Tea Party

[lord_casek]

I'm only a fan because Obama had just finished telling the Republicans they were liars. Wilson stood up and did the right thing. Obama is lying about what the bill says.

[shai]

All politicians lie to some degree. Or am I just being cynical?

 

that being said.... i was aligned much more with the left believe it or not for the past few years, and now im getting more aligned with the right again. my beliefs havent changed one bit.

 

its the cycle.

 

I think it's more like player hating. When the GOP is in power, the Dems do everything they can to dig up dirt on them. Then when the Dems get in there, the GOP is all about "exposing the truth." Each side is shady, that's been proven time and time again.

 

i also think everyone should be a fan of that joe wilson guy. sure he is a hypocrite.. but so was every democrat saying that bush lied during the past 8 years.

 

But Bush DID lie. A lot.

 

This healthcare bill is really important to Obama right now, do you think he'd hedge if he had to fudge on some of the details? Of course not.

[angelofdeath]

yup... bush and obama lied.

nothing new.

 

to hell with them all if you ask me.

[lord_casek]

1.5 to 2 million march on Washington D.C Tea Party protest rally September 12 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoPud1TeubM&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prisonplanet.com%2Fmainstream-media-cover-up-implodes-as-millions-march-in-dc.html&feature=player_embedded

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eppSWxpbO8g&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prisonplanet.com%2Fmainstream-media-cover-up-implodes-as-millions-march-in-dc.html&feature=player_embedded

[YouMad.GIF]

You know from history (of the U.S.) as well as I do, it takes a while for the people to get

mad.

 

I am all for the Campaign for Liberty, but it seems like the tea parties have been hijacked by the ilks of Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, etc.

 

i just find it strange people "got mad" within the first month of having a black president

it didnt seem to take people any time to get mad once the NewsCorp intrests got to work

 

while bush, cheney, and the Good Ol Boys ran unchecked for almost 7 years after 9-11 doing whatever they wanted, expanding government into new facets of our freedom, unchecked spending, and pretty much everything these Tea Party cats are supposed to be diametrically opposed to

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, but these Tea Parties couldnt be more obviously backed by corporate intrests and honestly I have to say, as someone who WAS pretty on the fence about a public option, seeing the insane backlash caused by the health insurance lobbies has turned me into a supporter. If nutcase liars like Glen Beck, who has pretty much proven to be a mouthpiece for the highest bidder, and everyone else who speaks the loudest, all the lies and fabrications and just plain insane rantings... I cant be on a side that tries to win like that in the face of logic and reason. Basically proponents present facts and examples, and the objectors just spit outright lies and distortions, I cant side with that

 

That, and I actually worked for a private health insurance company for a quarter in college... it was hands down some super scummy shit, but they take care of their own VERY WELL to keep them in favor. Even the 13$/hr start for a internship & the grossly overinflated work hours by management couldnt keep me there

[angelofdeath]

i think its pretty silly to think they are backed by 'corporate' interest.

the tea party i went to this year, were just normal ass people. they werent 'plants' they are just normal outraged people at a slightly more tuned up socialism as opposed to the slightly less socialism that has occurred with the last administration. they simply just want their party spreading the tyranny instead of the other. there is a phenomenon where every person who values liberty always ends up yearning for the good old days of the last administration because the state was less intrusive.

 

but you are right... its nothing but partisan. when clinton was in office, the dems were passing pre cursors to the patriot act, warrantless wiretapping, dropping bombs on countries, etc. some republicans were against it. repubs take power they expand the government and drop more bombs. dems supposedly oppose it. now dems are in power, republicans oppose the dems again... they are just using a more grass roots approach, which i think can be attributed alot to ron paul and supporters.

 

soon enough, the republicans will be in power again and will be doing the very things they are supposedly against right now.

its the nature of the beast.

