or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Bush authorises spying within US
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bush authorises spying within US

post #1 of 244
Thread Starter 
The land of the free.

My understanding is that this may be illegal under US federal law. Would anyone like to comment?

The more we find out, the more I'm convinced I become that the real damage done by 9/11 was not the loss of 3,000 lives, the apparent triumph of terrorism and the destruction of prime NYC real estate - it was actually the destruction of a nation's values. Now that really is a triumph of terrorism.

http://nytimes.com/aponline/politics...rtner=homepage

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4538286.stm
post #2 of 244
Quote:
Originally posted by Triestino
The land of the free.

My understanding is that this may be illegal under US federal law. Would anyone like to comment?

The more we find out, the more I'm convinced I become that the real damage done by 9/11 was not the loss of 3,000 lives, the apparent triumph of terrorism and the destruction of prime NYC real estate - it was actually the destruction of a nation's values. Now that really is a triumph of terrorism.

http://nytimes.com/aponline/politics...rtner=homepage

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4538286.stm

Seems like a well timed leak, to detract from the momentous elections in Iraq. Expect a investigation into the leaker. Expect the democrats to downplay the leaking of classified info by bringing up Plame.
post #3 of 244
Those who leak criminal activity should be considered whistleblowers and protected thusly. Criminal activity should not be able to hide behind the wall of classification.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #4 of 244
Extroardinary events require extroardinary measures. Blame the senators who gave the president certain authorisations so he could abuse them. And face it, it's a littly spying, it's not like he's torturing people, or killing 30.000 innocent civilians in the process. Btw, the fact that we haven't had any terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11 is the best proof that whatever action the president takes is the right one.


Btw, anybody else see Donald Rumsfeld on the O'Reilly Factor? I had to walk away neauseated (sp?) from my computer after 5mins, but I thought it was funny when he said that the terrorists would win if we'd change or way of life (or something to that extent). Luckily that didn't happen.
It's Better To Be Hated For What You Are Than To Be Loved For What You Are Not
Reply
It's Better To Be Hated For What You Are Than To Be Loved For What You Are Not
Reply
post #5 of 244
I am old enough to remember the rationale behind the label "Evil Empire"
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #6 of 244
Quote:
Originally posted by Triestino
The land of the free.

My understanding is that this may be illegal under US federal law. Would anyone like to comment?

The more we find out, the more I'm convinced I become that the real damage done by 9/11 was not the loss of 3,000 lives, the apparent triumph of terrorism and the destruction of prime NYC real estate - it was actually the destruction of a nation's values. Now that really is a triumph of terrorism.

http://nytimes.com/aponline/politics...rtner=homepage

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4538286.stm


Yes that's right! The real and final victim of 911 is the american values.

There is no rational for this kind of thinking! The fact that we have not been attacked here on american soil since simply means the terrorists have blown their wad. There wasn't anything else coming. How many times have we had an alert and nothing came of it?

The Bush administation uses this situation to their advantage to push through an agenda of their own design. Some of which have little or nothing to do with a terrorist threat. The very fact that some people eat this up is sickening.

After all the terrorists got what they wanted. A very paranoid country controlled by fear who's lost the respect of most of the rest of the world through their own actions. They didn't need to attack again.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #7 of 244
So if the president can authorize extra-legal domestic spying just cause he thinks it's a good idea and the answer to concerns is "I have to be free to do what I want to save American lives" (with the unspoken addendum "You have to trust me, of course the government would never abuse its power"), then why have any laws at all?

If we are obliged to simply "trust" the president to do what's right, and he can do whatever he wants, then we're clearly wasting time with this whole "check and balances", "rule of law", and "constitution" thing.

If we're serious about fighting terrorism, we should just proclaim Bush Suprmeme Protector of the Virtue of the Fatherland, give him carte blanch, and be done with it, right?

Because that's what's happening, and that's what anyone who cares to defend this is defending.

Why leave it at the federal level? Everyone agrees crime is bad; I have a much better chance of being killed by a street crime than being killed by terrorists.

