Federal Judge orders end to unconstitutional wiretap program

E-Z-B

E-Z-B

CAGiversary!
The 4th Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution has been saved from Dubya!

DETROIT - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy.

“Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution,” Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs.

The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.

The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14393611
 
Try setting up webcams all over your house, and provide a live stream over the internet. That way, we'll all feel safer knowing that you're not a terrorist. Otherwise, you're just sympathizing with al Qaeda.
 
Also, we can ban all guns so that the terrorists can't use them on U.S. soil. Wouldn't that make you feel safe as well?
 
[quote name='schuerm26']Can we do anymore to make us less safe in this country?[/QUOTE]

Yeah; the terrorists have won if we make the government get warrants that were denied at a well-below 1% rate up until 2005.

Remember: Osama bin Laden wins everytime the Bush administration has to follow the rules.
 
[quote name='schuerm26']Can we do anymore to make us less safe in this country?[/QUOTE]

Maybe when this administration is done wiping it's collective ass with the constitution, all these terrorists who supposedly hate us for our freedom will realize we have none left and leave us alone.
 
[quote name='schuerm26']Can we do anymore to make us less safe in this country?[/QUOTE]

How does requiring a warrant up to 72 hours AFTER the wiretap takes place make us "less safe"? Why is any check or oversight of this program by the other branches of government whatsoever harmful to national security?
 
Basically the fight isn't over yet. The Administration is inevitably going to ask for a stay while they appeal it in the Court of Appeals. That will most likely be granted until the Court of Appeals has heard the case. So keep watching what you say on the telephone.

I think what was, if not more important certainly as important, was the deicision by the judge to not hear the case against data mining. There is this idea that if the case could hurt national security (and the administration claims that defending the case would reveal things that would be detrimental to national security) then the case will be thrown out. To me this is a HUGE wall for the administration to hide behind. Anytime they don't want oversite into their policies claiming that it would hurt national security by revealing details seems to be enough for everyone to drop it. Discuss.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, I do believe the administration refused to even defend in this case claiming the above argument. The court of appeals might hear a different case.

I still can't get over how secretive and detrimental to the average citizens' rights this administration is. It makes me both mad and sad that the average citizen doesn't even care and sees immigration or gas prices as a bigger issue.
 
RUSH: Get this. This just cleared the wires: "A federal judge ruled that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it." It's a story out of Detroit. "U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy... The [ACLU] filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves secretly listening to conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries. The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.
0.gif
"The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule." I know this woman. This name rings a bell, this judge, Anna Diggs Taylor. Find out who appointed her. Find out. We think it's Jimmy Carter who appointed Anna Diggs Taylor. That wouldn't be a big surprise, but we're checking into it. So once again, the American left makes of itself an obstacle in defeating and even waging war against this enemy. Make no mistake: this enemy is all over this country. It's all over the world, and this same type of surveillance program that was used by Bill Clinton and a number of other presidents, nobody beefed about it, nobody complained about it. This is liberals, ladies and gentlemen. This is leftists.

This is who they are. They are untrustworthy. I don't care where they are: liberals in Israel, liberals in Iraq, liberals in Great Britain, liberals in Europe, liberals here. They are liberals first and everything else comes afterward -- second, third, fourth -- including patriotism and anything else. Now, they'll try to tell us "We're being patriotic. We're protecting people's rights to privacy. We're doing everything we can to make sure that the government's not spying on citizens." They know that that is patently absurd. The government isn't spying on American citizens. The American government's not engaged in voyeurism here. They're engaged in a serious activity of trying to defend and protect the country, and it's the American left that asserts itself as an obstacle, puts itself in the way of this effort, and they do so proudly, and there are two words to explain this: Bush hatred.

This would not be happening if there were a Democrat in the White House. Bush hatred is the total explanation for this. Speaking of Bush hatred: "John Prescott has given vent to his private feelings about the Bush presidency, summing up George Bush's administration in a single word: crap. The Deputy Prime Minister's condemnation of President Bush and his approach to the Middle East could cause a diplomatic row but it will please Labour MPs [members of Parliament] who are furious about Tony Blair's backing of the United States over the bombing of Lebanon. The remark is said to have been made at a private meeting in Mr Prescott's Whitehall office on Tuesday with Muslim MPs and other Labour," i.e., liberal, "MPs with constituencies representing large Muslim communities.

