telecom immunity

[Zerzera]

I agree with Izor. Judicial and Legislative branches are totally stupid and should be submitted to the President, the big leader. All they do is whine about that stupid constitution, giving liberal people freedom where there is no need for freedom. Don't let education get in your way.

[Izor]

3 things...

1) When did I ever say that I watch fox news?

2) im not in iraq dipshit. but i might just be staying here another 6 months to possibly get shot at. although, being in a special forces unit they dont really want untrained people like me going out there and compromising the whole team in a firefight. maybe youd get your wish if i was in an average unit

3) reading cnn.com is almost the same as watching cnn lol. Youre still getting the info from the same liberal sources.

[DoTheFandango]

Busy getting sweet deals on mortgages from ethically bankrupt subprime slumlords

welcome to CT bro

[Vykromond]

chris dodd, where are you?

Busy getting sweet deals on mortgages from ethically bankrupt subprime slumlords

[Jerome Scuggs]

You watch FAR too much tv

your buddies at fox news have done shit-all in reporting this, if anything him watching TV would make him a mindless automaton just like you

go die in iraq seriously

[Noah]

Stop getting fucking trolled already.

[DankNuggets]

I got an idea for ya-

press the mute button, then the closed caption button. Now you can read and watch TV at the same time !

[404 Not Found]

You watch FAR too much tv

4 hrs a week must be too much TV for me. I actually read every day...but reading is probably something you do little of? Other than a technical manual that is, god forbid someone may take your attention away from FOX news, Bill Oreilly & Sean Hannity.

[D1st0rt]

You watch FAR too much tv

You use FAR too little brain

[Izor]

This could allow for future Presidents to use such tactics in government similar to Chavez or Mugabe.

You watch FAR too much tv

[Reaver]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claims that a key positive feature of the new wiretap "compromise" is that the bill reaffirms that the President must follow the law, even though the same bill virtually assures that no one will be held accountable for George W. Bush's violation of the earlier spying law.
In other words, in the guise of rejecting Bush's theories of an all-powerful presidency that is above the law, the Democratic leadership cleared the way for the President and his collaborators to evade punishment for defying the law.

So, why should anyone assume that the new legislative edict demanding that the President obey the law will get any more respect than the old one, which established the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 as the "exclusive" means for authorizing electronic spying?

It wasn't that Bush and his team didn't understand the old law's language; they simply believed they could violate the law without consequence, under the radical theory that at a time of war -- even one as vaguely defined as the "war on terror" -- the President's powers trump all laws as well as the constitutional rights of citizens.

Essentially, Bush was betting that even if his warrantless wiretap program was disclosed -- as it was in December 2005 -- that he could trust his Republican congressional allies to protect him and could count on most Democrats not to have the guts to challenge him.

His bet proved to be a smart one. After the New York Times revealed the warrantless wiretaps two and a half years ago, Congress took no steps to hold Bush accountable. Before the 2006 elections, Pelosi declared that Bush's impeachment was "off the table."

Then, on the eve of the August 2007 recess, the Democratic-controlled Congress was stampeded into passing the "Protect America Act," which effectively legalized what Bush had already done and expanded his spying powers even more.

It may not be all that important to Izor, but in allowing what has transpired with these wiretaps on American citizens within the borders of the U.S.A.without any legal warrants, then the 4th Amendment to the Constitution holds no merit whatsoever. In noting the allowance of this abuse, it makes no sense as to why we should even argue about Abortion or Gun laws. The entire Constitution should be viewed as an old document holding no merits to any laws or lifestyle we live in as of today. It is more or less an old sheet of toilet paper.

This could allow for future Presidents to use such tactics in government similar to Chavez or Mugabe. This would also be great for anyone in the military that take on a don't question and just follow orders mentality.

Well said.

[DoTheFandango]

you ARE an ass hat. All you ever do is whine about our government. whine whine whine whine whine. im not 'refuting the central point' because its not important to me.

[404 Not Found]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claims that a key positive feature of the new wiretap "compromise" is that the bill reaffirms that the President must follow the law, even though the same bill virtually assures that no one will be held accountable for George W. Bush's violation of the earlier spying law.
In other words, in the guise of rejecting Bush's theories of an all-powerful presidency that is above the law, the Democratic leadership cleared the way for the President and his collaborators to evade punishment for defying the law.

So, why should anyone assume that the new legislative edict demanding that the President obey the law will get any more respect than the old one, which established the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 as the "exclusive" means for authorizing electronic spying?

It wasn't that Bush and his team didn't understand the old law's language; they simply believed they could violate the law without consequence, under the radical theory that at a time of war -- even one as vaguely defined as the "war on terror" -- the President's powers trump all laws as well as the constitutional rights of citizens.

Essentially, Bush was betting that even if his warrantless wiretap program was disclosed -- as it was in December 2005 -- that he could trust his Republican congressional allies to protect him and could count on most Democrats not to have the guts to challenge him.

His bet proved to be a smart one. After the New York Times revealed the warrantless wiretaps two and a half years ago, Congress took no steps to hold Bush accountable. Before the 2006 elections, Pelosi declared that Bush's impeachment was "off the table."

Then, on the eve of the August 2007 recess, the Democratic-controlled Congress was stampeded into passing the "Protect America Act," which effectively legalized what Bush had already done and expanded his spying powers even more.

It may not be all that important to Izor, but in allowing what has transpired with these wiretaps on American citizens within the borders of the U.S.A.without any legal warrants, then the 4th Amendment to the Constitution holds no merit whatsoever. In noting the allowance of this abuse, it makes no sense as to why we should even argue about Abortion or Gun laws. The entire Constitution should be viewed as an old document holding no merits to any laws or lifestyle we live in as of today. It is more or less an old sheet of toilet paper.

This could allow for future Presidents to use such tactics in government similar to Chavez or Mugabe. This would also be great for anyone in the military that take on a don't question and just follow orders mentality.

[Izor]

you ARE an ass hat. All you ever do is whine about our government. whine whine whine whine whine. im not 'refuting the central point' because its not important to me.

[Jerome Scuggs]

oh for christ sake shut the fuck up. The only reason ratings are so low is because everyone whines about stupid shit. Everyone like the people on these forums has their own ideal view on how shit should be run and they dont settle for anything less. No one is going to please you people. Even should a dem be elected, hes going to change shit to his liking, which is much closer to your liking, and youll still whine and bitch about it.