[OntheRocks]

I'm with the Razor and Soda on this one. Nice thread tho.

[barfo]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

Imagine what would happen if the jihadists could deliver just one nuclear weapon in a city like Los Angeles.

Yes... no more Brokeback Mountains. The American Family would be safe once again. Thank you, jihadist friends!

barfo

[Talkhard]

Yes... no more Brokeback Mountains. The American Family would be safe once again. Thank you, jihadist friends!

Gee, I hadn't thought of that. Maybe there's a silver lining to this terrorist business after all!

[Talkhard]

I can only think of four explanations, and they're all bad:

1. Bush wanted to spy on the domestic political opposition. The FISA court wouldn't have approved spying on Democrats.

2. Bush wanted to spy on dissidents within his administration. (i.e., hardliners like John Bolton, Cheney, and Rumsfeld wanted to know if the pansies over at the State Department were on board with their war plans.) The FISA court wouldn't have approved spying on Colin Powell.

3. Bush wanted to spy on everyone, indiscriminately. The FISA court wouldn't have approved of that.

My god, man, get a grip! Your paranoid delusions have run amuck. I realize that the pasttime of most liberals is fantasizing about another Watergate, and dreaming that all Republican presidents are secretly out to spy on them and rob them of their rights, but you really have to get this stuff under control. It's not healthy and it makes you sound like a fool.

[Stepping Razor]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

My god, man, get a grip! Your paranoid delusions have run amuck. I realize that the pasttime of most liberals is fantasizing about another Watergate, and dreaming that all Republican presidents are secretly out to spy on them and rob them of their rights, but you really have to get this stuff under control. It's not healthy and it makes you sound like a fool.

Ahh, the typical response: When someone makes a clear argument against you, and you have no evidence to back up your points, go for the ad hominem attack! You crrrrraaaazzzyyy, unhinged liberals should really get a grip!!!

I made a very clear, factual case for why there is no legitimate reason not to go through the normal, legal FISA process to wiretap people linked to Al Qaeda. The undisputable fact is that any kind of legitimate spying would have been easily approved by this pre-existing legal process. The administration chose to circumvent that process. They still have not even attempted to explain why, except by diversionary talking points like, "the President must do everything he can to protect us from terror." Which is nonsense, given that he could do any legitimate spying legally under FISA. In the absence of any credible explanation, there is nothing crazy or foolish about asking why the President would choose to flount the Constitution to conduct warrantless wiretaps against American citizens inside the United States. In the absence of any credible explanation, there is nothing unhinged or paranoid about fearing egregious abuse of executive power.

If you have an alternative explanation for why the Bushies would willfully choose to pursue this program in an illegal, unconstitutional manner, please let us know. Otherwise don't come in here with your pathetic little insults.

I find it quite telling that when you are confronted with factual information that runs counter to your ideological worldview, you reply not with any substantive response whatsoever, but rather by making personal attacks against the messenger.

Classy.

Stepping Razor

[Talkhard]

I find it quite telling that when you are confronted with factual information that runs counter to your ideological worldview, you reply not with any substantive response whatsoever, but rather by making personal attacks against the messenger.

I find it quite telling that you would make this sort of baseless accusation against me when you know that I have provided plenty of evidence to back up my arguments, on this thread as well as others. You may not like my evidence, or may disagree with it, but you can't say I haven't provided any evidence.

Do I think your rant about Bush spying on his enemies a la Richard Nixon was out of line? Yes, I do. Your charges are extremely serious and you provided no evidence at all that Bush was out to spy on everybody BUT terrorists. This is your own pet theory, I understand. But if you want to throw it out on this board then you have to expect a counter attack.

By the way, your signature quote from Richard Nixon illustrates exactly what I'm talking about. You harbor delusions that Bush is conducting some kind of nefarious hush-hush scheme to listen in on all of our conversations, and yet there is not a shred of evidence to support that (except your obvious and intense dislike of Bush and your willingness to assume the worst about him).

there is nothing crazy or foolish about asking why the President would choose to flount the Constitution to conduct warrantless wiretaps against American citizens

"Warrantless" perhaps, but certainly not unwarranted. And it's "flout," not "flount."

[SodaPopinski]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

By the way, your signature quote from Richard Nixon illustrates exactly what I'm talking about. You harbor delusions that Bush is conducting some kind of nefarious hush-hush scheme to listen in on all of our conversations, and yet there is not a shred of evidence to support that (except your obvious and intense dislike of Bush and your willingness to assume the worst about him).