Post from Rush Limbaugh.com

Let the blasting begin yet you guys take for gospel the Cafferty crap.


 
[quote name='schuerm26']The government isn't spying on American citizens.[/QUOTE]

Jesus Christmas, change that font - the color, at the very least.

I find it hilarious that Rush Limbaugh, and you as well, trust the government to responsibly use monitoring tools. Moreover, monitoring tools that they answer to nobody, not even the FISA court, for using.

Barry Goldwater would slap the both of you in the face, and then weep in shame that someone calling themself a conservative would think such a thing about the government.
 
I think Rush made one important point:

This would not be happening if there were a Democrat in the White House.

Exactly. The expanding Presidential powers that Bush (and thats sort of absurd because former aids in the White House claim Cheney really runs the show...I can expand on that in a different post if need be) has been pushing would not have happened if this were a democrat. It might not have even happened if the Republicans didn't control both houses (remember checks and balances from waay back in the constitution?). I think the rhetoric about anyone who questions policies as unpatriotic is disingenuous. Protecting rights is patriotic, sorry Rush. Protecting the people from foreign threats is also patriotic. Unfortunately, this administration has squandered any political capital we may have had with the Global community after 9/11 with Guantanamo and secret prisons. With holding "enemy combatants" without charges for years. Which was also curbed recently by the conservatively controlled Supreme Court.

A war on terror is a war with no boundries. Bush is disregarding FISA because of his claims of different powers when at war. Unfortunately, the definition of war is a state versus another state, not a state versus an idea. There are legal means to combat ideas or actions by non-state actors and Bush should follow them. FISA courts rejected how many requests for warrants before Bush decided to usurp them? As a citizen who cares, I want to know why that was disregarded and I want it to stop now until I get that explanation. We as a democratic society deserve that much.
 
[quote name='schuerm26']Nice to know you guys are on the side of the terrorists:[/QUOTE]

I'm on the side of following protocol. The same protocol that led to the arrests of 24 would-be terrorists last week in Great Britain. The same arrests that were made because of legal monitoring, not because of illegal wiretapping.

You're almost not worth even responding to, what with your "you guys side with the terrorists because you don't think George Bush should have a blank check to do whatever he wants without repurcussions, and thus yous guys love the terrorists" argument. You're not an idiot, as you have shown fleeting moments of cognitive ability. I urge you to try to do that more often, instead of relying on such patently untrue statements as your argument.

Unless you truly think that liberals want terrorists to succeed. Let me know if you really think that, and I just won't bother you again, because I've got better things to be doing with my day than deal with such a genuine fool.
 
A federal judge ruled just moments ago that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it. "US district Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, in Detroit, became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights of free speech and privacy." Who is this babe? Who is Judge Anna Diggs Taylor? By the way, you see what's happening, ladies and gentlemen, the judiciary, which I and others have been warning you, is out of control, is now assuming commander-in-chief duties. Some federal judge, Eastern District of Michigan, decides to take it on her shoulders. She campaigned for Jimmy Carter. He appointed her to the federal bench in 1979.

She is a Carter appointee. It all makes sense. The first African-American woman appointed to a federal judgeship in Michigan, appointed in 1979, November 15th, sworn in as a federal judge to the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, 1997. She became the first African-American woman to be named chief judge of the eastern district of the United States district court. She stepped down in 1988 as chief judge in order to reduce her work load, continued to serve as a senior federal judge. But that's not all, ladies and gentlemen. The Wall Street Journal, Tuesday, June 18th, 2002, a column by Thomas J. Bray entitled: "Disorder in the Court -- Judicial shenanigans mar an affirmative-action case. Will Congress investigate?