 

no use in defending any of them.

i've had close alliances with some lefties during the past 8 years. most of those people hate me or my beliefs now and i feel more at home with the tea party crowd. not that they are ideologically pure or anything, its just how it is. months before neo cons were calling ron paul supporters like me, 'terrorists'

 

a famous libertarian murray rothbard started his career out in the old right. along came bill buckley and basically threw him out because he opposed the cold war. so rothbard was allied with the anti war far left in the 60's. next thing you know in the 1990's he is associated with pat buchanan and paleo cons and he was allied with them. his beliefs didnt change one bit. its just the nature of the partisan politics game.

 

each party only opposes the other because they want to be the ones stealing peoples liberty. end of story.

[YouMad.GIF]

i think its pretty silly to think they are backed by 'corporate' interest.

the tea party i went to this year, were just normal ass people. they werent 'plants' they are just normal outraged people at a slightly more tuned up socialism as opposed to the slightly less socialism that has occurred with the last administration. they simply just want their party spreading the tyranny instead of the other.

 

yeah

 

white people

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and while there may not be 'plants' or 'agents' from health insurance companies, where does the majority of the organization come from? Grassroots organizations? No-FOX NEWS

 

my producer watches Fox news on repeat for hours, and I hear them hype up every Tea Party. Most of the commentators (i cant even call them reporters if they are on fox news) relay the protest times, hype them up, and support them both onscreen and off in blogs, articles, photo-ops , and pretty much every way possible. To say that the success in numbers of these tea parties ISNT OWED DIRECTLY TO FOX NEWS AND THEIR COMPLETE ENDORSEMENT AND OUTRIGHT ADVERTISEMENT as well as other NewsCorp radio programs shows a complete lack of understanding of modern media communications.

 

So yeah, there arent any corporate plants in the gatherings, because there doesnt have to be - Rupert Murdoch just needs bodies to cheer on so he can show "what people are saying"

 

I would say at least 75% of the people attending tea parties heard it directly from a Rupert Murdoch News Corp broadcast, publication, or web-site - and I would guess that is a pretty low estimate. What makes it worse is its being hyped as a "grassroots" movement, when clearly it is part of the biggest media empire known to man

[lord_casek]

 

and while there may not be 'plants' or 'agents' from health insurance companies, where does the majority of the organization come from? Grassroots organizations? No-FOX NEWS

 

 

Wrong.

 

 

It's very diverse. Just b/c Beck is attempting to hijack it doesn't mean it's Fox "news" sponsoring it.

[TheoHuxtable..]

I'm only a fan because Obama had just finished telling the Republicans they were liars. Wilson stood up and did the right thing. Obama is lying about what the bill says.

 

 

Joe Wilson was the liar.

 

Here's the bill, all 1,018 pages of it:

 

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

 

"Sec. 246. No Federal payment for undocumented aliens."

 

"Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."

 

 

Now, some Republicans have made the case that there is nothing in place that would enforce these restrictions on illegals. A case could be made for that. But that's completely different from what Obama said in his speech. He simply said the Health Care Bill would not cover illegals. He never said anything about how well it would be enforced.

 

Besides, the decorum of Joe Wilson was unacceptable. You don't interrupt the president and call him names while he's giving a speech to Congress. I don't remember any Democrats interrupting Bush, or anyone else interrupting any other President. And race is part of the reason Obama was disrespected, and why some see no problem with him being disrespected.

[YouMad.GIF]

Wrong.

 

 

It's very diverse. Just b/c Beck is attempting to hijack it doesn't mean it's Fox "news" sponsoring it.

