55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 03:00 pm
@ican711nm,
NSA tapped these phones without having to declare anyone a terrorist, and without ever attempting to indict any person on the basis of evidence they collected from the wiretaps. They subsequently used the information they collected to attempt to prevent terrorism and collect different evidence to indict terrorists planning/committing terrorist acts against Americans..

Again, excellent!
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 03:27 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Yes, Bush's NSA also tapped the domestic only calls of those people who were found via tapped international calls to domestic phones to have been in telephone conversations with al-Qaeda.

Excellent!


You don't know whose phones they were tapping. So you cannot make statements like this with any certainty; it's just a guess on your part, an assumption.

Because Americans don't like investing unlimited power in our executive branch, we have a court - FISA - whose only job is to determine whether or not what you wrote above was true, in each case. Bush and his cronies completely bypassed the FISA courts, illegally, because they could not justify that they were in fact tapping only terrorists.

Over time more and more will come out about this, and you're just going to look increasingly foolish for repeating these things with no verification.

Cycloptichorn
mysteryman
 
  0  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 04:28 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
You don't know whose phones they were tapping


And if you were honest about it neither do you.
Yet you have been carrying on about it like you were personally affected by it.

Since neither you nor I know who was wiretapped or why they were wiretapped or what information was developed, it seems kind of stupid on both our parts to worry about it.

BTW, you do realize that this admin is following some of the same guidelines about wiretapping that Bush used.
Why arent you complaining about that?
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 04:30 pm
my phone was tapped


well i dropped my phone in the sink, and my sink has a tap, so i guess it's sorta like having your phone tapped

anyway it sucked, and i'd like dick cheney to send me a new one
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  3  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 04:33 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
You don't know whose phones they were tapping


And if you were honest about it neither do you.


This is exactly my entire problem with the program. Not only do I not know....but the COURTS do not know either. Nobody knows but the CIA....and THAT's exactly the problem (as I see it).
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 04:38 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
You don't know whose phones they were tapping


And if you were honest about it neither do you.
Yet you have been carrying on about it like you were personally affected by it.


We know for a fact (thanks the ACLU) that several people were indeed spied on with domestic-domestic calls that did not get approval from any FISA court. You are correct that I don't know who was being spied upon; however, I do know that active efforts were put into place to EVADE the courts whose only job is to judge whether or not it's appropriate to spy on someone.

I don't want any president to have that power! And neither should you.

Quote:
Since neither you nor I know who was wiretapped or why they were wiretapped or what information was developed, it seems kind of stupid on both our parts to worry about it.

BTW, you do realize that this admin is following some of the same guidelines about wiretapping that Bush used.
Why arent you complaining about that?


It's not stupid to worry about the law being followed, sorry.

To the best of my knowledge, the Obama admin has announced that they are complying with FISA courts - unless you have some other data?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 04:43 pm
Quote:
There are more references to what he is doing, but I'm not gonna spend all my time looking at them.
The ones I posted should suffice, if you are honest about it.


Nothing in those links says the Obama admin is still ordering the spying on American citizens; but you are correct, I do deplore the fact that they have decided to put every argument forth they can to protect the Executive branch itself.

Disappointed but not surprised, as Presidents very rarely take actions which lead to a loss of their own powers. Obama made a strategic decision to not go after the old administration - probably thought it would make left-wingers feel good, but not accomplish anything productive going forward - and that leads to stuff like this, which, as you say, is not a good thing.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 07:18 pm
As promised, I am rolling out the article here and starting a new thread titled "Why I am a Republican" by Dwight D. Eisenhower.
http://able2know.org/topic/144183-1

I believe it amply demonstrates that Eisenhower was a solid conservative, contrary to what some have insinuated here. I am going to quote the entire article on the new thread dedicated to that article, but I will also quote some of the highlights of Eisenhower's conservative political philosophy here. I would also like to say that I think Eisenhower has been one of the greatest Americans ever, and one of our greatest presidents. Through the article, I think his heartland common sense attitude comes through loud and clear, an unsophisticated man of simple common sense from Kansas that was first an American, then a conservative with solid moral values and good judgement, and then a Republican for all the reasons he cites in the article, and I think all the reasons still are true and could be applied in today's political atmosphere. He speaks of the importance of the individual and the need to limit government, which is still just as applicable today as ever, if not moreso.

Here are a few key quotes:
To me the key items of political faith that should always continue to be an inspiring guide to sound political action for any thoughtful citizen are:
1. Abiding faith in the individual. To believe that the essential unit in our democracy is the individual, not any group or class, and that the preservation of our form of government depends in the final analysis on respect o the individual's rights, initiative, judgement and opportunities.
2. Limited powers of government. To believe that the people themselves should retain all powers and responsibilities not specifically delegated to the Government. As Abraham Lincoln defined it, "The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. In all the people can individually do as well for themselves, the government ought not to interfere." (I quote Lincoln not only because h has been the patron saint of the Republican Party from its beginning but also because modern Democrats are trying to steal him from us to capitalize on the reverence in which America holds his name.)
3. Freedom and Equality. Born in the bitter struggle to give flesh-and-blood reality to the American doctrine that all men are created equal and are endowed with certain unalienable rights , the Republican party never has wavered in its belief that freedom and equality are the right of all Americans. It was the Republican Party, led by Lincoln, which freed the Negro from slavery and secured amendments to the Constitution assuring every citizen of his political rights, regardless of race. It was the Republican Party which in 1957 succeeded in getting through Congress the first civil-rights legislation since the Reconstruction era after the Civil War.
4. National Unity. Since its beginnings the Republican Party has stoutly resisted any and all forces which might divide our nation by class, region, racial ancestry or economic interest. we are not for or against any minority of any kind. We are for every individual, whatever his ethnic, social or economic background, who enjoys the priceless privilege of United States citizenship.
5. World Responsibility. The Republican party has aided the United States in meeting its global responsibilities in hte spirit of the nation's enlightened self-interest; that is, not on the basis of mere do-goodism, but for the security and welfare of our own country within the family of free nations.
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 10:10 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Bush and his cronies completely bypassed the FISA courts, illegally, because they could not justify that they were in fact tapping only terrorists.

