Bush refuses to answer questions about spying on Americans....

[agin1415]

Quote from traderNik:



My point to you is, if you want to goad the left, pick other righties to quote. If you quote Ann Coulter, you're going to lose your credibility, because your other posts prove that you're not even close to being stupid enough to believe her spew.

now agin145... he's another story. He's Ann Coulter's meat and potatoes.

No, no, don't thank me... it's all in a day's work.

Nik

PS - isn't it brilliant how CNN is taking advantage of her? [/B]

Name one liberal that has won a debate with Ann Coulter?


Got any liberals that make money commenting on politics.

Hmmmmmm.

Anybody on the level of Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, or Ann?

I don't know of any.

And Ann doesn't incite Hatred at all, I been watching her a long time.

She is just incredible at pointing out hipocracies in the Liberal Mind set.

I've got a dream debate team, in includes Ann Coulter, Mark Levin, and Rush Limbaugh.

You come up with a Liberal Debate Team that can beat them.

 

[AltarEgo15]

Quote from hapaboy:

The issue of "probable cause" appears to be a major point in all of this.

According to the FISA FAQ that altar ego posted:

"On the basis of the application, a FISC judge must find probable cause that the target is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power, and that the facilities where the surveillance is directed are or will be used by the target.

For U.S. persons, the FISC judge must find probable cause that one of four conditions has been met: "

As the monitoring has been described as at least partly being done on phone numbers or e-mail addresses discovered in captured terrorists' phones or computers, one has to ask if by virtue of being so listed on those devices probable cause has been met.

In Sunday's LA times:

"Kenneth C. Bass III, another expert on FISA, said the administration might have thought it did not have enough evidence to obtain a warrant. Bass, a Washington lawyer who worked on intelligence matters during the Carter administration, speculated that U.S. authorities might have seized a computer or a phone that was used by an Al Qaeda operative.

'The scuttlebutt is they were then using all the links or phone numbers they found,' Bass said. 'It certainly sounds reasonable to say, 'We are targeting people with links to Al Qaeda,' but it may be just a list of phone numbers,' he said. 'That probably wouldn't satisfy the FISA court.'

The law says the government must show probable cause to believe the targeted person is involved in a terrorist group."

Another thing, going back to FISA and the aforementioned four conditions of probable cause that must be met for a judge to approve an application for a warrant:

"(1) the target knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence activities on behalf of a foreign power which "may involve" a criminal law violation; (2) the target knowingly engages in other secret intelligence activities on behalf of a foreign power pursuant to the direction of an intelligence network and his activities involve or are about to involve criminal violations; (3) the target knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism or is preparing for such activities; or (4) the target knowingly aids or abets another who acts in one of the above ways. "

Bingo.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from agin1415:
Name one liberal that has won a debate with Ann Coulter?

Debate? When has Ann Coulter ever been involved in a debate? Ann Coulter doesn't debate, my friend. Her views are not up for debate.

Got any liberals that make money commenting on politics.

sure, there are some out there

Anybody on the level of Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, or Ann?

Of course not. It's the nutbars who attract attention.

And Ann doesn't incite Hatred at all, I been watching her a long time.

We can tell you've been watching her a long time. You must have been watching her for so long that you forgot how to read, because I specifically said that what she does is not incitement of hatred in my books.

Just another proof that right wing idealogues spout their doctrine without actually bothering to respond specifically to what is being said by their opponents.

She is just incredible at pointing out hipocracies[sic] in the Liberal Mind set.

The word you seem to be grasping for is "hypocrisies".

Well, at least we can agree on one thing. As you say, she is not credible.

PS - Isn't it brilliant how CNN is taking advantage of her?

 

[agin1415]

Quote from traderNik:

Debate? When has Ann Coulter ever been involved in a debate? Ann Coulter doesn't debate, my friend. Her views are not up for debate.

She debates on the radio and on Fox News.

CNN ratings are about the same as PBS, nobody is watching.

PS - Isn't it brilliant how CNN is taking advantage of her?

Let me ask you, do you really watch CNN?

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from agin1415:

Let me ask you, do you really watch CNN?