 

its not just Beck... Its Limbaugh, Hannity, everyone on the Fox News Roster

 

by them giving countless free add space they are in essence sponsoring it and then HAVE already Hijacked it

and lets be honest, we all are PAINFULLY aware how the commentators, talking points, and program direction on FOX NEWS is METICULOUSLY CONTROLLED from the top down. Their operational procedures in this regard are well documented by not only countless internal defectors, but numerous outside sources. If RUPERT HIMSELF DID NOT SUPPORT THE DISRUPT CAUSED BY THESE TEA PARTIES, BECK, HANNITY, LIMBAUGH, AND EVERYONE ELSE WOULD NOT BE SPEAKING ON THEM EVERY DAY

 

 

Sure, there are some good people with solid ideals at the core of this issue, but when those people make up less than 25%, and even less of the vocal faction, its an indirect sponsorship

 

 

Just like when talk radio hosts "talk" about that great local diner or "chat" about the great service they got done on their car its not a direct advertizement, but it is a indirect sponsoring no matter which way you look at it. Hannity "talking" about every date of the tea parties, Beck "chatting" about who will be where and so on, it IS an indirect sponsirship. These PUBLIC ENDORSEMENTS have REAL VALUE that translates into massive bodies through the door. Its very simple promotions and communications stuff, its not complicated at all

[YouMad.GIF]

Joe Wilson was the liar.

 

Here's the bill, all 1,018 pages of it:

 

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

 

"Sec. 246. No Federal payment for undocumented aliens."

 

"Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."

 

 

Now, some Republicans have made the case that there is nothing in place that would enforce these restrictions on illegals. A case could be made for that. But that's completely different from what Obama said in his speech. He simply said the Health Care Bill would not cover illegals. He never said anything about how well it would be enforced.

 

Besides, the decorum of Joe Wilson was unacceptable. You don't interrupt the president and call him names while he's giving a speech to Congress. I don't remember any Democrats interrupting Bush, or anyone else interrupting any other President. And race is part of the reason Obama was disrespected, and why some see no problem with him being disrespected.

 

true

 

 

also, nobody seems to mention how UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM one of the BIGGEST EXPENDITURES PRIVATE HOSPITALS TAKE is free care to undocumented illegals. Hospitals CAN NOT turn away ANYONE at the ER - this is where 99% of undocumented immigrants receive their primary care, and also the MAIN REASON that running a hospital is almost NEVER a profitable venture. The hospitals pass this expense on to everyone else, which results in higher costs for services, higher insurance premiums, and so on and so forth.

 

If you have private insurance you are ALREADY PAYING FOR THE PRIMARY CARE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS! If you want to stop this, you have 2 options - either vote for public option so that somne of the burden is lightened, or PASS A LAW THAT SAYS HOSPITALS CAN REFUSE CARE!

[lord_casek]

Joe Wilson was the liar.

 

Here's the bill, all 1,018 pages of it:

 

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

 

"Sec. 246. No Federal payment for undocumented aliens."

 

"Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."

 

 

Now, some Republicans have made the case that there is nothing in place that would enforce these restrictions on illegals. A case could be made for that. But that's completely different from what Obama said in his speech. He simply said the Health Care Bill would not cover illegals. He never said anything about how well it would be enforced.

 

Besides, the decorum of Joe Wilson was unacceptable. You don't interrupt the president and call him names while he's giving a speech to Congress. I don't remember any Democrats interrupting Bush, or anyone else interrupting any other President. And race is part of the reason Obama was disrespected, and why some see no problem with him being disrespected.

 

Blah blah blah blah blah

 

http://www.cis.org/articles/2009/CRS_Report_on_HR3200.pdf

 

* some illegal immigrants -- those who "meet the substantial presence test" -- would be taxed if they don't obtain health insurance that meets the requirements of the law;

 

* there are no immigration-related restrictions on who can participate President Obama’s proposed health insurance exchanges;

 

* to qualify for any subsidies for health insurance, "individuals must be lawfully present in a state in the United States." That does not preclude those in this country legally who have illegal immigrants in their family from qualifying for the subsidies.

 

* how will the government make sure that subsidies don't go to illegal immigrants? The mechanism is left entirely up to the Health Commissioner, who is instructed by law that he or must have some process to establish immigration status before giving subsidies. Sec. 241(b)(1), pg 130 : “the Commissioner shall establish a process whereby, on the basis of information otherwise available, individuals may be deemed to be affordable credit eligible individuals." That “shall” is key.