"Rumors in Washington has it that the House Judiciary Committee may hold hearings into the events surrounding the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' 5-4 decision upholding the University of Michigan Law School's affirmative action program. In a rare break with judicial comity, two judges in the court publicly questioned the procedures that Chief Judge Boyce Martin, a Carter appointee, had set out in the case... Chief Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the federal District Court in Detroit tried to take the suit against the law school away from Judge Bernard Freedman, who had been assigned it through a blind draw," which is the standard way these things happen. Case goes to a court, whoever is up next on the docket gets the case.
0.gif
This babe, Chief Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, Carter appointee, tried to take this case away from the judge, Bernard Freedman, "who had been assigned it through a blind draw and who was suspected of being skeptical about affirmative action." The judge who was assigned the case was suspected of being skeptical about affirmative action. He was suspected! So this Stalinist judge, Anna Diggs Taylor, said, "Well, we can't have somebody that's biased that way. We need somebody like me, biased my way, toward affirmative action. That's what's fair in my courtroom." At any rate, she wanted to "consolidate it with a similar suit against the university's undergraduate admissions practice, which Judge Patrick Duggan was hearing. The chief judge dropped that effort was dropped after the judge hearing the law school complaint went public with a blistering opinion objecting to what he termed 'the highly irregular' effort of the chief judge," which would be Anna Diggs Taylor.

That is a break with tradition. Normally what goes on behind closed doors and courts is never known. But she was trying to take the case away, because she suspected the judge who had been assigned the case was dubious of affirmative action. Can't have that. Just civil liberties, civil rights advocate, not a judge. She's just a satellite member of the ACLU that's sitting as a judge, for all intents and purposes. How did this case get tried before her court anyway? Did the ACLU say we want to try this case -- they had to know that they were going to a sympathetic judge. Why in the world would you choose a court in the Eastern District of Michigan to file suit against the federal government and the NSA program? The only reason to do it is if you know you've got somebody in your own club on the bench.

Thank you, Jimmy Carter, you doofus. Glittering jewel of colossal ignorance, worst president in my lifetime and in the modern era, an utter disaster. More on him in just a moment. "Judge Duggan ruled in favor of the undergraduate racial preferences, while Judge Freedman ruled against the law school preferences." So that's who this babe is, ladies and gentlemen, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor -- I don't know if there were ever -- I guess there weren't congressional hearings on what went on. Of course not. What year was it, two thousand -- of course Republicans investigate Democrats? Hell, who's kidding who? Wouldn't do anything like this.
 
Nice to know you guys are on the side of the terrorists

That rhetorical trick has GOT to go. Just because we are against Bush policies does not mean we support terrorists. It just means we think there are policies which would also be effective and follow the law we have set out. I'm for following the law while protecting the American people.
 
[quote name='gwill']Nice to know you guys are on the side of the terrorists

That rhetorical trick has GOT to go. Just because we are against Bush policies does not mean we support terrorists. It just means we think there are policies which would also be effective and follow the law we have set out. I'm for following the law while protecting the American people.[/quote]

It's not a rhetorical trick. You don't find anything wrong with terrorists using liberal propaganda as their own? The same propaganda you believe?

Liberals are doing whatever they can to stop the Bush Administration from being able to protect our country. Terrorists agree with you guys. Liberals don't want profiling. They don't want the Govt. to be able to listen to calls to known terrorists or to people being suspected of being terrorists. It's not rhetoric. It painfully obvious why terrorists use liberal propaganda.
 
[quote name='schuerm26']It's not a rhetorical trick. You don't find anything wrong with terrorists using liberal propaganda as their own? The same propaganda you believe?[/QUOTE]

Shall we never ever criticize any sitting president?
 
"Make no mistake: The Enemy is all over this country!"

That's so awesomly untrue that I have trouble putting it into words, hence my invention of the word 'awesomly.' FEAR! FEAR! BEWARE THE AL QUEDA HOMOS!

What happened to the republican party? What happened to the whole 'get your government out of my life!' schtick? Because I gotta tell ya, every time I hear one of them say the word 'freedom' I cringe, because they don't seem to know what it means anymore.

How come Republicans don't trust government to run schools, but trust them implicitly to run law enforcement, defense, etc.?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Shall we never ever criticize any sitting president?[/QUOTE]

And better yet, should we throw out checks and balances as described in our constition?

Give me liberty or give me death. The country was founded as an opposition to the monarchy of the British. Just because we are 200+ years removed from that doesn't mean that if we start giving up our liberties now.

To say that any policy that keeps us safe should be used is wrong and I think we can all think of circumstances where that is the case. Would you want your financial transactions to be monitored by a government agency? What about your phone calls? What if you were held without being charged and without the possibility of due process. Why, if we wouldn't want these things would we allow others to be subjected to it?
 
[quote name='Cheese']"Make no mistake: The Enemy is all over this country!"

That's so awesomly untrue that I have trouble putting it into words, hence my invention of the word 'awesomly.' FEAR! FEAR! BEWARE THE AL QUEDA HOMOS!