Usually watch CBC Newsworld for a quick news fix but if I want US news I'll turn CNN on. I don't have a lot of channels or I'd probably watch the BBC World Service. I saw Ann on CNN recently.

For entertainment I watch sports, not Fox News, but I do know some people who turn Fox on just for a laugh.

I thought it was an absolutely brilliant move on the part of the CNN producers to have her on their network, for obvious reasons. Works for her too because it raises her profile = higher Q rating = more money, which is why she says the comic-book things she does.

By the way, please edit your last post properly - you have attributed to me material which you evidently meant to put forward as your own views.

I know it's hard to figure all this stuff out, but try. If you are having problems reading the instructions for posting, Baron may be able to help you with a diagrammatic solution

That means pictures.

It makes sense that attention to detail isn't your strong suit if you buy into Ann's rantings. You'd probably do well in a mob.

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from AltarEgo15:

Bingo.

Do you agree, then, that it is in the best interests of this country's national security to monitor the phone conversations and e-mails of those with known Al Qaeda links, as well as those people whose numbers/addresses are found on captured terrorists' phones and computers but whose affiliation with Al Qaeda is unknown?

If so, I suppose the issue between us is whether or not Bush had the authority to order monitoring of such conversations and e-mails without warrants. Agreed?

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Show me one debate in which Ann Coulter engaged a "liberal" where there was a moderator both parties approved, there were rules of the debate that both parties approved of, a moderator who enforced the rules of the debate, where the was an agreed upon panel or independent judge to determine the winner of that debate.

You can't have a winner of a debate without agreed upon rules.

I have seen the screaming contests of Coulter engaging opponents on Fox and other shows where it is like a menagerie of wild screaming donkeys.

That is not a civilized debate process, it is a zoo for the entertainment of Fox News viewers.

Your argument that popularity or income stream is "winning the debate" underscores my point exactly.

You see the debate as a popularity contest or some non intellectual brawl.....I see it quite differently. Ann engages in personal attack non stop and the roman-like brutes in the Colosseum give her a thumbs up because she is in their opinion "kicking that liberal's ass" because they are not playing her slimy game.

Just one time, have your "dream team" debate a group of liberal intellectuals where the moderator is an expert in logical fallacy, and deducts points for such transgressions.

What you watch is not debate.....it is a gross example of how civility in America is dead......

Quote from agin1415:

Name one liberal that has won a debate with Ann Coulter?


Got any liberals that make money commenting on politics.

Hmmmmmm.

Anybody on the level of Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, or Ann?

I don't know of any.

And Ann doesn't incite Hatred at all, I been watching her a long time.

She is just incredible at pointing out hipocracies in the Liberal Mind set.

I've got a dream debate team, in includes Ann Coulter, Mark Levin, and Rush Limbaugh.

You come up with a Liberal Debate Team that can beat them.

 

[Trader5287]

Scumbag?


Testifying before a Senate committee last April, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, then head of the National Security Agency, emphasized how scrupulously the agency was protecting Americans from its electronic snooping.

"We are, I would offer, the most aggressive agency in the intelligence community when it comes to protecting U.S. privacy," General Hayden said. "We just have to be that way."

It was one of General Hayden's favorite themes in public speeches and interviews: the agency's mammoth eavesdropping network was directed at foreigners, not Americans. As a PowerPoint presentation posted on the agency's Web site puts it, for an American to be a target, "Court Order Required in the United States."

In fact, since 2002, authorized by a secret order from President Bush, the agency has intercepted the international phone calls and e-mail messages of hundreds, possibly thousands, of American citizens and others in the United States without obtaining court orders. The discrepancy between the public claims and the secret domestic eavesdropping disclosed last week have put the N.S.A., the nation's largest intelligence agency, and General Hayden, now principal deputy director of national intelligence, in an awkward position.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/politics/22nsa.html?pagewanted=print

 

[bighog]

I have found over the years that it is a useless endeavor to have even a "small" discussion with the hypocrites on the right.

With the likes of Ann, Rush, The Press Sec, Fox News etc there is no two way dialog, they are right and you are a liberal and that is it. Whenever i start to listen to a person and he/she says they republican i can assure i know what is about to come out of their yap..........Dribble about religious moral values and how Liberals waste the money they take from the Gov by working the system and being a drain to big business by being Union members, etc.