If the primary good is harm reduction, trumping niceties like "rights", then it would seem it would be prudent to give police departments broad discretionary powers to, well, do whatever they think might be helpful in stopping criminals. Maybe preemptive round-ups, secret detentions, summary executions, round-the-clock surveillance of everybody. Whatever.

Because police departments too have a solemn duty to "protect the American people" and they actually have a chance to actually save lives on a day to day basis; so I would have thought that we might want to start with liberating them from all this law bullshit, given that the new thinking that "whatever it takes" is now the first line of the Bill of Rights.

Seems like "9/11 changed everything" just becomes more of a bitter punch line with every passing day, doesn't it?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #8 of 244
addabox, you guys have to realize that there are three branches of government:
Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) - Facing angry criticism and challenges to his authority in Congress, President Bush on Saturday unapologetically defended his administration's right to conduct secret post-Sept. 11 spying in the United States as "critical to saving American lives."
One Democrat said Bush was acting more like a king than a democratically elected leader. But Bush said congressional leaders had been briefed on the operation more than a dozen times. That included Democrats as well as Republicans in the House and Senate, a GOP lawmaker said.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051217/D8EI8O180.html

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #9 of 244
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
addabox, you guys have to realize that there are three branches of government:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051217/D8EI8O180.html

Um, so the separation of power means that Congress is free to criticize the president after the fact, and the president is free to tell Congress to fuck off.

Well, that's alright then.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #10 of 244
Quote:
Originally posted by iSeeItNow
Seems like a well timed leak, to detract from the momentous elections in Iraq. Expect a investigation into the leaker. Expect the democrats to downplay the leaking of classified info by bringing up Plame.

I would think the timing would have been better a little more than a year ago, don't you think... I can't see Bush winning the presidency by spying on the American Public, do you?

I really only have one question:

Do you believe it is right for the government to reduce our freedoms without telling us, without asking our permission, and without reparations?

If you do, you are a bad American.

This act by the US has as much to do with protecting us from terrorists as it has to do with protecting us from people that, in light of history, will seem to have done good.


An act like this by the British government two hundred years ago would have resulted in the burning of a post-office. Why are we such lambs?




(being led to the slaughter)...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #11 of 244
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Um, so the separation of power means that Congress is free to criticize the president after the fact, and the president is free to tell Congress to fuck off.

Well, that's alright then.

I don't think it's right, but that seems to be the way it's playing out -- if you include Congress' feigned outrage.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #12 of 244
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
I don't think it's right, but that seems to be the way it's playing out -- if you include Congress' feigned outrage.

The president informs a very few members of Congress what he's doing, and it is illegal for them to reveal anything they were told, even to other members of Congress, and even if they disagree with what he's doing.
post #13 of 244
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
The president informs a very few members of Congress what he's doing, and it is illegal for them to reveal anything they were told, even to other members of Congress, and even if they disagree with what he's doing.

I think you're all wet, why tell them in the first place if this isn't an example those two branches working in union, as designed? I would imagine that there is a straighforward legal explanation either way.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #14 of 244
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
I think you're all wet, why tell them in the first place if this isn't an example those two branches working in union, as designed? I would imagine that there is a straighforward legal explanation either way.

You think members of Congress are allowed to publicly state that the administration was doing these things?
post #15 of 244
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
You think members of Congress are allowed to publicly state that the administration was doing these things?

no idea -- but that will probably change as this unfolds.

I suspect that, like the Gitmo charges, we will be flooded with front-end accusations but when it becomes clear that things are within the norm, it will go begging for coverage.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #16 of 244
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
no idea -- but that will probably change as this unfolds.

Well they can't. Three or four members of Congress were briefed on it, protested it, but couldn't do anything about it.
post #17 of 244
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
So if the president can authorize extra-legal domestic spying just cause he thinks it's a good idea and the answer to concerns is "I have to be free to do what I want to save American lives" (with the unspoken addendum "You have to trust me, of course the government would never abuse its power"), then why have any laws at all?

I think your Bush-Hate is getting the best of you.

In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.