[lord_casek]

its not just Beck... Its Limbaugh, Hannity, everyone on the Fox News Roster

 

by them giving countless free add space they are in essence sponsoring it and then HAVE already Hijacked it

and lets be honest, we all are PAINFULLY aware how the commentators, talking points, and program direction on FOX NEWS is METICULOUSLY CONTROLLED from the top down. Their operational procedures in this regard are well documented by not only countless internal defectors, but numerous outside sources. If RUPERT HIMSELF DID NOT SUPPORT THE DISRUPT CAUSED BY THESE TEA PARTIES, BECK, HANNITY, LIMBAUGH, AND EVERYONE ELSE WOULD NOT BE SPEAKING ON THEM EVERY DAY

 

 

Sure, there are some good people with solid ideals at the core of this issue, but when those people make up less than 25%, and even less of the vocal faction, its an indirect sponsorship

 

 

Just like when talk radio hosts "talk" about that great local diner or "chat" about the great service they got done on their car its not a direct advertizement, but it is a indirect sponsoring no matter which way you look at it. Hannity "talking" about every date of the tea parties, Beck "chatting" about who will be where and so on, it IS an indirect sponsirship. These PUBLIC ENDORSEMENTS have REAL VALUE that translates into massive bodies through the door. Its very simple promotions and communications stuff, its not complicated at all

 

 

You watch that shit don't you?

[YouMad.GIF]

its ignorant to think that coverage WONT go to some illegals who slip through the cracks

 

HOWEVER currently ALL illegals get completely FREE emergency coverage (that is inflated and vastly overpriced as a primary care means) and paying citizens ALL pick the bill up

 

furthermore, traditionally it has been corporate interests on the right that have supported the free movement of illegals as a source of cheap labor, which once again is a glaring hypocracy in this situation.

 

 

I also believe Theo DOES have a point - I think interrupting sessions as a form of protest would have been more imperative with a lot of the things bush did, particularly the clearly unconstitutional and potentially illegal internal spying and warrantless wiretaps... but I could NEVER have imagined ANYONE getting away with even interrupting the VP or Speaker in session, much less the president, without suffering extreme backlash.

 

On the contrary his interruption seems to have given him a bump in the polls and is sure to lead to copycats once the midterm elections come around.

[YouMad.GIF]

You watch that shit don't you?

 

like I said, Im pretty much subjected to hours and hours at a time at work, and on top of that Im subjected to the inane logic and thought processes. Im by no means a liberal - you know this - but my beliefs of "social libertarianism" dont even mesh with these people so I just shut up and act like I dont care about politics. The one time I DID argue one of Glen Becks lies and backed it up on the spot via Snopes on my iPhone my producer STILL tried to tell me I was wrong. Working in close proximity to "hardcore right wing conservatives" has really had the effect of making me take another look at some of these more leftist policies. I understand the difference between the classical repubs and ron paul libs and all that...

 

 

some of these guys leave it on ALL DAY and ill put it on ESPN or whatever when they leave the room, then they come back and put it back on. They watch this shit like they are part of some movement just by having it on... I swear ol Rupert has put mind altering waves in the higher spectrum of their broadcasts to increase ratings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PS they are always synchophanting each other on some dumb ignorant shit... they all hate muslums YET IM THE ONLY PERSON OF JEWISH DESCENT ON THEIR WHOLE TEAM, IM THE ONLY PERSON THEY KNOW WITH CLOSE FRIENDS IN ISRAEL, Im supposed to be the one who hates Islam irrationally and so on and so forth, but the shit these people come up with, goddamn! The hostess came at me like "can you believe the law in islam under the koran is that if a girl is raped she is to be killed by the family or it is a dishonor? Did you know that James? Did you know thats the law there? Isnt it horrible?"

