Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• Back in August, the administration suggested that if Congress didn't pass the "terrorist surveillance" eavesdropping bill before going into recess, the country would actually be in danger of attack. Now, though, Bush says he'll veto the renewal bill if it lacks retroactive telco immunity. So Bush is now holding the country's security hostage to get telco immunity?! Why is telco immunity more important than listening to terrorists?
  
  Or, put more bluntly, what's he trying to hide?

TPM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• Back in August, the administration suggested that if Congress didn't pass the "terrorist surveillance" eavesdropping bill before going into recess, the country would actually be in danger of attack. Now, though, Bush says he'll veto the renewal bill if it lacks retroactive telco immunity. So Bush is now holding the country's security hostage to get telco immunity?! Why is telco immunity more important than listening to terrorists?
  
  Or, put more bluntly, what's he trying to hide?

TPM

when clinton shut down the government because he didn't like the funding bill, did that mean he didn't think the governement was important?

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
when clinton shut down the government because he didn't like the funding bill, did that mean he didn't think the governement was important?

He'd been drinking with Sebby.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
He'd been drinking with Sebby.

I'm afraid by the time I actually meet you or sebby we'll be so old we'll have to talk about drinking

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
when clinton shut down the government because he didn't like the funding bill, did that mean he didn't think the governement was important?

It means he thought that the provisions not included were important enough to not blink when the deadline (the fiscal year end, IIRC) came and that he was willing to run the risk that the voters would agree with him.

So, by your logic, telecom immunity is so important to Bush that he is willing to allow a terrorist act on US soil rather than get a bill without it? And that the voters will agree with this trade-off?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
when clinton shut down the government because he didn't like the funding bill, did that mean he didn't think the governement was important?

Congress did that, not Clinton. Bush's theory of executive power notwithstanding, it is Congress that decides whether to fund the executive branch.

Congratulations, though. You just set a land-speed record on a nonsensical "Clinton did it too" defense.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Bob
It means he thought that the provisions not included were important enough to not blink when the deadline (the fiscal year end, IIRC) came and that he was willing to run the risk that the voters would agree with him.

So, by your logic, telecom immunity is so important to Bush that he is willing to allow a terrorist act on US soil rather than get a bill without it? And that the voters will agree with this trade-off?

Chicago or NYC lawyers disrespect me because I work in Detroit. I never expected you to do the same.

For your post to have any meaning what so ever you would need to list what the bill was missing that caused him to veto, and what he was willing to let die. wouldn't you have to do that, or am i dumb?

[SlaveNoMore]

So, Breitbart publishes an article from the [sarcasm]unbiased AFP[/sarcasm] about Hollywood getting killed on all the recent Iraq-themed films such as Rendition, Lambs, etc. The author infers that audiences do not want to see films portraying an "unpopular war"

Enter the readers comments section, where 200-plus readers all say virtually the same thing - "No asshat, people just dont want to waste money to see preachy, anti-American claptrap from a bunch of Hollyweird liberals"

http://comments.breitbart.com/071109152054vnv6fviw/

Great stuff.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Congress did that, not Clinton.

congress did what? Passed a bill Clinton vetoed. what might congress do here? Pass a bill Bush might veto. Help a brother out Ty, what the fuck are you talking about?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So, Breitbart publishes an article from the [sarcasm]unbiased AFP[/sarcasm] about Hollywood getting killed on all the recent Iraq-themed films such as Rendition, Lambs, etc. The author infers that audiences do not want to see films portraying an "unpopular war"

Enter the readers comments section, where 200-plus readers all say virtually the same thing - "No asshat, people just dont want to waste money to see preachy, anti-American claptrap from a bunch of Hollyweird liberals"

http://comments.breitbart.com/071109152054vnv6fviw/

Great stuff.

AFP is owned by Canadians, and surely is biased in favor of hockey and poutine.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
congress did what? Passed a bill Clinton vetoed. what might congress do here? Pass a bill Bush might veto. Help a brother out Ty, what the fuck are you talking about?

I'm talking about a bill Bush previously said was necessary for the defense of the country, and one he now says he'll veto to get retroactive protection from prosecution for telecommunications companies. To take Bush's words at face value, why is he willing to risk our safety to exempt telco companies from prosecution?

[Hank Chinaski]

http://www.nysun.com/article/66163

• Lieberman Lashes Out at Democrats
  
  WASHINGTON — The Senate's only "independent Democrat" is lashing out at the party whose vice presidential nominee he once was, accusing its leaders of betraying the tradition of presidents Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy.
  
  At a speech before Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, Senator Lieberman of Connecticut said, "Since retaking Congress in November 2006, the top foreign policy priority of the Democratic Party has not been to expand the size of our military for the war on terror or to strengthen our democracy promotion efforts in the Middle East or to prevail in Afghanistan. It has been to pull our troops out of Iraq, to abandon the democratically elected government there, and to hand a defeat to President Bush."
  