What happened to the republican party? What happened to the whole 'get your government out of my life!' schtick? Because I gotta tell ya, every time I hear one of them say the word 'freedom' I cringe, because they don't seem to know what it means anymore.

How come Republicans don't trust government to run schools, but trust them implicitly to run law enforcement, defense, etc.?[/QUOTE]


excellent points...i heart you
 
[quote name='schuerm26']Liberals are doing whatever they can to stop the Bush Administration from being able to protect our country.[/quote]

Ad hominem time: suck my ass. You're just plain wrong there, and I ask you again: do you truly think that liberals want terrorists to win, and/or attack this country again? Do you really think that liberals relish in American casualities, both in this country and abroad, currently in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Terrorists agree with you guys.
Click to expand...

About what? That we want them dead? That we unequivocally support the war in Afghanistan (where troop numbers are shrinking as we focus on what we fucked up in Iraq)? That we want America protected, both from terrorists and totalitarians in our midst?

Liberals don't want profiling.
Click to expand...

Correct. I want to scour fucking everybody, because just like the terrorists adapted to the security measures put in place after 9/11, they will adapt to the security measures put in place by ethnic profiling. You still have yet to address this claim, because you know that you'd be dead wrong to say that terrorists would never try such measures.

They don't want the Govt. to be able to listen to calls to known terrorists or to people being suspected of being terrorists.
Click to expand...

Well, that's not true. There are laws and warrants in place for such things. The court is called FISA, and they've been approving such monitoring for a quarter century or more. What don't you get about that?

It's not rhetoric. It painfully obvious why terrorists use liberal propaganda.
Click to expand...

Because it shows weakness and dividing among citizens of this nation between people who can't seem to grasp that our leader has fucked up everything he has got his hands on, and those people who want a better leader to focus on the actual terrorist-harboring nations? Sorry if I don't have unwavering support of such a royal fuck-up, but the number of nations we aren't focusing on that have ties to terrorist organizations, including al-qaeda, is larger than the nation we're currently trying to keep from falling apart (y'know, Iraq, where there was no al qaeda until after we invaded)?
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']So, do you have any opinions yourself schuerm or are all of them copy and pasted from Rush Limbaugh?[/quote]

Those were posted as supporting pieces. Just like some other guy did with the cafferty links. If you are going to post at least put some sort of opinion in here.
 
[quote name='schuerm26']It's not a rhetorical trick. You don't find anything wrong with terrorists using liberal propaganda as their own? The same propaganda you believe?[/QUOTE]

You don't find anything wrong with conservatives pushing many of the same morality issues as the terrorists? Religion and prayer in schools. The more religion in Government the better. Strict religious adherence. No sex, abortion, drug use, pornography, or even dancing. That pop culture and the media are threats to society.

Let's take a look at the history of the neo-conservative movement juxtaposed against that of the Islamic Fundamentalists. Both came about because of rapid left swing of their respective societies that they felt was destroying 'order' and that regular folks weren't smart enough to make their own decisions and the wealthy elite should run things.

In the states it was in the late 60's. The students of Leo Strauss, himself a total elitist dick head, start infiltrating the republican party pushing an agenda focusing on an overblown sense of religion, patriotism and fear (of russia at the time) in an effort to keep people from going more liberal then they had become. They come with a belief that the more liberal a society becomes the more radical and more Gov't looses control over the populace. They gained a lot of ground in the Nixon administration, but really came to the fore front during the Reagan administration. They got shut down and virtually kicked out of Washington during the Clinton years, until a hateful little prick named Carl Rove met a charismatic rich kid named George W. Bush.

In the 1960's Ayman Al-Zwarhari and his Egyptian pals (first the Muslim Brotherhood, later Islamic Jihad) saw their society becoming more westernized, women not dressing modestly, men shaving their beards and mustaches, moving away from Islam and towards a more secular way of life and how it was causing people to become more radical (comparatively) and the order of their society crumbling. So they started a movement that pushed radically intense interpretations of religion, patriotism and fear (of themselves, oddly enough). Then they killed a whooooole lot of people, eventually ending with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. He went to jail for that one, but when he came out he met a charismatic rich kid named Osama Bin Laden.

