Let em, they are on the wrong side of the issue.
Posted by: Tom at May 24, 2006 08:59 AM
I wish W. would spy on OBL instead of my Grandmouther. What a waste
Posted by: jim at May 24, 2006 10:19 AM
It's the end of the free press as we know it, it's the end of fair elections as we knew them, it's the end of democracy as we know it, it's the end of checks and balances as we knew them, and you guys feel fine!
Why did we invade Iraq again?
Posted by: WOW at May 24, 2006 11:58 AM
Jim, tell me about it. Jeez, I hate it when shrub listens in and spys on my grandmother's conversations with her senior citizen friends about her joint aches, what she ate that made her wabbly 2 days ago, her prescription drug pickups, and how she watched Bridges of Madison County 6 times. Such disrespect for American citizens' privacy, that Dubya. And what irks me the most is that that Nazhi shrub hears all my dirty talks to/with my girlfriend(s) - and sometimes boyfriend(s). Oh, I think I'm going to faint...!
Posted by: Republican43VER at May 24, 2006 12:22 PM
Well, considering the spying is only being done on foreigners and calls going to foreigners and suspected terrorists, I think it's fine.
Jim, if your Grandmother is a terrorist then she'll be listened to if she calls the middle east. If not, she's not being listened to.
Posted by:
Art Patscheck at May 24, 2006 12:23 PM
Well, considering the spying is only being done on foreigners and calls going to foreigners and suspected terrorists, I think it's fine.
--Are you absolutely SURE of that? You were lied to about the program once, why wouldn't they lie again?
Posted by: axis at May 24, 2006 01:41 PM
There goes as-if..I mean, axis, on another angry rant.
We weren't LIED to about the program because we were never TOLD about the program. There is a difference, you know, but I guess that means nothing to liberal scum like you.
Posted by: Conservative to the Core at May 24, 2006 01:53 PM
I love this new brand of conservativeism, cuz it’s so much easier then thinking about things.
If maw leader Bush tells me it’s so, then it be so. There t’aint no need to verify. Back when we conservatives used to have a spine we’d be all concerned and such about the government sniffin’ our britches. Reagan Himself said once “Trust but Verify”, bu that don’t mean a hoot nowadays
These days we Republicanos accuse people of being dirty angry lefties for even thinking something might be amiss with the Administration.
Conservative to the Core: I salute you and your efforts to make us all more loyal by being less informed.
Posted by:
HugeWangUSAF at May 24, 2006 02:21 PM
Conservative to the Core:
You should be extremely concerned about an unconstitutional foray into the rights of American citizens... you may remember that before George W, there was a certain George Washington, John Adams and many others who fought for their rights and ours (there is such a thing as the future and posterity)... don't you think you should AT LEAST examine the possibility of unconstitutionalism? Also, something that has bothered for quite some time, but maybe you can shed some light on it: why do conservatives accept Bush's words regarding his religous beliefs, and/or the use of his religious beliefs as reasons to take actions that have umitigated consequences? The reason I ask this is because if you return to one of the greatest political philosophy/political science tomes - The Prince - by Machiavelli, you may be cautioned to think twice before accepting a religious basis for political action, no matter what side a politician belongs to, power corrupts... "Beware the Ides of March"... I commend both pieces of literature to you if you have not already read them... perhaps a re-reading would be enlightening as well, or at least moderating (in the old Aristotelian thread)
Posted by: Mary at May 24, 2006 03:00 PM
Huge Wang
Thanks and saludos back atcha. It is good to read a post by someone who actually gets it, instead of the libby drivel I've been reading.
Keep up the good fight, Wang! (Are you Chinese?)
Posted by: Conservative to the Core at May 24, 2006 03:31 PM
Holy lack of irony, batman!
Posted by:
winnowhead at May 24, 2006 04:00 PM
Matt,
As to whether the ACLU can get Osama as their spokesperson one can only speculate. I think a better question is who you supposed freedom-loving "conservatives" who have no problem with our government listening in on all of our phone calls would get for your spokesperson for your "Uncle Sam the Voyeur" campaign
Posted by: phil at May 24, 2006 06:03 PM
Keep up the good fight, Wang! (Are you Chinese?)
