Defending the Truth

Says you...

But I've actually proposed a solution to you for that in the past, my little stupid friend...

If you want to debate the legalities of wire-tapping and move it to a separate thread, I'm game.
Are you?

Or are you just going to play message board cop and try to harp about whether or not talking about NSA wire-tapping on a thread entitled NSA wire-tapping is topical...

I'm thinking you're more for the mindless and pointless snipes.


Actually, there have been a couple that already exists.
Do you want me to point them out?

Or are you avoiding discussing anything on them, because you KNOW Bush's wire-tapping efforts are illegal, and you just want to name-call and avoid significant issues like that?


That's a hoot...
You're running around complaining about people talking about NSA wire-tapping on a NSA wire-tapping thread, and you think other people aren't coming up with "something intelligent".

Your head is so far up your ass that you probably can see a glint of sunlight...
(Hint: It's not coming from where you think it is...)

Considering who and what you are, I'd rather you weren't talking about "my ass".

Now... read the articles about these 3 phone companies "allegedly" giving records to the NSA - something that 2 of the 3 vehemently deny.

Then talk to me again about the NSA violating the constitution.
Then talk to me again about wire-tapping.

Oh sweetie. Didn't you realize?
Gays are all about the good taste, and my standards are MUCH higher than you obviously even try to obtain...

You flatter yourself in thinking I'ld be concerned about "your ass" in that manner...



And Nixon stated, "I am not a crook"...
<end sarcasm>

I am more than happy to let the days ahead reveal more information about that situation.
Why are you so scared to talk about the OTHER issue?
The ACTUAL "NSA wire-tapping"...


Your attempts to focus the spotlight on something else are painfully transparent.
I'm talking about REAL "NSA wire-tapping", and you desparately use every excuse you can think of to avoid talking about it...

From complaining that a thread entitled "NSA wire-tapping" is not to be used for talking about NSA wire-tapping, to insisting that we use a thread entitled "NSA wire-tapping" to talk about something YOU STATE is not "NSA wire-tapping".

Do you even realize how dumb those arguments are?
And how transparent it is that you will not talk about the REAL NSA wire-tapping?

It's funny how you insist that there are no impeachable offenses for Bush, but you can't even bring yourself to discuss what I think is the primary one...

Stick your head in the sand some more. Maybe it will all go away....

Okay little fella, I'll throw you a bone (not boner).

Prove that the Bush Administration/Federal Government, in any way, violated the Constitution by illegal wire-tapping and/or gathering of phone records.


Keep in mind that if you can accomplish this, you'll be doing what thousands of legal & constitutional experts have FAILED TO DO.


Good luck. You'll need it.

Your mind is more fixated on that than mine...
What would Freud say...


Bush has usurped powers EXPLICITLY denied him by law.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht..._50_10_36.html
"(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and..."

Your comments may invoke other issues into play, but what aMFliberal quoted still applies.
Even if they are classifed as a "Foreign Agent", a U.S. citizen SHOULD STILL be a U.S. CITIZENS until the courts say otherwise. (Unless we suddenly gave the president power to revoke citizenry based on suspicions...)
Thus they would be a part of the quoted section B "(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and..."

Bush's actions inside the U.S. would be EXPLICITLY outside the scope of the afore-mentioned powers.
The only way around it would be to declare the participants as no longer U.S. citizens, and Bush DOES NOT have that power.

If you're tapping UNITED STATES phone calls where one of the ends is a UNITED STATES phone, it seems blatantly obvious that there is a VERY SUBSTANTIAL likelihood that the contents of the communication will include conversations which are explicitly forbidden.

And in addition, note the wording. It doesn't say that if a participant is KNOWN not to be a U.S. citizen. It talks about the LIKELIHOOD that such a tap could involve a participants who is a U.S. citizen. In other words, if you have a house which has 3 non-U.S. citizens, and one U.S. citizen as residents, it would be illegal to tap that phone's house because there WOULD BE a "substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party".

Bush is EXPLICITLY violating the law in invading the privacy of American citizenry.


They haven't "failed" to do anything.
Congress refuses to broach the issue, preventing ANY official conclusions from being reached on the issue.

Why no impeachment?



Oh yeah... the lack of impeachable offenses.

Just a minor glitch.

This question has been answered for you so many times that you just look like a retard for continuing to ask it while ignoring the responses.

Congress is controlled by the Republicans, and they are preventing the issue from being raised.


I demonstrate how Bush is breaking the law.
I QUOTE the law.

And you give NO argument in reply showing how Bush is acting in accordance with the law.
I knew even before I posted that info that you wouldn't have the brains to comprehend and give a rational response.

You give your opinions - which are obviously one-sided, hatefilled and blind.

Legal experts disagree with you.

Congress being Republican controlled does NOT keep Bush from being impeached. It might keep him from being removed from office - but, again, it does NOT keep him from being impeached.


If the Democrats had proof of impeachable offenses they WOULD NOT HESITATE to impeach Bush. Why? Because if he had committed impeachable offenses, and the Republican controlled Congress failed to act on it, it would GUARANTEE a landslide victory for Democrats in 2006 and 2008.

But the Democrats don't impeach because they have no impeachable offenses.

No. I gave THE LAW, and used simple English comprehension to show how Bush is violating THE LAW.


WHAT "legal experts"?
All YOU have done is give YOUR opinion.
That's it.


Do you know anything about what it takes to start impeachment proceedings?
Once again, your reply ignores the obvious.

It's like proclaiming that Capone was innocent of anything but tax evasion...
But you would be sitting in the front row of that choir, proclaiming that idiocy loudly...

Clinton was impeached, but not removed from office.
Bush could easily be impeached, but not removed from office.

The Democrats won't bring up impeachment charges because they know they'd only be making asses of themselves, and gaurantee Republican landslides in 2006 & 2008.

End of story, little fella.