Their goals are very similar, and elite educated upper class ruling over a scared, devout, jingoistic lower class, the real difference was in their tactics. While Stauss advocated lying (swift boats) and cheating (florida 2000), AlZwahri advocated, well, assassinations (sadat) and terrorism (9/11).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Ad hominem time: suck my ass. You're just plain wrong there, and I ask you again: do you truly think that liberals want terrorists to win, and/or attack this country again? Do you really think that liberals relish in American casualities, both in this country and abroad, currently in Iraq and Afghanistan?



About what? That we want them dead? That we unequivocally support the war in Afghanistan (where troop numbers are shrinking as we focus on what we fucked up in Iraq)? That we want America protected, both from terrorists and totalitarians in our midst?



Correct. I want to scour fucking everybody, because just like the terrorists adapted to the security measures put in place after 9/11, they will adapt to the security measures put in place by ethnic profiling. You still have yet to address this claim, because you know that you'd be dead wrong to say that terrorists would never try such measures.



Well, that's not true. There are laws and warrants in place for such things. The court is called FISA, and they've been approving such monitoring for a quarter century or more. What don't you get about that?



Because it shows weakness and dividing among citizens of this nation between people who can't seem to grasp that our leader has fucked up everything he has got his hands on, and those people who want a better leader to focus on the actual terrorist-harboring nations? Sorry if I don't have unwavering support of such a royal fuck-up, but the number of nations we aren't focusing on that have ties to terrorist organizations, including al-qaeda, is larger than the nation we're currently trying to keep from falling apart (y'know, Iraq, where there was no al qaeda until after we invaded)?[/quote]

1. I don't think you relish in the fact that soldiers are dying, no. I think you prefer bad news come out of Iraq (as displayed by the way the liberal media displays it, choosing to ignore the huge amount of good that is going on there) so you can put down the current administration.

2. Iraq hasn't been perfect but did you really think it would be? No possible way. Do you realize how long it takes to get a country out from underneath a dictator? Long time. It isn't an overnight occurence.

3. Once again you are dead wrong about profiling. It will help to secure us. Of course they will adapt, there is no denying that. It would be nice to have the wiretapping in place so we can listen in on their phone conversations. Might give us a little hint on what they are planning on doing next.

4. Your insane if you don't think Iraq was a terrorist harboring nation. Shows how out of touch with reality you and your liberal friends are. That was the first step. Of course there will be more steps. This is going to be a long war. Would have been nice to let Israel pound away at the terrorists but once again Democrats and liberals can only find fault with Israel and sympathize with the terrorists.
 
[quote name='Cheese']You don't find anything wrong with conservatives pushing many of the same morality issues as the terrorists? Religion and prayer in schools. The more religion in Government the better. Strict religious adherence. No sex, abortion, drug use, pornography, or even dancing. That pop culture and the media are threats to society.

[/quote]

No response is needed to that idiotic post.
 
[quote name='schuerm26']2. Iraq hasn't been perfect but did you really think it would be? No possible way. Do you realize how long it takes to get a country out from underneath a dictator? Long time. It isn't an overnight occurence.[/QUOTE]

I wonder where I could have gotten the idea that the Iraqis would greet us with open arms, and the whole country would be a bastion of democracy inside of six months? Where was that again ... seems like ... someone in power ... a defense secretary maybe?

[quote name='schuerm26']3. Once again you are dead wrong about profiling. It will help to secure us. Of course they will adapt, there is no denying that. It would be nice to have the wiretapping in place so we can listen in on their phone conversations. Might give us a little hint on what they are planning on doing next.[/QUOTE]

Right. If you want to talk about this so bad, feel free to jump back to the thread about it. You know: the one where you were getting torn a new one. Bringing up non-arguments that have already been adressed elsewhere is poor form, chap.

[quote name='schuerm26']4. Your insane if you don't think Iraq was a terrorist harboring nation. Shows how out of touch with reality you and your liberal friends are. That was the first step. Of course there will be more steps. This is going to be a long war. Would have been nice to let Israel pound away at the terrorists but once again Democrats and liberals can only find fault with Israel and sympathize with the terrorists.[/QUOTE]

You know, there are so many things wrong here, I'm just gonna call "Troll" and call it a day. Seriously. Anyone seen PAD around here lately?

EDIT: I take it back. I see PAD has gone off to DemocracyForums.com, and, frankly, could actually form a cohesive argument.
 