So a foreign power or party sends people acting in their interest into our country. This is of course possible because of our lax immigration controls and wide open borders. We intercept international communications coming into these parties and it is now a "domestic matter" where foreign terrorists are afforded the same Constitutional rights as citizens while trying to kill said citizens.

Quote:
If we are obliged to simply "trust" the president to do what's right, and he can do whatever he wants, then we're clearly wasting time with this whole "check and balances", "rule of law", and "constitution" thing.

Perhaps you should read that document you proclaim to hold so dear. Understanding it might help your case.

Quote:
If we're serious about fighting terrorism, we should just proclaim Bush Suprmeme Protector of the Virtue of the Fatherland, give him carte blanch, and be done with it, right?

Because that's what's happening, and that's what anyone who cares to defend this is defending.

You're ranting to hard again and starting to get spittle on yourself.

Quote:
Why leave it at the federal level? Everyone agrees crime is bad; I have a much better chance of being killed by a street crime than being killed by terrorists.

Why make any distinctions at all? I mean I'm sure all our troops didn't get warrents when they broke into various homes that they were returning fire against them or even breaking into them to kill the enemy. Why note that war policies and police policies or citizens and enemy combatants are different.

Messy distictions like those I just mentioned just get in the way of the hate. It is so much easier to hate and rant when you don't have to think at all.

The rest of your nonsense isn't worth my time. I already feel like an idiot for even devoting this much to your nonsense.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #18 of 244
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Well they can't. Three or four members of Congress were briefed on it, protested it, but couldn't do anything about it.

The Senate Intelligence comittee "couldn't do anything about it"?

really?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #19 of 244
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
The Senate Intelligence comittee "couldn't do anything about it"?

really?

It's not the committee, it's a few select members, like the majority and minority leaders (though I believe Reid said this morning he wasn't briefed) and the committee chairs. And no, they can't do anything about it, because it is illegal for anyone in a closed session to discuss the meeting with anyone else, even other members of the intelligence committee. Who knows, maybe it was one of them that leaked it. But did you hear what Bush said in his address yesterday:
Quote:
Yesterday, the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have.

And the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies and endangers our country.

How is Congress supposed to do anything about it when Bush says that no one is allowed to even know about it? They're supposed to just get really, really mad?
post #20 of 244
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Yes that's right! The real and final victim of 911 is the american values.

There is no rational for this kind of thinking! The fact that we have not been attacked here on american soil since simply means the terrorists have blown their wad. There wasn't anything else coming. How many times have we had an alert and nothing came of it?

The Bush administation uses this situation to their advantage to push through an agenda of their own design. Some of which have little or nothing to do with a terrorist threat. The very fact that some people eat this up is sickening.

After all the terrorists got what they wanted. A very paranoid country controlled by fear who's lost the respect of most of the rest of the world through their own actions. They didn't need to attack again.

Jimmac, you're consistent...I'll give you that.

You don't know whether or not Al-Queda had or has anything else coming. It's just an opinion, one which has no substansiation whatsoever. You literally just made it up and presented it as fact. If you're going to take issue with the tactic Bush has authorized, that's fine. Just don't do it by making stuff up.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #21 of 244
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
It's not the committee, it's a few select members, like the majority and minority leaders (though I believe Reid said this morning he wasn't briefed) and the committee chairs. And no, they can't do anything about it, because it is illegal for anyone in a closed session to discuss the meeting with anyone else, even other members of the intelligence committee. Who knows, maybe it was one of them that leaked it. But did you hear what Bush said in his address yesterday: How is Congress supposed to do anything about it when Bush says that no one is allowed to even know about it? They're supposed to just get really, really mad?

It looks like the committee was, among other 'top leaders'. The whole idea of an Intelligence committee and the 'not telling anybody' could go for nearly anything they handle. They are the oversight for this very sort of thing.

