State of the Union and Patriot Act II

So hap, your clearly asserting, via your cut and patsy, that :
"Just one more thing: the only phone calls they’re monitoring are ones from people with known terrorist associations. As General Michael Hayden, the deputy director of national intelligence has explained, "this is targeted and focused. This is not about intercepting conversations between people in the United States. This is hot pursuit of communications entering or leaving America involving someone we believe is associated with al Qaeda." So if you’re not chit chatting with people whose sole purpose is to kill Americans, then you don’t have anything to worry about."

Soooooooooo-those persons who knew all about this program , and took steps to get around it, by definition, have absolutely no worries about being picked up at all.
Wonderfull.

Their "beleifs" have not just been wrong, they have never been right, period- why do you feel a bureaucracy can be trusted in this matter?
So if a sideline purpose, a side effect of an action could, ostensibly kill americans-that wouldnt be covered, according to this document.
Please explain.........
 
Quote from Verdais:

Wow... I don't normally get involved in the political rantings on this site, but I really just have to ask a question...

What is the liberal agenda? Clean up the environment. Promote understanding and acceptance between different socio/economic classes. Decrease private ownership of military grade automatic weapons. Offer healthcare to the citzenry. Allow people to live their lives the way they choose and only come down on them when their choices directly impact another in a negative way.

Hmmmm... sounds like a really bad party. They should be stopped! I just want somone to really explain to me what is bad about being a liberal without referencing Clinton screwing around or the fact that we are all a bunch of gay loving soldier haters. Really come back with why the things a liberal stands for are bad. Real reasons. I'm just curious.
More...

So then you agree that the media is liberally biased then, right? I see no refuting my assertions....

Really, follow me here. There will be 2 sides to all those issues you name above, correct? But how often will you see the conservative side of those issues in the mainstream media? And if you do see the conservative side, it will be a one sided attempt to knock it down, and almost NEVER will allow a conservative to have a fair 'shake'.

And that was my main point, not whether or not liberal agendas are bad or not. Personally, I believe that most Democrats - the rank and file union members, etc - are good people with good hearts that truly want the best for their country, etc. It's just that their political party have been hijacked by liberals, who have no real intent to enact the good sounding ideas you give above. Rather, they are all about the demagoguery, selling a shopping list to fools that have a low self esteem that need those issues to make them feel better about themselves.

And so, the agenda-

1-clean up the environment - good, but with some restrictions
2-promote understanding - vague at best. How? By giving away money? Doesn't work - if you increase the amount of money available to a program like say, welfare, do you truly believe that people will be motivated to use that money to get job training, etc? More likely, it will just attract more lazy people.
3-military grade or all guns? - here's the thing, liberals will point to Bush and yell facism, but marching into someone's house to confiscate property is ok.... to use the liberal arguement, what's next?
4-healthcare- I'm ok with that, buuuuut, I want a trade off for me. Namely, decreasing taxes on me by say, defunding welfare and unemployment. Instead, fund job training/child care so that people can go back to work, or just to work for the first time. Take back some of those jobs being outsourced to India.
5-live their lives? - that's REALLY vague. Ok now, let them live their lives - but what if I say that they ARE affecting my life in a negative way, or more importantly, what if more than 50% of the voters say so?
6-abortion-oops !! you didn't mention that one, did you? Actually, while personally I'm against it, I want all you liberals to go ahead and kill all your little babies if you choose. Most liberal voters shouldn't be breeding anyways...
7-feminism-didn't mention that one either.. Ok I'm gonna mention Clinton here anyways. So Clinton had a charge of sexual harassment against him. He also had a claim of rape against him. How can libs claim to be for feminism when there are credible charges against the guy and not attack him? How can THAT be feminism? It isn't. Libs decided that since Clinton would defend abortion by appointing the right judges, he could do anything and feminism wasn't important anymore.

Anyways, we're never gonna agree on the issues. Fine. But my first point is about the media bias.

Comment on that...
 
Yes, it is sad that only "liberals" actually know how to read. Otherwise the conservative owned national rags would have language that catered to the "conservative" reader. That is why the radio talk shows and TV programming are vastly neo-conservative in nature, after all the conservative foot soldiers are predominantly illiterate.

I do not see anything wrong with labelling someone as Neo-Conservative if they themselves proclaim that to be true. However, there are numerous moderates, who do take offence in being labelled as "liberal" simply because they disagree with neo-conservative values. Unlike neo-conservatives, there are many Reagan conservatives who do want to deal with global warming and pollution issues and who do want to deal with good robust alternative energy solutions because of our over-reliance on middle east oil. These Reagan conservatives definitely would take offence at being labelled as "liberal" because although their views align them with "liberal" policies and against Neo-conservative ( commies) madness, their political views are those of Reagan conservatism. Note that I make a difference between the Neo-conservative ( who are basically communists ) and true conservatives in the form of Reagan conservatism.