[quote name='trq']
Right. If you want to talk about this so bad, feel free to jump back to the thread about it. You know: the one where you were getting torn a new one. Bringing up non-arguments that have already been adressed elsewhere is poor form, chap.



[/quote]

YOur liberal buddy Mikevermin brought this one up in this thread. I merely responding to his ignorance about it being feasable to cavity check 100% of the population.
 
[quote name='gwill']Nice to know you guys are on the side of the terrorists

That rhetorical trick has GOT to go. Just because we are against Bush policies does not mean we support terrorists. It just means we think there are policies which would also be effective and follow the law we have set out. I'm for following the law while protecting the American people.[/QUOTE]

You mean loyalism and patriotism are two different things? But... how could that be?
 
[quote name='schuerm26']Liberals... don't want the Govt. to be able to listen to calls to known terrorists or to people being suspected of being terrorists.[/QUOTE]

You do realize that argument is completely ridiculous, right?

If they're known terrorists, why isn't it possible to get a warrant? Is it because no judge will sign a warrant allowing to wiretap a terrorist?

It's a good thing we know and fully trust all current and future government officials. That way we can be sure that the government only spies on dangerous enemies of freedom who deserve to be tortured and killed.
 
[quote name='eldad9']You mean loyalism and patriotism are two different things? But... how could that be?[/QUOTE]

Maybe you should go listen to Rush and he will set you straight. If you aren't 100% loyal to our president and regard every policy he has as fair, objective, and straightforward...and in the best interest of the American citizen, then you are a traitor and unpatriotic. lol. I seriously get a kick out of that guy. And Fox News.
 
[quote name='eldad9']You mean loyalism and patriotism are two different things? But... how could that be?[/QUOTE]

Maybe you should go listen to Rush and he will set you straight. If you aren't 100% loyal to our president and regard every policy he has as fair, objective, and straightforward...and in the best interest of the American citizen, then you are a traitor and unpatriotic. lol. I seriously get a kick out of that guy. And Fox News.
 
I find it amusing that we're seeing Rush sLimebaugh being used as a "legitimate source". The same guy who has a drug addiction and just got caught with a bag of viagra coming back from Costa Rica.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']I find it amusing that we're seeing Rush sLimebaugh being used as a "legitimate source". The same guy who has a drug addiction and just got caught with a bag of viagra coming back from Costa Rica.[/QUOTE]


He is a man with morals. A true Conservative leader.
 
[quote name='gwill']I think Rush made one important point:

This would not be happening if there were a Democrat in the White House.[/QUOTE]

Wrong, it would still be happening, just the parties would switch sides.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']I find it amusing that we're seeing Rush sLimebaugh being used as a "legitimate source". The same guy who has a drug addiction and just got caught with a bag of viagra coming back from Costa Rica.[/quote]

He's just as legitimate as all the sources libs throw out there.

Look back through the posts and youll find the link im talking about.

http://www.whatwouldronaldreagando.com/webpages/wiretapping_billclinton.htm

I guess this is okay though? It all comes back to pure and simple Bush Hatred. And it is and will affect our security.
 
[quote name='schuerm26']Those were posted as supporting pieces. Just like some other guy did with the cafferty links. If you are going to post at least put some sort of opinion in here.[/QUOTE]

Ok, my opinion is that you rely on Rush Limbaugh to tell you what you should believe. Your first two entire posts at the beginning of this thread were nothing but something that had been copy and pasted from Rush Limbaugh's site. There was no opinion of your own to support there. The only thing you were doing was letting Rush do your talking for you.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Ok, my opinion is that you rely on Rush Limbaugh to tell you what you should believe. Your first two entire posts at the beginning of this thread were nothing but something that had been copy and pasted from Rush Limbaugh's site. There was no opinion of your own to support there. The only thing you were doing was letting Rush do your talking for you.[/quote]

It's not relying on him to tell me what i believe. It's a voice in the media that says what i believe. Huge difference.
 
[quote name='gwill']Maybe you should go listen to Rush and he will set you straight. If you aren't 100% loyal to our president and regard every policy he has as fair, objective, and straightforward...and in the best interest of the American citizen, then you are a traitor and unpatriotic. lol. I seriously get a kick out of that guy. And Fox News.[/QUOTE]

I DO listen to Rush, but I don't care how they try to spin it: I find Neal Peart's drum solos excessive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top