...this quote is from the House Intelligence Committee website -- the Senate's is probably very similar:
Quote:
There is no doubt that intelligence is and must be our first line of defense. Although it is important to have a robust intelligence capability, it is also important to have an effective oversight process to ensure that intelligence resources are not misused and that intelligence activities are conducted lawfully. Intelligence operations and law enforcement activities are governed by laws which are not in all cases the same. Ensuring that these laws are followed is a key component of our oversight responsibilities and was the primary reason for the creation of the congressional intelligence committees.

Since I just learned that House has an intelligence committee as well as the Senate; I'm going to zip it until I know more.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #22 of 244
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Well they can't. Three or four members of Congress were briefed on it, protested it, but couldn't do anything about it.

How could you possibly know how they reacted? And considering that it was all completely legal, why would they respond as you seem to think?

I do, by the way, completely agree about the whistleblower thing - but that's not the case here.
post #23 of 244
Quote:
Originally posted by OBJRA10
How could you possibly know how they reacted?

I could "possibly know" because, after Bush confirmed this and stated that members of Congress had been informed, Pelosi released a statement: "I was advised of President Bush's decision to provide authority to the National Security Agency to conduct unspecified activities shortly after he made it and have been provided with updates on several occasions.

The Bush Administration considered these briefings to be notification, not a request for approval. As is my practice whenever I am notified about such intelligence activities, I expressed my strong concerns during these briefings."
Quote:
And considering that it was all completely legal, why would they respond as you seem to think?

It was all completely legal? Whew. That's quite a relief. I'm glad I know the truth now.

What's funny is that all the Republicans I saw this morning talk about this - people like Graham and Specter and Barr - were unequivocal that there was no legal justification that they knew of, that the president cannot override a statute like the FISA statute, and that they wanted hearings to determine what happened. The only Bush supporters I've seen try to defend this have been those who have posted in this thread. Congratulations.
post #24 of 244
This is so funny. There's a rubber-stamp court that burps out subpoenas like this without thinking whenever any president asks for it. But Bush felt he shouldn't need to ask for it:

Quote:
The NYT and LAT point out that Bush did not explain why he felt it necessary to go around the usually compliant court that oversees intelligence operations. As a matter of fact, the president and his advisers refused to answer any questions regarding the debatable legality of the wiretaps.

link.

And yesterday the post reported that the NSA was doing this before Bush's secret executive order in 2002. "One of the curious things about the program is that there is already a special court that issues national-security-related subpoenas and has a much lower threshold for evidence than regular courts. That court has rarelyif everturned down a subpoena request."

Quote:
The FISA court has approved 10,000 interception requests in its twenty five year history. It has never turned one down. In the event it were to deny a request, there is a special FISA appeals court. It is the only appeals court in the country which has never heard a case. Its first case will be the Government's appeal of the recently released May 17 FISA Court order.

link

So that's Bush disregarding the 3rd branch of the S guv. Perhaps because the 2nd has disregarded him.

Quote:
the Bush administration has received only three subpoenas from the House Government Reform Committee. By contrast, the panel issued 1,052 subpoenas to the Clinton administration and the Democratic Party between 1997 and 2002, according to Democrats.

This kind of perspective is what is lost on neoconners who confuse the term "objective reporting" with "objectionable reporting".

--B
...


...
Reply
...


...
Reply
post #25 of 244
No problem at all with this. All Mosques should be observed, as should all prominent Muslims and perhaps most Muslims living in the US. We must know where they get their money and what they do with it. This is very important in the battle against terrorist extremists. It may also be wise to observe the activities of those on he far left, particularity the Hollywood elites.
Moe has left the building
Reply
Moe has left the building
Reply
post #26 of 244
Quote:
Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
No problem at all with this. All Mosques should be observed, as should all prominent Muslims and perhaps most Muslims living in the US. We must know where they get their money and what they do with it. This is very important in the battle against terrorist extremists. It may also be wise to observe the activities of those on he far left, particularity the Hollywood elites.

post #27 of 244
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Jimmac, you're consistent...I'll give you that.

You don't know whether or not Al-Queda had or has anything else coming. It's just an opinion, one which has no substansiation whatsoever. You literally just made it up and presented it as fact. If you're going to take issue with the tactic Bush has authorized, that's fine. Just don't do it by making stuff up.