What the right really wants is exactly what they accuse the progressives of wanting. The right wants workers to just be happy they have a job, just come to work clean, bright, happy etc. The right pays minimum wage after all. The right prefers to steal the workers livable wage so the CEO can make millions and millions to provide a job for a gardener and maybe a couple of maids...........

Taxes, taxes are a burden for rich people, surely if they did not have to pay any we all would be better off, RIGHT?...

The right wants to paint the so called Liberals as losers, that way they take advantage of simple people with low esteem of self that will latch onto the right to associate themselves with the so called winners.

Another reason why some latch onto the right is simply because they are disenfranchised themselves, they failed in school, failed to secure a decent union job, so now they hate unions. They failed in business because the taxes were to high and workers get paid to much money and want silly things like Healthcare for the kids and even are so greedy they want a pension. Businesses fail because workers fail to allow the owners to "ALSO" own the workers.

People latch onto the republican party because they failed to "WORK" the system themselves, they see the system as skewed towards the Blacks, the pepper bellies, the chinks, the disabled, etc. They say if the system does mot work for them then it is a bad system period, since the greedy right also think that way, the disenfranchised find a new flock to join. "Birds of a feather, Fly together". Rush, Hannady and that toothpick whinnying Ann chick, they are the recruiters for the right. plain and simple.

I could go on but you know where i am coming from. .........

The way the right works their garbage is called: Divide and conquer. it has been around forever.

Is it possible that what i am saying is in reality that the republican party is actually "THE" party of the losers? I would say so......

Elvis is to go shopping today. Toys for tots....

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

I don't think the right wing really wants a dialogue.

Seems to me that a monologue is their game.....

Rush, Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly etc. love nothing more than being squarely and rightly positioned on their soapbox.

They have their right wing commandments, what more does anyone need?

It is not as if they ever come across as not having the blanket talking point answers and solutions to every single problem, nor do they express any possible doubt that their way may be wrong, etc. It amazes me how quickly and in step these people are whenever anything new hits the news-wire, as if they are all reading off the same copy.

I don't think they like two way streets at all.....

Quote from bighog:

I have found over the years that it is a useless endeavor to have even a "small" discussion with the hypocrites on the right.

With the likes of Ann, Rush, The Press Sec, Fox News etc there is no two way dialog, they are right and you are a liberal and that is it. Whenever i start to listen to a person and he/she says they republican i can assure i know what is about to come out of their yap..........Dribble about religious moral values and how Liberals waste the money they take from the Gov by working the system and being a drain to big business by being Union members, etc.

What the right really wants is exactly what they accuse the progressives of wanting. The right wants workers to just be happy they have a job, just come to work clean, bright, happy etc. The right pays minimum wage after all. The right prefers to steal the workers livable wage so the CEO can make millions and millions to provide a job for a gardener and maybe a couple of maids...........

Taxes, taxes are a burden for rich people, surely if they did not have to pay any we all would be better off, RIGHT?...

The right wants to paint the so called Liberals as losers, that way they take advantage of simple people with low esteem of self that will latch onto the right to associate themselves with the so called winners.

Another reason why some latch onto the right is simply because they are disenfranchised themselves, they failed in school, failed to secure a decent union job, so now they hate unions. They failed in business because the taxes were to high and workers get paid to much money and want silly things like Healthcare for the kids and even are so greedy they want a pension. Businesses fail because workers fail to allow the owners to "ALSO" own the workers.

People latch onto the republican party because they failed to "WORK" the system themselves, they see the system as skewed towards the Blacks, the pepper bellies, the chinks, the disabled, etc. They say if the system does mot work for them then it is a bad system period, since the greedy right also think that way, the disenfranchised find a new flock to join. "Birds of a feather, Fly together". Rush, Hannady and that toothpick whinnying Ann chick, they are the recruiters for the right. plain and simple.

I could go on but you know where i am coming from. .........

The way the right works their garbage is called: Divide and conquer. it has been around forever.

Is it possible that what i am saying is in reality that the republican party is actually "THE" party of the losers? I would say so......

Elvis is to go shopping today. Toys for tots....