 

I had to put it out there like "listen, NO countries in the middle east practice Traditional Quirannic law officially, and the regions that DO are very extreme axamples and at the very least havnt been state sponsored for decades. If you took biblical law the same way you took quirannic law you would be bound by duty of god to torture me to death like everyone else in the crusades"

 

well, I left out the second half because she just got confused after I revealed that the Muslum countries actually have their own individual laws

[lord_casek]

its ignorant to think that coverage WONT go to some illegals who slip through the cracks

 

HOWEVER currently ALL illegals get completely FREE emergency coverage (that is inflated and vastly overpriced as a primary care means) and paying citizens ALL pick the bill up

 

furthermore, traditionally it has been corporate interests on the right that have supported the free movement of illegals as a source of cheap labor, which once again is a glaring hypocracy in this situation.

 

 

I also believe Theo DOES have a point - I think interrupting sessions as a form of protest would have been more imperative with a lot of the things bush did, particularly the clearly unconstitutional and potentially illegal internal spying and warrantless wiretaps... but I could NEVER have imagined ANYONE getting away with even interrupting the VP or Speaker in session, much less the president, without suffering extreme backlash.

 

On the contrary his interruption seems to have given him a bump in the polls and is sure to lead to copycats once the midterm elections come around.

 

 

This just expands the illegals getting health care. Watch as our country goes absolutely bankrupt.

 

 

Clinton started the wiretapping. http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/news/nws4.htm

He was the one to set up listening stations at backbones.

 

Good for Joe. He spoke up. Maybe more will follow. Good for them, too.

We the people. Not "this guy is pretty much Jesus, don't interrupt him or say

anything contrary to what he is saying"

[lord_casek]

like I said, Im pretty much subjected to hours and hours at a time at work, and on top of that Im subjected to the inane logic and thought processes. Im by no means a liberal - you know this - but my beliefs of "social libertarianism" dont even mesh with these people so I just shut up and act like I dont care about politics. The one time I DID argue one of Glen Becks lies and backed it up on the spot via Snopes on my iPhone my producer STILL tried to tell me I was wrong. Working in close proximity to "hardcore right wing conservatives" has really had the effect of making me take another look at some of these more leftist policies. I understand the difference between the classical repubs and ron paul libs and all that...

 

 

some of these guys leave it on ALL DAY and ill put it on ESPN or whatever when they leave the room, then they come back and put it back on. They watch this shit like they are part of some movement just by having it on... I swear ol Rupert has put mind altering waves in the higher spectrum of their broadcasts to increase ratings

 

 

I feel sorry for you. My grandparents and aunt are (were?) like that. Fox news all day, every day.

 

The mind control is the news babes who talk to you like they want your dick in their mouth and the handsome news guy who wants to give granny the dick.

[YouMad.GIF]

This just expands the illegals getting health care. Watch as our country goes absolutely bankrupt.

 

 

Clinton started the wiretapping. http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/news/nws4.htm

He was the one to set up listening stations at backbones.

 

Good for Joe. He spoke up. Maybe more will follow. Good for them, too.

We the people. Not "this guy is pretty much Jesus, don't interrupt him or say

anything contrary to what he is saying"

 

sorry, I think bush was WAY more of a "dont interrupt him Hes Jesus protecting us from the evil abroad, lest you be stoned to death"

 

All in all I think its been pretty acceptable to interrupt obama in the early days of his presidency in comparision, especially when you compare it to the "america love it or leave it" attitude post 9/11

 

 

 

 

really, I think there IS no comparison, BUSH was about a million times more "uninterruptable" than Obama is today

[lord_casek]

sorry, I think bush was WAY more of a "dont interrupt him Hes Jesus protecting us from the evil abroad, lest you be stoned to death"

 

All in all I think its been pretty acceptable to interrupt obama in the early days of his presidency in comparision, especially when you compare it to the "america love it or leave it" attitude post 9/11

 

 

 

 

really, I think there IS no comparison, BUSH was about a million times more "uninterruptable" than Obama is today

 

No one wanted to interrupt the monkey (Bush) b/c they were curious what the dumbfuck would say next. It was all like some giant valium had polluted the drinking water in the U.S.