Ok chicken little.

However it's been quite awhile and the ineffective stuff Bush has been up to has nothing to do wiith it!

That's quite as clear as no WMD.

The more this sort of thing goes on ( just like the WMD scenero ) the more the odds go up that I'm right.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #28 of 244
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
I suspect that, like the Gitmo charges, we will be flooded with front-end accusations but when it becomes clear that things are within the norm,

Within the norm of what?
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #29 of 244
Quote:
Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
No problem at all with this. All Mosques should be observed, as should all prominent Muslims and perhaps most Muslims living in the US. We must know where they get their money and what they do with it. This is very important in the battle against terrorist extremists. It may also be wise to observe the activities of those on he far left, particularity the Hollywood elites.

Would you trust Hillary Clinton with this kind of power? If Michael Moore were elected President, would you trust him? Bill Clinton? John Kerry?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #30 of 244
Quote:
Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
No problem at all with this. All Mosques should be observed, as should all prominent Muslims and perhaps most Muslims living in the US. We must know where they get their money and what they do with it. This is very important in the battle against terrorist extremists. It may also be wise to observe the activities of those on he far left, particularity the Hollywood elites.

There's a word for this. Guess what it is.

PS. It's not nice.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #31 of 244
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
There's a word for this. Guess what it is.

PS. It's not nice.

Bush-supporter?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #32 of 244
Republican Party: Your Freedoms for your life (tm).
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #33 of 244
* Invading a sovereign nation unprovoked? Check.
* Torture? Check.
* Videotaping/photographing torture? Check.
* Making fun of veterans and wounded soldiers? Check.
* Spying on American citizens without warrants? Check.
* Cronyism? Check.
* Cronyism with devastating consequences? Check.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #34 of 244
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Making fun of veterans and wounded soldiers? Check.

Now, now, let's leave Michael Moore out of this.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #35 of 244
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Now, now, let's leave Michael Moore out of this.

Moore wore one of those purple band-aids at the Republican National Convention?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #36 of 244
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Moore wore one of those purple band-aids at the Republican National Convention?

....No, wait....I'm wrong, Moore targeted amputees --no purple Band-Aids -- and there was no multimillion-dollar payoff or a trip to the Oscars to go with that.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #37 of 244
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
....No, wait....I'm wrong, Moore targeted amputees --no purple Band-Aids -- and there was no multimillion dollar payoff or a trip to the Oscars to go with that....nevermind.

Michael Moore mocked amputees at the Republican National Convention? I thought that was just the Republicans holding McCain up as an example of why torture works.

Hrm.

Anyway. Too bad my point wasn't "ways Democrats are kind of nearly as bad as Republicans."

They have you guys defending torture and spying on citizens, for God's sake.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #38 of 244
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
....No, wait....I'm wrong, Moore targeted amputees --no purple Band-Aids -- and there was no multimillion-dollar payoff or a trip to the Oscars to go with that.

Wow, Michael Moore made fun of amputees and got a multi-million dollar payoff? And I bet he figured mocking amputees was a sure fire way to get an Oscar nomination, seeings how the liberal Hollywood elites are famously anti-amputee.

And dude, that totally counter-balances the dismantling of the constitution, so it's an excellent point!
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #39 of 244
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Wow, Michael Moore made fun of amputees and got a multi-million dollar payoff? And I bet he figured mocking amputees was a sure fire way to get an Oscar nomination, seeings how the liberal Hollywood elites are famously anti-amputee.

And dude, that totally counter-balances the dismantling of the constitution, so it's an excellent point!

I'll bet he wore a little handicapped parking sticker around his neck, too. Maybe took one of those wheelchair decals and stuck it on his face and kept yelling "I have a boo boo!"
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #40 of 244
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
I'll bet he wore a little handicapped parking sticker around his neck, too. Maybe took one of those wheelchair decals and stuck it on his face and kept yelling "I have a boo boo!"

That fat bastard. Bush should start executing American citizens without trial just to balance the scales.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Bush authorises spying within US