Quote from Haroki:



It's like others have said, they are out to make a buck, I agree. And so they will definitely go after liberal INDIVIDUALS if it can sell more papers. Al Gore comes to mind here.

But watch closely, the liberal AGENDA will never be attacked....
 
I wonder how much Armstrong Williams was paid by this Admin to write that?

:D

http://www.prwatch.org/node/3185

I can't believe you actually quoted that guy.

Unreal.



Quote from hapaboy:

If you’re not a terrorist,don't worry
Feb 6, 2006
by Armstrong Williams

“So to prevent another attack based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute, I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al-Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America.”
--President George W. Bush, 2006 State of the Union

Do you want to prevent terrorists from launching another attack on U.S. soil? Then you had better get used to the idea of the government spying on people who have contact with al-Qaeda. Because that is what it is going to take to win this war. We live in an information age. If we don’t engage in wiretapping of individuals who have known associations with terrorist organizations, then we will not be able to prevent the next attack.

The President understands this. That is why he authorized a domestic eavesdropping program after September 11, 2001. So far the plan has been integral to the war on terror. Since President Bush began the surveillance program, we have intercepted plots to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, to smuggle missiles into the United States, and to detonate a fertilizer bomb in London. This plan has saved thousands of lives. And let’s not forget that Bin Laden just released another video. Members of al-Qaeda still spend their days trying to invent new ways to kill Americans. We are still in the middle of a war. Spying on your enemies is a part of every war.


Predictably, the ACLU doesn’t get that. The ACLU has been foaming at the mouth over the alleged invasion of civil liberties. But do you think the ACLU is going to win this war for you? Besides, it’s hard to exercise your civil rights when a nuclear bomb detonates in your backyard.

Someone really needs to send a memo to the ACLU that leading a national hubbub over the President’s terrorist surveillance program is only helping the terrorists. As CIA Director Porter Goss recently explained, the public disclosure of the surveillance program has greatly inhibited the ability of the NSA to track terrorist communications. "The damage has been very severe to our capabilities to carry out our mission," Goss said.

Someone should also inform the ACLU that the President is acting well within the powers granted to him by the Constitution. As the Supreme Court observed in the watershed case, US v Curtis Wright Corp., the President necessarily possesses broad powers in the protection of national security, including a power to formulate foreign policy. This is because “the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of our country.” The President alone has intelligence information about national security issues that is generally unavailable to Congress. The President must be free to exercise the “executive power” granted to him by the Constitution if he is to act as this country’s protector when national security requires it. Incidentally, that is why Congress passed legislation following September 11 that gave the President the specific power to eavesdrop on calls that suspected al Qaeda operatives are making to the United States.

Let’s not forget that there has not been a single terrorist attack on US soil since this administration began taking it to the terrorists in earnest. The terrorist surveillance program is a crucial instrument for protecting the nation against another 9/11 style attack. FBI Director Robert Mueller said that leads generated from the program had been "valuable in identifying would-be terrorists in the United States." This is the means by which we might be able to foresee the next 9/11. Think about that.

Just one more thing: the only phone calls they’re monitoring are ones from people with known terrorist associations. As General Michael Hayden, the deputy director of national intelligence has explained, "this is targeted and focused. This is not about intercepting conversations between people in the United States. This is hot pursuit of communications entering or leaving America involving someone we believe is associated with al Qaeda." So if you’re not chit chatting with people whose sole purpose is to kill Americans, then you don’t have anything to worry about.
More...
 
Quote from TheConMan:

Yes, it is sad that only "liberals" actually know how to read. Otherwise the conservative owned national rags would have language that catered to the "conservative" reader. That is why the radio talk shows and TV programming are vastly neo-conservative in nature, after all the conservative foot soldiers are predominantly illiterate.

I do not see anything wrong with labelling someone as Neo-Conservative if they themselves proclaim that to be true. However, there are numerous moderates, who do take offence in being labelled as "liberal" simply because they disagree with neo-conservative values. Unlike neo-conservatives, there are many Reagan conservatives who do want to deal with global warming and pollution issues and who do want to deal with good robust alternative energy solutions because of our over-reliance on middle east oil. These Reagan conservatives definitely would take offence at being labelled as "liberal" because although their views align them with "liberal" policies and against Neo-conservative ( commies) madness, their political views are those of Reagan conservatism. Note that I make a difference between the Neo-conservative ( who are basically communists ) and true conservatives in the form of Reagan conservatism.
[/i]
More...