[angelofdeath]

bush, obama, whats the difference?

what vast amounts of federal over governing is obama overturning? NONE

have the democrats overturned all the abuses of civil liberties bush as well as themselves passed the last 8 years?

 

why argue about who is worse.. its like arguing if stalin was worse, or hitler was worse. both are horrible. each is a little more horrible in a certain area, but both are HORRIBLE! end of story.

 

sure people are hypocrites. sure people should of been shouting down bush. sure people should of been invading the capital when various legislation was passed going back to 1913's disgraces and before. but this joe wilson guy is nothing new. you have all these democrats talking trash on the iraq war yet voted for it. you have all these obama voters talking about being anti war and obama is committing more troops over seas. all the democrats talking trash about republicans and wire taps, patriot acts, etc were all supporting clinton when he was doing it. all the republicans who were against clintons undeclared wars couldnt wait to drop bombs on iraq and 'stan when bush got in. THEY ARE ALL HYPOCRITES. but occasionally someone gets it right. if someone says 'bush lied!' i'll cheer. if someone said 'obama lied!' i;ll cheer. they are both right. even if they are hypocrites. even a broken clock is right twice a day

 

all these idiots need to be shouted down. none of them have any credibility. 98% of the federal government needs to be IMPEACHED and half of them need to be imprisoned

[YouMad.GIF]

bush, obama, whats the difference?

what vast amounts of federal over governing is obama overturning? NONE

have the democrats overturned all the abuses of civil liberties bush as well as themselves passed the last 8 years?

 

why argue about who is worse.. its like arguing if stalin was worse, or hitler was worse. both are horrible. each is a little more horrible in a certain area, but both are HORRIBLE! end of story.

 

theres one major difference

 

 

Bush squandered an unprecedented surplus through government spending that went mostly towards military-industrial operations that benefited a select few elites

 

Obama is FURTHERING the incurred debt in a mad dash to revert the damage done to the economy as well as push through his parties agenda. In the end I think its pretty obvious that while both spent a shitload of our money, I think its pretty clear that with Obama the intentions are clearly more honorable, and definitely more likely to benefit the average american in the form of increased services and upgraded standard of living. Bush would have just kept leaching this country dry untill there was nothing left.

 

 

While they are both spending, I think qa comparision of what they spend on is pretty nececarry, and the comparison everyone suggests they are the same isnt apt at all because it ignores where the money goes. With obama its going into social programs - you may not like it but you cant deny this - with bush it went right into the hands of multinationals and watr-profiteers, from which the american people will NEVER benefit from

[angelofdeath]

i think you are still just falling onto the fake propaganda ads of the washington dc-ites.

 

the welfare warfare state is a horrible thing and both sides of it are equally as bad.

i dont want anything to help me. i want them to cease EVERYTHING they are doing. i'll allow them to engage in the powers enumerated in the constitution. for now.

 

both sides are needed to create a state like we have today. the mainstream right wants war and welfare. the mainstream left wants welfare and war. they log roll their priorities and they each get what they want. what do we get? the biggest most intrusive government in american history.

 

bush squandered a surplus because that is what neo cons do. they spend. this is also what liberals do. the only reason we had a surplus was because clinton got to cut the military budget and we had the .com bubble resulting in massive influx of revenue that wasnt there before. not to mention the inflation machine created a boom, followed by a bust. the clinton years were an illusion, bush just put the nail in the coffin.

[YouMad.GIF]

Clinton started the wiretapping. http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/news/nws4.htm

He was the one to set up listening stations at backbones.