ROTFLMAO
Posted by: Retired Spook at May 24, 2006 06:47 PM
The ACLU is treasonous. The ACLU should be designated a terrorist organization.
Posted by: Freedom1 at May 24, 2006 09:24 PM
Why do the dems insist on protecting bin ladens phone calls?
Posted by: james allegro at May 24, 2006 09:52 PM
sounded yesterday like Denny Hastert may lead the charge! why would he care that the FBI raided the offices of Jefferson? unless of course, he might be afraid he is next?
Posted by: dav at May 26, 2006 09:14 AM
Let em, they are on the wrong side of the issue.
I wish W. would spy on OBL instead of my Grandmouther. What a waste
It's the end of the free press as we know it, it's the end of fair elections as we knew them, it's the end of democracy as we know it, it's the end of checks and balances as we knew them, and you guys feel fine!
Why did we invade Iraq again?
Jim, tell me about it. Jeez, I hate it when shrub listens in and spys on my grandmother's conversations with her senior citizen friends about her joint aches, what she ate that made her wabbly 2 days ago, her prescription drug pickups, and how she watched Bridges of Madison County 6 times. Such disrespect for American citizens' privacy, that Dubya. And what irks me the most is that that Nazhi shrub hears all my dirty talks to/with my girlfriend(s) - and sometimes boyfriend(s). Oh, I think I'm going to faint...!
Well, considering the spying is only being done on foreigners and calls going to foreigners and suspected terrorists, I think it's fine.
Jim, if your Grandmother is a terrorist then she'll be listened to if she calls the middle east. If not, she's not being listened to.
Well, considering the spying is only being done on foreigners and calls going to foreigners and suspected terrorists, I think it's fine.
--Are you absolutely SURE of that? You were lied to about the program once, why wouldn't they lie again?
There goes as-if..I mean, axis, on another angry rant.
We weren't LIED to about the program because we were never TOLD about the program. There is a difference, you know, but I guess that means nothing to liberal scum like you.
I love this new brand of conservativeism, cuz it’s so much easier then thinking about things.
If maw leader Bush tells me it’s so, then it be so. There t’aint no need to verify. Back when we conservatives used to have a spine we’d be all concerned and such about the government sniffin’ our britches. Reagan Himself said once “Trust but Verify”, bu that don’t mean a hoot nowadays
These days we Republicanos accuse people of being dirty angry lefties for even thinking something might be amiss with the Administration.
Conservative to the Core: I salute you and your efforts to make us all more loyal by being less informed.
Conservative to the Core:
You should be extremely concerned about an unconstitutional foray into the rights of American citizens... you may remember that before George W, there was a certain George Washington, John Adams and many others who fought for their rights and ours (there is such a thing as the future and posterity)... don't you think you should AT LEAST examine the possibility of unconstitutionalism? Also, something that has bothered for quite some time, but maybe you can shed some light on it: why do conservatives accept Bush's words regarding his religous beliefs, and/or the use of his religious beliefs as reasons to take actions that have umitigated consequences? The reason I ask this is because if you return to one of the greatest political philosophy/political science tomes - The Prince - by Machiavelli, you may be cautioned to think twice before accepting a religious basis for political action, no matter what side a politician belongs to, power corrupts... "Beware the Ides of March"... I commend both pieces of literature to you if you have not already read them... perhaps a re-reading would be enlightening as well, or at least moderating (in the old Aristotelian thread)
Huge Wang
Thanks and saludos back atcha. It is good to read a post by someone who actually gets it, instead of the libby drivel I've been reading.
Keep up the good fight, Wang! (Are you Chinese?)
Holy lack of irony, batman!
Matt,
As to whether the ACLU can get Osama as their spokesperson one can only speculate. I think a better question is who you supposed freedom-loving "conservatives" who have no problem with our government listening in on all of our phone calls would get for your spokesperson for your "Uncle Sam the Voyeur" campaign
Keep up the good fight, Wang! (Are you Chinese?)
ROTFLMAO
The ACLU is treasonous. The ACLU should be designated a terrorist organization.
Why do the dems insist on protecting bin ladens phone calls?
sounded yesterday like Denny Hastert may lead the charge! why would he care that the FBI raided the offices of Jefferson? unless of course, he might be afraid he is next?