I find this accusation mildly amusing considering you have a quote in your signature block that suggests anyone who doesn't appreciate what George Bush or America has done should go to hell.

Not all that surprising, though.

-Pop

[Stepping Razor]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

I find it quite telling that you would make this sort of baseless accusation against me when you know that I have provided plenty of evidence to back up my arguments, on this thread as well as others. You may not like my evidence, or may disagree with it, but you can't say I haven't provided any evidence.

What the hell are you talking about? In this entire thread, you provided exactly one post which included any "evidence." (Post #9, should you care to scroll back up and read.) And, as you say, I did "disagree with it" -- because it was incorrect and/or misleading. So I carefully debunked it (Post #13), providing links to the actual documents in question showing that your spin was a steaming pile of bull****. Then I politely asked you to provide any countervailing evidence, if you had it. You didn't. So you called me paranoid and foolish.

Do I think your rant about Bush spying on his enemies a la Richard Nixon was out of line? Yes, I do. Your charges are extremely serious and you provided no evidence at all that Bush was out to spy on everybody BUT terrorists. This is your own pet theory, I understand. But if you want to throw it out on this board then you have to expect a counter attack.

I never said Bush spied on his enemies a la Richard Nixon. I said it was one of several possibilities we have to consider, in the absence of any credible explanation otherwise. (Other possibilities I proposed included laziness and arrogance, which are less sinister but still problematic.) I also politely requested that you offer a competing explanation. You didn't have one. So you called me paranoid and foolish.

By the way, your signature quote from Richard Nixon illustrates exactly what I'm talking about. You harbor delusions that Bush is conducting some kind of nefarious hush-hush scheme to listen in on all of our conversations, and yet there is not a shred of evidence to support that (except your obvious and intense dislike of Bush and your willingness to assume the worst about him).

Bush has admitted he deliberately broke the law, choosing to wiretap Americans outside the legal FISA process. Neither he nor his spokesmen have explained why. (Their repeated claims that they had to do this to protect us from terrorists make no sense whatsoever if you actually understand how FISA works; legitimate spying on people linked to terrorists would have been legal under the law.) In the absence of any credible explanation, what are we supposed to think?

Do you have any evidence that he has actually done this? If so, I would like to see it.

Well, there haven't been a Pentagon Papers for this administration yet, so none of us have seen the secret inside info yet. There are a few bits of suggestive evidence, however, which (once again, for the reading-comprehension-challenged) do not prove that he did it, but do require that the question be raised. The most disturbing evidence to date: During John Bolton's confirmation hearings for the UN, we learned that Bolton had in his possession transcripts of NSA wiretaps of lower-level officials within his own State Department, apparently to monitor whether the non-political guys at State were sufficiently gung-ho about the neocons' war plans. Again, I would want to see much more evidence before I would claim to have a "slam dunk" case here, but this episode alone is enough to raise serious questions. Again, maybe there's an innocent explanation. I'd love to hear it. And if no one can provide one, then I think it's quite reasonable to suspect foul play.

By the way, it's "flout," not "flount."

Thanks for your help with my typo. I truly appreciate it.

I'm sorry this thread has devolved into such a pissing match. I know I will never convince you that Dear Leader is anything but a benevolent ruler, but I have to keep posting because I would hate for the other good Blazer fans on here to read your propaganda and falsely conclude that you actually have any idea what you're talking about.

Stepping Razor

[MARIS61]

Talkhard, have you considered changing your avatar to one of Chicken Little?

Get a grip before you lose it completely.

[Talkhard]

I know I will never convince you that Dear Leader is anything but a benevolent ruler

Nor will I apparently be able to convince you that Bush is anything except evil, venal, and incompetent. Oh, yes, and evil. Did I say that already?

I would hate for the other good Blazer fans on here to read your propaganda and falsely conclude that you actually have any idea what you're talking about.

Ah, yes, the ad hominem attack. Nicely done.

[Stepping Razor]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

Ah, yes, the ad hominem attack. Nicely done.

Hilarious! You still have failed to respond substantively to anything I've said.

This is like having a debate with a second grader. What next? "I know you are but what am I?"

Thank you for providing some serious laughs this morning, Talkhard.

Go Blazers.

Stepping Razor

[Talkhard]

This is like having a debate with a second grader.

Again with the ad hominem attack. Very impressive.