 

QUOTE]

 

Casek, I revisited this article, and it has nothing to do with domestic spying or warrantless wiretapping

 

 

it has to do more with the expansion of tappable technology under the clinton administration, particularly towards narcotics traffikers. I offer you a really simple explanation for why there were more wiretaps under the clinton administration than any other - technological growth. This was the expansion of the cellular era - more drug dealers had cell phones between 92-00 to tap, vastly more than any other period in history, so of course wiretaps were more widely used. Furthermore tapping technology became far more available to local law enforcement and lower lever federal investigations - back in the 80s they had to physically tap into the line or at the switch - REMOBs (remote observation lines) became instituted with the use of Digital switches meaning you just needed a warrant to tap and you could dial in, as opposed to actually physically manning a line. Using this argument to suggest Clinton set the way for Bush's warantless wiretapping program is pretty poor...

 

NO WHERE IN THIS ARTICLE IS THERE A MENTION OF WARANTLESS WIRETAPPING OR POLITICALLY MOTIVATED DOMESTIC SPYING

[angelofdeath]

clinton engaged in a huge expansion of the war on drugs. nonetheless he was well versed in the use of warrantless wiretaps under the program 'echelon.' his war on drugs expansion resulted in a huge huge huge increase in private property confiscation and the like. lets not forget about the fraudulent search warrants. the reading of electronic communications. sicking the IRS on political opponents. not to mention his famous pre cursor of the bush invasions of civil liberty, the domestic terrorism act. this is nothing more than a watered down patriot act. not to mention gassing and killing 80 men woman and children in a church in waco texas.

 

funny thing was... you had ashcroft denouncing all this stuff. a few years later, he was escalating clintons policies. this is nothing new. during the depression hoover instituted a boat load of big government programs. roosevelt won on a small govt platform. he then won the election and took hoovers expansions of the state to a new level. and so it is with clinton/bush. and is going on now with bush/obama.

 

 

eh.

just read this

 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/frank/frank20.html

[lord_casek]

Clinton started the wiretapping. http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/news/nws4.htm

He was the one to set up listening stations at backbones.

 

QUOTE]

 

Casek, I revisited this article, and it has nothing to do with domestic spying or warrantless wiretapping

 

 

it has to do more with the expansion of tappable technology under the clinton administration, particularly towards narcotics traffikers. I offer you a really simple explanation for why there were more wiretaps under the clinton administration than any other - technological growth. This was the expansion of the cellular era - more drug dealers had cell phones between 92-00 to tap, vastly more than any other period in history, so of course wiretaps were more widely used. Furthermore tapping technology became far more available to local law enforcement and lower lever federal investigations - back in the 80s they had to physically tap into the line or at the switch - REMOBs (remote observation lines) became instituted with the use of Digital switches meaning you just needed a warrant to tap and you could dial in, as opposed to actually physically manning a line. Using this argument to suggest Clinton set the way for Bush's warantless wiretapping program is pretty poor...

 

NO WHERE IN THIS ARTICLE IS THERE A MENTION OF WARANTLESS WIRETAPPING OR POLITICALLY MOTIVATED DOMESTIC SPYING

 

 

 

Why can't you guys use google again?

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp

 

 

Dereliction Of Duty:

The Constitutional Record of President Clinton

 

 

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-271.html

 

 

 

US bugged Diana's phone on night of death crash

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/dec/10/monarchy.peterallen

[lord_casek]

clinton engaged in a huge expansion of the war on drugs. nonetheless he was well versed in the use of warrantless wiretaps under the program 'echelon.'

 

 

Don't forget "MAGIC LANTERN" and "CARNIVORE"

[YouMad.GIF]

clinton engaged in a huge expansion of the war on drugs. nonetheless he was well versed in the use of warrantless wiretaps under the program 'echelon.' his war on drugs expansion resulted in a huge huge huge increase in private property confiscation and the like. lets not forget about the fraudulent search warrants. the reading of electronic communications. sicking the IRS on political opponents. not to mention his famous pre cursor of the bush invasions of civil liberty, the domestic terrorism act. this is nothing more than a watered down patriot act. not to mention gassing and killing 80 men woman and children in a church in waco texas.