  Those words were part of a speech that traced Mr. Lieberman's own position on the war in the tradition of not only the great Democratic presidents of the 20th century, but also the interventionism of President Clinton and his vice president, Albert Gore, a man who has played to the net roots base that tried and failed to unseat Mr. Lieberman in 2006.
  
  Mr. Lieberman was particularly critical of his 22 Democratic colleagues in the Senate who voted against the senator's resolution to label Iran's revolutionary guard corps and elite Quds Force a foreign terrorist entity. He accused liberal Web logs of peddling a "conspiracy theory," namely that the legislation was a back door authorization for war. Also, without naming names, he said some of his colleagues who had voted against it said they agreed with its substance, but told the senator, "We don't trust Bush. He'll use this resolution as an excuse for war against Iran."
  
  Mr. Lieberman concluded, "There is something profoundly wrong-something that should trouble all of us — when we have elected Democratic officials who seem more worried about how the Bush administration might respond to Iran's murder of our troops, than about the fact that Iran is murdering our troops." He added, "There is likewise something profoundly wrong when we see candidates who are willing to pander to this politically paranoid, hyper-partisan sentiment in the Democratic base — even if it sends a message of weakness and division to the Iranian regime."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
http://www.nysun.com/article/66163

• Lieberman Lashes Out at Democrats
  
  WASHINGTON — The Senate's only "independent Democrat" is lashing out at the party whose vice presidential nominee he once was, accusing its leaders of betraying the tradition of presidents Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy.
  
  At a speech before Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, Senator Lieberman of Connecticut said, "Since retaking Congress in November 2006, the top foreign policy priority of the Democratic Party has not been to expand the size of our military for the war on terror or to strengthen our democracy promotion efforts in the Middle East or to prevail in Afghanistan. It has been to pull our troops out of Iraq, to abandon the democratically elected government there, and to hand a defeat to President Bush."
  
  Those words were part of a speech that traced Mr. Lieberman's own position on the war in the tradition of not only the great Democratic presidents of the 20th century, but also the interventionism of President Clinton and his vice president, Albert Gore, a man who has played to the net roots base that tried and failed to unseat Mr. Lieberman in 2006.
  
  Mr. Lieberman was particularly critical of his 22 Democratic colleagues in the Senate who voted against the senator's resolution to label Iran's revolutionary guard corps and elite Quds Force a foreign terrorist entity. He accused liberal Web logs of peddling a "conspiracy theory," namely that the legislation was a back door authorization for war. Also, without naming names, he said some of his colleagues who had voted against it said they agreed with its substance, but told the senator, "We don't trust Bush. He'll use this resolution as an excuse for war against Iran."
  
  Mr. Lieberman concluded, "There is something profoundly wrong-something that should trouble all of us — when we have elected Democratic officials who seem more worried about how the Bush administration might respond to Iran's murder of our troops, than about the fact that Iran is murdering our troops." He added, "There is likewise something profoundly wrong when we see candidates who are willing to pander to this politically paranoid, hyper-partisan sentiment in the Democratic base — even if it sends a message of weakness and division to the Iranian regime."

There is something profoundly wrong -- something that should trouble all of us -- when we have an elected senator who seems more worried about how to attack the opposition party than about the fact that the administration is not content to preside over one failed war but is laying the groundwork for another.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm talking about a bill Bush previously said was necessary for the defense of the country, and one he now says he'll veto to get retroactive protection from prosecution for telecommunications companies. To take Bush's words at face value, why is he willing to risk our safety to exempt telco companies from prosecution?

Do you have any idea how the world works, any at all?

Tele companies help, they are necessary for the surveilance. If we expose them to sanction do you think it possible they won't help next time?

do you remember a bank that was helping us find terrorists by giving up financial records? When that story hit the front page of the NYT, naming the fucking bank, do you think the bank feared it might be "sanctioned" by the Jihadis, maybe wished it had passed on helping?

Entities work like people do, they like to minimize risk, they might want to do good, but not at the expense of hurting themselves.

until you tried to push this point, I hadn't realized that the immunity was necessary for the underlying protection to have achance of working. What Clinton did is far worse*.

You really don't get this do you?

*and actually what Clinton did wasn't even wrong. he was standing up for his convictions. but if bush is "wrong" then billy is double wrong.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
There is something profoundly wrong -- something that should trouble all of us -- when we have an elected senator who seems more worried about how to attack the opposition party than about the fact that the administration is not content to preside over one failed war but is laying the groundwork for another.

blog cite please. RT, Ty is exposing us to potential copyright infringement issues.