating: Decent
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Totem wrote:
Perhaps a pair of tits or ovaries, maybe. Preventing our government the ability to keep an eye on foreigners via wiretaps is just stupid. We should actually go further and ankle bracelet anyone not a US citizen just to keep tabs on the sneaky sumbitches.

Totem


Somebody should just euthanize you before you breed.



Edited, Feb 15th 2008 1:21pm by Annabella
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#7 Feb 15 2008 at 10:22 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
The Honorable Annabella wrote:
Somebody should just euthanize you before you breed.
Too late, and might I beg to differ? Tote's daughter is scrumptious. I would hate to deny college frat boys everywhere that grade-A ***.
#8 Feb 15 2008 at 10:28 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Too late, spunkload. My evil Republican spawn have gone on and are about to replicate themselves for a third generation of size 15 carbon footprinting, fossil fuel using, over-consuming ugly 'Mericans. Who knows? Maybe one of them will make a career in the DIA/NSA/super-dooper ultra secret black ops spy agency and will listen in on your phone conversations with Abdul the rug salesman from Tehran as he has phone sex with you.

You're prolly rubbing one out just thinking about it.

Totem

PS: Flea's not joking. My wife and I make some incredibly good looking children. Sucks to be you to have such fugly DNA.

Edited, Feb 15th 2008 1:30pm by Totem
#9 Feb 15 2008 at 10:41 AM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Quote:
My evil Republican spawn have gone on and are about to replicate themselves for a third generation of size 15 carbon footprinting, fossil fuel using, over-consuming ugly 'Mericans.


On the other hand, the knowledge that your genetic code may one day be stopped is the only thing that gives me comfort when I think of the impending worldwide environmental catastrophe.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#10 Feb 15 2008 at 10:46 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Not before we use more than our fair share of Mother Earth's resources. Us Totems are greedy like that.

Totem
#11 Feb 15 2008 at 12:15 PM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Totem wrote:
Perhaps a pair of tits or ovaries, maybe.
Dam straight.
Quote:
We should actually go further and ankle bracelet anyone not a US citizen just to keep tabs on the sneaky sumbitches.

As long as they're properly stylish.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#12 Feb 15 2008 at 12:22 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
My wife and I make some incredibly good looking children.


Pics or stfu.
#13 Feb 15 2008 at 1:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
I just find it amusing that Dems are viewed as "growing a pair" when they fearfully strip away their nations defenses in order to appease some far left ideologues.


I've always kinda viewed the Dems like that one character in a film who decides to tell his captors the one thing that he and his friends know and the one thing keeping them alive because "they promised they'd let us all go if I told them...".

Yeah. That's about it.

Edited, Feb 15th 2008 1:32pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#14 Feb 15 2008 at 1:38 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
"Pics or stfu." --Kachi

Some of you here have actually met my daughter, Jess. Between her and Jonny, my son, they were known as Ken and Barbie in school. I'd post a pic of them, but a certain demographic on this board would either question my ethnicity or spank one out-- and that'd be just wrong. Frickin' perverts.

Totem
#15 Feb 15 2008 at 1:38 PM Rating: Good
***
2,824 posts
Quote:
I just find it amusing that Dems are viewed as "growing a pair" when they fearfully strip away their nations defenses in order to appease some far left ideologues.


I've always kinda viewed the Dems like that one character in a film who decides to tell his captors the one thing that he and his friends know and the one thing keeping them alive because "they promised they'd let us all go if I told them...".

Yeah. That's about it.


Is this Gbaji's attempt at a biting comment ala Smash or Nobby?
#16 Feb 15 2008 at 1:59 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

I just find it amusing that Dems are viewed as "growing a pair" when they fearfully strip away their nations defenses in order to appease some far left ideologues.


Just to be clear, it's fearful not to surrender freedoms in the name of safety, but brave to do so?

Check.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#17 Feb 15 2008 at 2:17 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Just to be clear, it's fearful not to surrender freedoms in the name of safety, but brave to do so?


If I had the slightest belief that their motivation for doing this had anything remotely to do with "protecting freedoms", you'd have a point.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#18 Feb 15 2008 at 2:30 PM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

If I had the slightest belief that their motivation for doing this had anything remotely to do with "protecting freedoms", you'd have a point.


Oh right, I forgot. Your keep sense of people's motivations is the overarching arbiter of validity.

It's exceptionally fortunate for you that you don't really work in an environment that requires any ability to understand other people.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#19 Feb 15 2008 at 2:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
If I had the slightest belief that their motivation for doing this had anything remotely to do with "protecting freedoms", you'd have a point.
Hear that, Smash? Gbaji of all people says that the Democrats are up to no good.