I await your evidence that your claim here is true.
okie
 
  0  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 10:24 am
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:
I await your evidence that your claim here is true.

Just a bit of advice for your health, ican, if I were you, I would not hold your breath.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 11:24 am
@okie,
Quote:
3. Freedom and Equality. Born in the bitter struggle to give flesh-and-blood reality to the American doctrine that all men are created equal and are endowed with certain unalienable rights , the Republican party never has wavered in its belief that freedom and equality are the right of all Americans. It was the Republican Party, led by Lincoln, which freed the Negro from slavery and secured amendments to the Constitution assuring every citizen of his political rights, regardless of race. It was the Republican Party which in 1957 succeeded in getting through Congress the first civil-rights legislation since the Reconstruction era after the Civil War.


Where does Eisenhower state that Latinos aren't equal? Where does he say Latinos can be stopped on the street and asked to prove their citizenship?
parados
 
  0  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 11:25 am
@parados,
Oh, wait. He doesn't agree with you on that at all okie.

Quote:
4. National Unity. Since its beginnings the Republican Party has stoutly resisted any and all forces which might divide our nation by class, region, racial ancestry or economic interest. we are not for or against any minority of any kind. We are for every individual, whatever his ethnic, social or economic background, who enjoys the priceless privilege of United States citizenship.


I bet Eisenhower would be right there with you and ican accusing Obama of being a liar and not being a citizen.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 02:20 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Where does Eisenhower state that Latinos aren't equal? Where does he say Latinos can be stopped on the street and asked to prove their citizenship?

Oh sheesh, just when I think I've seen the stupidest statements here ever, then there is one that a is even stupider. Where does Eisenhower state that Latinos should be exempt from equality, from not having to legally be a citizen like everyone else? And where do you get the evidence that Latinos are the only ones stopped on a street to prove their citizenship? Where do you get the evidence that they should be exempt from showing their citizenship, where, parados, where? And where do you get your cockamany logic, where??????
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 02:43 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

I bet Eisenhower would be right there with you and ican accusing Obama of being a liar and not being a citizen.

I have no idea about the citizen part, but if Obama has lied, which he has, Eisenhower might just have said so. And by the way, do you have any evidence at all that ican or I have said Obama is not a citizen? Provide proof of it if you can, which you won't because you can't. You never do. I don't know of everything ican has ever said, but I certainly do not recall myself of having ever said any such thing. I have said I would like to see more proof of a certificate of live birth, and have said he probably was born in Hawaii, but yes, I still find the subject somewhat interesting, a subject that refuses to go away, whats wrong with that?
parados
 
  0  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 04:35 pm
@okie,
Quote:
Where do you get the evidence that they should be exempt from showing their citizenship, where, parados, where?


You don't seem to know much about the constitution, do you?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 04:36 pm
@okie,
Quote:

I have no idea about the citizen part, but if Obama has lied, which he has, Eisenhower might just have said so.

Eisenhower would also say you have lied. In fact, I bet Eisenhower would have said you are a greater threat to this country than Obama is. Eisenhower understood that government exists and we shouldn't attack our leaders personally.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 04:39 pm
@okie,
Quote:
And where do you get the evidence that Latinos are the only ones stopped on a street to prove their citizenship?

Where did you get the idea that anyone in the US should be stopped on the street and have to prove their citizenship? Do you really want to live in a fascist society okie? Oh, that's right, you don't have a clue what fascism really is.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 07:54 pm
@parados,
The problem is that okie thinks that you and Cyclo and I are fascists.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 07:42 am
@ican711nm,
What you fail to understand is that the Republican party was the liberal party in the 19th C and that it became more conservative in the later years of the century, turning very far to the right after WWII. Also, the first troops were sent to Vietnam by Eisenhower. However, it is true that JFK sent money to Nixon's campaign because Kennedy supported Nixon's foreign policy ideas at that time.

But, it is also true that neither the left nor the right were what they are today. During the 1950s, as is typical of each post-war period, politics shrink in impact and meaning. The political spectrum was contracted and was basically centrist.

The civil rights activists broke through that impasse.
okie
 
  2  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 08:18 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
Eisenhower would also say you have lied. In fact, I bet Eisenhower would have said you are a greater threat to this country than Obama is. Eisenhower understood that government exists and we shouldn't attack our leaders personally.

So Eisenhower would say we cannot criticize our leaders personally? What a crock, parados. Eisenhower in the article I posted criticized both the government and the programs, judgement, and policies of those leaders. Now, leftist dictators don't believe in criticism of them, do they? Guys like Castro might just have you done away with if you criticize him too much. Are you saying now that we cannot criticize the holier than thou, Barack Obama, the corrupt Chicago community agitator and Marxist sympathizer with Marxist friends and mentors that has no qualifications or experience to be president and is a total and absolute bust as a president, is that what you are saying?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.23 seconds on 11/15/2024 at 05:30:53