 

funny thing was... you had ashcroft denouncing all this stuff. a few years later, he was escalating clintons policies. this is nothing new. during the depression hoover instituted a boat load of big government programs. roosevelt won on a small govt platform. he then won the election and took hoovers expansions of the state to a new level. and so it is with clinton/bush. and is going on now with bush/obama.

 

 

eh.

just read this

 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/frank/frank20.html

 

 

and you know what?

Ive never been a fan of clinton's expansion of the war on drugs, in particular how he is pretty much the inventor of the "confiscate and liquidate" funding method of local police forces...

 

but his policies of creating a fairly unconstitutional method of funding police forces cant be compared to the massive scale enacted by bush. Further more, the scale of clintons illicit wiretapping is on a much lower and far less domestic scale. Lets be real - EVERY PRESIDENT SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THE RECORDED TAPE HAS ILLEGALLY RECORDED OTHER PEOPLES CONVERSATIONS IN THE NAME OF "SECURITY"

 

what makes Bush worse is not only the brazeness, but the justifications and illegalities surounding his activities. Sure, clinton taped some people, as did regan, as did Bush 1, as did Carter... I dont know if Ford did since he might not have had the time cleaning up the reams of magnetic tape oozing out of the woodwork from his former boss... BU HATS ALL IRRELEVANT. How come your response to my accusation that Bush took invasion of privacy to new levels is "Clinton did it too" - how about you start refuting some of my original accusations? Yeah every prez does dirty shit, but its the level of the dirty shit bush did that makes him different - and the funny thing is you know damn well he did far more dirty shit than his daddy, and clinton, and probably regan, and definitely carter, but you compare him anyways. Its like comparing Mike Vick to Ted Bundy - yeah they both killed living creatures and tried to weazel out of it but thats where the comparison can pretty much stop.

 

 

but were also not going to go back to clinton, because its even easier to go back to regan who created the War on Drugs, or to Nixon who was the precursor for the war on drugs.

[angelofdeath]

I just think it's silly to only harp on bush

 

you can come up with all the excuses of how bush was worse... But fact is they were both idiots.

Every prez gets worse making us long for the guy before him.

I'm just pointing out that the left is very hypocritical one this stuff. Just as much if not more so than bush and co.

 

The bundy vick analogy is wrong. It's more like Stalin/hitler or a tornado vs a hurricane. Why argue over petty diiferences? Both were tyrants, end of story. My main point in arguing this is just to say that you can't get entirely mad at bush when Clinton set the stage for most of bush's policies. There are few exceptions to this rule throughout our history. And that it's pretty silly to apologize for a dem for doing something then condemn a repub. Seems rather partisan to me

[YouMad.GIF]

yeah I can tell you are use to making the whole "right vs left" argument by bringing up clinton

 

thats why it doesnt hold too much water with me since Im not a big clinton fan and NAFTA was the beginning of the end of outright corporate control of america. I dont care how much you bash on clinton, it doesnt change the fact that I see bush's administration as being leaps and bounds the worst administration in our modern era.

 

The thing is all politicians do the same dirty shit, and they all act like they are above it... but in the past they just did a little bit of shit here and there - they respected the people enough to keep it semi-covert

 

 

 

 

a good example is Regan - I grew up outside of NYC in the mid 80s, an area that was nearly a warzone and viewed as a direct victim of "reganomics" and trickle down economics. I dont like a lot of what he did and how it effected people, but I view a lot of that as necessity for the situation of the world, and in the end at least when he did dirty shit (and he did some dirty ass shit) he respected the people enough to keep it under wraps, and only do just enough. Clinton did the same shit except it was shady corporate dealings. Bush the 2nd was like the floodgates were opened and it was no holds barred on the constitution and the people and whoever got in his way. He abused the fear gnerated by 9-11 to completely trash damn near every aspect of american life.

[angelofdeath]

What do you think about Lincoln then ??

Bush is nothing but a 21st century Lincoln