The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Southern Patriot
My God, man, you are not actually suggesting that this is as bad as lying about sex, are you?

Well, of course not. Shrub wasn't under oath, strictly speaking.

[Replaced_Texan]

On the one hand slimy bastard Abramoff should do some time; on the other hand, if he squeals, there's no telling how many Republican congresspeople he could take down with him. Right in time for the mid-term elections.


Hmmm.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
On the scale of things how does this stack up to stealing the election in 2000, disenfranchising millions of black voters in 2004, lying us into a war to protect his dad and wrecking the economy to get tax breaks for his rich friends? It just seems minor in comparision.

Welcome back.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
On the scale of things how does this stack up to stealing the election in 2000, disenfranchising millions of black voters in 2004, lying us into a war to protect his dad and wrecking the economy to get tax breaks for his rich friends? It just seems minor in comparision.

Took you long enough to come around.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
On the one hand slimy bastard Abranoff should do some time; on the other hand, if he squeals, there's no telling how many Republican congresspeople he could take down with him.

Hmmm.

I'm hoping for as many as possible, but I'll settle for Tom Delay and Don Nickles.

[str8outavannuys]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Maybe I'm whiffing, but you do know Article 3 Judges technically don't have authority in Pakistan, don't you?

Actually I think this law would allow tapping a US citizen's phone w/o warrent if done outside the US.

If by "this law" you mean FISA, that's not my reading of it. If you're targeting a US Person, and if that US Person has a REP and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, then regardless of where the interception occurs, it's "Electronic Surveilance" (1801(f)(1)), and you need can't go warrantless under 1802 if a US Person's communications are going to be intercepted.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
On the one hand slimy bastard Abramoff should do some time; on the other hand, if he squeals, there's no telling how many Republican congresspeople he could take down with him. Right in time for the mid-term elections.


Hmmm.

But is the deal in exchange for ratting out the upper echelons of the Republican party, or for keeping his trap shut?

ETA: and is he crying in that picture? I suppose he could just be squinting against some glare. I hope so. Because if you're going to shake down half the industries in America for political favors, you really shouldn't be a pussy about it when they finally throw you in jail.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by baltassoc
But is the deal in exchange for ratting out the upper echelons of the Republican party, or for keeping his trap shut?

Probably depends on whether he's talking to the career DoJ guys or the political appointees.

[Spanky]

Here are some things I don't understand.

1) Why would congress pass an Act (FISA) that limited government surveillance beyond the bounds of the constitution. Especially when it comes to foreign nationals and calls outside the United States? The answer is probably that Congress did a lot of stupid things in response to Watergate.

2) If FISA or some other act did such a thing, why didn't the Patriot Act reverse those parts of FISA? Who dropped the ball on that one? Seems to me pretty obvious who dropped the ball on that one.

3) If the NSA computerized system sometimes picks up domestic calls between US citizens, then why don't they say that those were a mistake and they were working on the problem.

4) How can anyone argue that non-warranted listening to phone calls between US citizens in the United States is not a problem? How can anyone defend that? National Security? Following that logic why have any civil liberties at all? They just get in the way of National Security.

[str8outavannuys]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
On the one hand slimy bastard Abramoff should do some time; on the other hand, if he squeals, there's no telling how many Republican congresspeople he could take down with him. Right in time for the mid-term elections.


Hmmm.

The Rolling Stone article about this guy was awesome. I liked the bit from a high school classmate about how his nickname was Abraham Jackoff.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky

4) How can anyone argue that non-warranted listening to phone calls between US citizens in the United States is not a problem? How can anyone defend that? National Security? Following that logic why have any civil liberties at all? They just get in the way of National Security.

I'm not sure if this makes you a Commie or a terrorist. Maybe both.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Probably depends on whether he's talking to the career DoJ guys or the political appointees.

The three Congressmen I am targeting in the primay are Doolittle, Delay and Pombo. They all have had dealings with Abrahamoff. I hope this guy sings like a Canary and he included these three in his swan song.

What a Christmas that would be. Although I have to admit, I have not been a very good boy this year, so Santa probably won't deliver all three on a silver platter.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
Here are some things I don't understand.

1) Why would congress pass an Act (FISA) that limited government surveillance beyond the bounds of the constitution. Especially when it comes to foreign nationals and calls outside the United States?

Why would be ban torture overseas? Why would we ban assassinations of foreign leaders? There are things the constitution does not bar, but it might nonetheless be good policy not to permit.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'm not sure if this makes you a Commie or a terrorist. Maybe both.

I think I would like to be called a neo-terrorist. In domestic policy I am a neo-liberal, in foreign policy I am a neo-conservative, in social policy I have been accused of being a neo-progressive, and when it comes to the enviroment, since I don't think the government should subsidize waste disposal (thereby distorting makets) that makes me a neo-conservationist. So that pretty much just makes me a neo at everything.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think I would like to be called a neo-terrorist. In domestic policy I am a neo-liberal, in foreign policy I am a neo-conservative, in social policy I have been accused of being a neo-progressive, and when it comes to the enviroment, since I don't think the government should subsidize waste disposal (thereby distorting makets) that makes me a neo-conservationist. So that pretty much just makes me a neo at everything.

I hope you take the red pill.