Justice Department to declare warrantless wiretaps legal

[Caitriona]

Let me tell you what I think: I think Congress wrote Bush a blank check back in 2001, and now there are those who don't like what figure he's written in the little box and how he's spending the cash.

LOL, well I couldn't agree more. But then I also believe that we all elect officials, and then we've a right to reevaluate their performance once they are in office. It's not like we elect them for life and we're stuck. They represent us, if they do it badly, then out they go. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Starship Coyote]

LOL, well I couldn't agree more. But then I also believe that we all elect officials, and then we've a right to reevaluate their performance once they are in office. It's not like we elect them for life and we're stuck. They represent us, if they do it badly, then out they go. Nothing wrong with that.

You know, everyone says that, but how often does it happen? Ya'll recalled your sorry assed governor out in California and installed a muscle boy. I'm sure there are many other instances of senators, reps, governors, etc. not making the cut, but how often do you hear about it? I'm convinced most politicians savvy enough to survive know how to BS their constituents into re-electing them.

Take Clinton. That fucker was our governor for twelve years, and was hated for most of it by most Arkansans. He actually cut short a fifth term to run for President. Yet you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who'll admit to repeatedly voting for him.

 

[Caitriona]

Well, I hear you and agree that is the way for the most part, but I'm not ashamed to admit I voted for a bum, if s/he turns out to be a bum. You know what I mean. It's not about being right each time I vote, it's about understanding the power of my vote.

People are too wrapped up in being "right". I could care less. I'm all about making sure elected official know they are there by my good graces. They can take money from rich contributors, but the bottom line is.. I'll let them know they have lost my vote.

Hell I'd stage a voter revolt if I thought I could do it. Just vote each and every motherfucker out of office, and replace the lot of them. See how well that sat with the politicians. And then let the new bunch know that if they fuck up, they'll be voted out too.

When my Representatives fuck up, I email them. I tell them come re-election time, I not only will not vote for them, I'll work for the other side to oust them. I don't care what political party they represent, once they are elected they are mine. I'll run them out of office as fast as I voted them in. That's power. If every voter knew that, and let their reps know they'd be replaced.. we might see a lot more actual... oh I don't know REPRESENTATION.

 

[Big Dick McGee]

Let me tell you what I think: I think Congress wrote Bush a blank check back in 2001, and now there are those who don't like what figure he's written in the little box and how he's spending the cash.

I agree with you. For the record, I am generally a very pro-privacy type of guy. Whether it be nosy neighbors, or Government intrusions, my basic philosophy is, "You worry about your business, I'll worry about mine". I used to be an absolutist in this matter, abhorring censoring or Government prying of any kind.

However, the events of 9/11, coupled with a bit more age, maturity, and grey hair (read: having a kid!), have allowed me to question and expand my views and allow for shades of grey when dealing with complex issues like the Right to Privacy vs. National Security.

Listen, I'm not saying that "if you have nothing to hide" you shouldn't be averse to the Fed monitoring you. Not only is it an invasion of privacy, but it's bound to be mired in beauracratic inefficiency.

See, here's the thing: Everyone seems to arguing under the misconception that the Fed is tracking everyone's conversations, all the time. Perhaps it's not so much a misconception as a political spin, when you really thing about it. Regardless of whether it's careful spin or just outright ignorance, the fact remains that the eschelon spying is only being used where credible evidence suggests that individuals might be engaged in actions that might be dangerous to America and our citizens. That's it. They're not recording your phone sex with your girlfriend in Alaska, and they certainly aren't listening in while you talk to your Gramma in Florida. They're listening to suspected terrorists who may or may not be plotting damage and death to US.

Is the sytem perfect? Of course not. Occasionally they will receive bad info, and may listen in on private conversations that have nothing to do with National Security. But overall the system seems to be working.

How many countries have suffered terrorist attacks since 9/11? Madrid, Bali, London, Turkey, Pakistan, to name a few. Some were major, some relatively minor. The United States, however, hasn't suffered any terrorist attacks since 9/11. Gee, you think it was a "wake-up call", and that current methods for rooting out terrorist plots are actually working? 'Course not, can't be. We've got a Republican Idiot in the White House, remember. :roll:

Americans, by nature, get way too fucking complacent. "9/11? That soooo 2002!" After 9/11 we did basically give President Bush a blank check to stop terrorism from ocurring in the United States. Even if you don't like the figure he wrote, you must admit it's working.

 

[WordInterrupted]

You didn't hear the Sarandons squawking when the Clinton administration's drug arrest and incarceration statistics soared above any previous regime's since the begining of the 'war on drugs' while employing constitutionally questionable means, did you?

Actually, you did. Liberals didn't like Clinton very much to begin with and met his encroachment on civil liberties with consternation. I was fairly young at the time, but I still remember the general outrage at his 1996 effective death penalty act. As I recall, "liberal" advocacy groups like the ACLU challenged that law aggressively in the courts. So yes, liberals were extremely critical of Clinton on these issues.

Really, Octavian, I can't understand your compulsion to smear liberals with obviously untrue generalizations. It's pathetic. Grow up.