You grab the Kleenex and I'll bring a bucket of ice cream.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#20 Feb 15 2008 at 2:38 PM Rating: Good
I'm pretty sure if the founding fathers were politicians today they would be laughed out of D.C. as left wing liberals who love terrorists.
#21 Feb 15 2008 at 2:40 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

I'm pretty sure if the founding fathers were politicians today they would be laughed out of D.C. as left wing liberals who love terrorists.


I'm pretty sure they'd be shouting "Who put the ****** in a suit??? Run before that escaped slave kills us all!"
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#22 Feb 15 2008 at 2:47 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
Just to be clear, it's fearful not to surrender freedoms in the name of safety, but brave to do so?


If I had the slightest belief that their motivation for doing this had anything remotely to do with "protecting freedoms", you'd have a point.


They refused to vote in a permanent extension to a surveillance law that circumvents the checks and balances of our government. You can imply any additional intentions you want, but the plainly obvious one is to protect the freedoms of U.S. citizens from being abused by an overzealous government.

As I said earlier, I'm fairly certain the government can still do the exact same wiretaps and surveillance, provided they have enough evidence to support getting a warrant. The argument at this point seems to be Bush and co.'s reliance on acting without accountability, something I disagree with, even in the most dire of situations.
#23 Feb 15 2008 at 2:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Smasharoo wrote:

I'm pretty sure if the founding fathers were politicians today they would be laughed out of D.C. as left wing liberals who love terrorists.


I'm pretty sure they'd be shouting "Who put the @#%^ in a suit??? Run before that escaped slave kills us all!"


I'm not too familiar with Asylum rules, will I go to hell for laughing at that?
#24 Feb 15 2008 at 5:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
The One and Only BrownDuck wrote:
They refused to vote in a permanent extension to a surveillance law that circumvents the checks and balances of our government. You can imply any additional intentions you want, but the plainly obvious one is to protect the freedoms of U.S. citizens from being abused by an overzealous government.


Nope. They've refused to "grow a pair" and codify the actual laws regarding how to manage new technology in the context of the existing FISA regulations. As a result we've left in the limbo of "we don't really know what the law is" situation that we've basically been in for the last 15 years or so (since that whole "internet" thing came along").

The fact is that the Dems don't want to codify this because they get a lot more value out of leaving the rules vague so that they can selectively attack uses of intelligence gathering and score some points with their base in the process. It has *nothing* to do with protecting freedoms, nor does it have anything to do with maintaining checks and balances. If anything, it's the opposite. Right now, in the lack of clear law, the executive can basically interpret the existing laws within the context of digital communications however he wants (which is what's been happening). By codifying it everyone will know exactly what is and isn't legal.


Gotta love a legislature that's afraid to pass laws when they are so clearly needed. Afraid of being held to count for what they write. Afraid to take a position. Afraid to face their own worked up constituents. Heck. They're even afraid to write a bill that matches what their constituents want because they know it'll be a disaster. So instead, they just sit there and act like by doing nothing they are doing something...

Quote:
As I said earlier, I'm fairly certain the government can still do the exact same wiretaps and surveillance, provided they have enough evidence to support getting a warrant. The argument at this point seems to be Bush and co.'s reliance on acting without accountability, something I disagree with, even in the most dire of situations.



No. It's exactly about putting the accountability where it belongs: With the branch of government that's supposed to write the laws. While it may seem fun and amusing to leave whole sections of law vague so that you can claim the other guy is violating some principle of the law (unwritten or not), it's not terribly productive and in this case puts us in some potentially dangerous positions. The last thing we need is intelligence agencies afraid to act, not because acting is illegal, but because they don't know if it's illegal.

Silly, huh?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#25 Feb 15 2008 at 5:57 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

The last thing we need is intelligence agencies afraid to act, not because acting is illegal, but because they don't know if it's illegal.


Congress passing laws wouldn't mitigate that if you have, as this administration does, FFF signing off on anything they want to do as legal.

You knew that already, though. Oh wait, did you Google it yet? When that happens you'll have known it forever.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#26 Feb 15 2008 at 5:59 PM Rating: Excellent
[quote=gbaji]A boatload of ****************

The way to fix the laws is not to pass a law allowing permanent circumvention of the laws already in place. If Bush and co. want to propose fixes to existing laws that account for technology updates and the modern terrorist threat, I'm sure that would be much more widely accepted than merely trying to permanently extend a law granting them the ability to execute the law without judicial oversight.
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 315 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (315)