It looks like you don't believe ME about there being a liberal bias in the media.... fair enough. Then would you believe a liberal if he were to say it? Do you know who Bernard Goldberg is? He was a 25 yr journalist for CBS, spent some time at the national level, worked with both Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather, even had a televised program on CBS for a while. He's a liberal, always has been a liberal, always WILL be a liberal. And when he spoke out about the liberal bias, his friend Dan Rather got him fired.

By the way, The Dan thinks that the editorial page of the NYT is middle of the road.

A Q- why do you really think that the conservative talk radio shows have done so well? Maybe because everyone of a conservative nature knew the media is liberal, and wanted to hear another side. Why do you think Rush's show makes so much money? Because they can sell the advertising. Why can't they sell the advertising on liberal talk radio? because no one wants to hear any more on radio, they get enough on tv and in print. To tell yourself that it's because cons are illiterate is...... wack....

Great that you see the difference between neocons and conservatives, you seem to have a handle on THAT.

Seriously though, think about what I'm saying here about the media. Think of it from this perspective - if the media's views agree with yours, and you believe yourself to be just a regular guy with the 'correct' view of the current issues, and you believe yourself to be 'right', won't you believe that the media is middle of the road?

I could give so many examples....

-Tom Selleck and Bruce Willis will be identified as conservative Hollywood actors. Barbara Streisand and Rob Reiner will be identified as Hollywood actors - no political labels.

-During the '99 Clinton impeachment hearings, every conservative Senator is labeled - McCain,McConnell, Santorum, Smith, more... But Boxer, Kennedy,Mikulsky, Daschle, Schumer, more.... not a peep. Not ONE. Why? It's because the media believes themselves to be middle of the road, and since the 'liberal' Senators are in line politically with their views, there's no need to label them. But every Conservative is... Why??????

Think about it......
 
There is liberal bias wherever there is higher learning: Journalism. Academia. Medicine. Law.

Sucks to be you, Harioki.
 
Quote from Haroki:


I could give so many examples....

-Tom Selleck and Bruce Willis will be identified as conservative Hollywood actors. Barbara Streisand and Rob Reiner will be identified as Hollywood actors - no political labels.
More...

ah yes, the inane babbling of hollywood fools trotted out as evidence that the liberal media is corrupting the youth of the homeland. watch out redstaters, sean penn is going to make your son gay.

meanwhile, what is the media line today?:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060210/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

obediently repeated on a loop, on every major outlet - no evidence or proof presented, or even asked for. no questioning for details, no identification of inconsistencies, not even of the glaring issue of why this urgent story of homeland valor took 4 years to get out.
 
Quote from Ricter:

There is liberal bias wherever there is higher learning: Journalism. Academia. Medicine. Law.

Sucks to be you, Harioki.
More...

Let's see now.... Republican Pres, Republican Senate, Republican House, New Conservative Supreme Court Judge.....

You're right, it sucks to be a Republican about now....

Higher learning?

Consider this

- what's 1000 dead lawyers in the middle of the ocean? A good start.... What's that tell you about the public's opinion of lawyers...

-What about all the carping about all those rich doctors that don't care, yada yada..... what's that tell you about the public's opinion of doctors...

-Nutty professors claiming the holocaust never happened and causing even Hannity and Colmes to agree about how he's wack.... what's that tell you about the opinion on professors....

-Journalists firing their own when they question the status quo. Aren't they the watchers? But who watches the watchers? And really, journalists, higher learning? Sulzberg - the 2nd generation publisher of the NYT couldn't even get into the Columbia journalism school. How dumb do you think that guy REALLY is to not be 'grandfathered' in?

Actually a lot of that article about Arabs/shame culture said a lot about liberals too, if you read a little into it. Remember the part about how guilt is healthy, but not to excess? Left wingers come in basically 2 flavors - the rich libs who feel guilty about their wealth and station in life, and poor libs that need their charity.

I would never put old school Democrats into that catagory. They're good people. Not libs though....

Or do you believe that liberal policies are better than conservative policies????
 
Quote from Madison:

ah yes, the inane babbling of hollywood fools trotted out as evidence that the liberal media is corrupting the youth of the homeland. watch out redstaters, sean penn is going to make your son gay.

meanwhile, what is the media line today?:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060210/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

obediently repeated on a loop, on every major outlet - no evidence or proof presented, or even asked for. no questioning for details, no identification of inconsistencies, not even of the glaring issue of why this urgent story of homeland valor took 4 years to get out.
More...

You are so hung up on liberal vs conservative values that you're misiing the point of what I'm saying...

We have different views. That's not the point

The point is, both views don't recieve equal play in the mainstream media. Shouldn't THAT be the position that the media takes? Report the news in an unbiased way? Inform the people? Give BOTH sides?

And if not... isn't the media then engaging in self censorship, albeit on a very subtle level?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top