International serveilance.

Even way back in the day these guys knew what they were up to...

They tried, but failed.

 

Hey Joe, I don't care if it's the Democrats or the Republicans. I'm not a black man, so that argument has no point for me. We're arguing surveillance here, and the Republicans have done it as well. Because we all know that everything evil in government comes from Democrats. Quit being such a conspiracy theorist dipshit Joe. You turn a blind eye to Republican transgressions and blame everything on the Democrats. Let me guess, the national debt is the democrats fault too.

 

National debt democrats problem o hell yeah.

The cycle works this way. Tax revenue is looked at then the dems get schools bridges and roads named after themselves as if it were they that built them. After charging the tax payers then there is all the other pork projects. After all that is done they turn and say we don't have enough money for the poor, elderly, sick unfortunate people you republicans aren’t mean are you?

Then that night the news tells everybody, the students are dumberer. :roll: the teachers underpaid, Elderly are hungry. Sick are pathetic and in pain. And it’s because the mean republicans will not pass a bigger budget. And raise taxes to help.

The vicious cycle never ends.

Like I said Dio I'm an independent actually but you sir are the blind one. I only point out to you that your information is incorrect or as best misguided and then proceed to show you why its misguided. Its called media bias. Where you and most Americans get their news. Bombarded with bullshit from day to day. Eventually the stink rubs off on you.

But I can see how you would want to change the subject from surevlience since that is a looser for sure.

 

Right, so Reagan didn't quadruple the national debt, and Bush hasn't almost doubled it? While borrowing huge amounts of money from foreign governments. Surveillance without independent oversight is illegal. The executive branch doesn't have the right to monitor anyone without oversight by either the judiciary or congress. The Bush administration has engaged in yet another illegal act, and you are praising them for it. The Constitution is the single most important document in the United States, and they're willing to ignore it if they have to. Bush swore an oath to uphold the constitution, and that should be his primary responsibility. Not the war on terror, and not the economy. Tell me how that's a losing argument?

 

We give huge amounts of money to foreign governments not borrow and 9 times out of 10 end up just forgiving them their debt cause they cannot pay. Regan stimulated the economy and generated more revenue. It was up to the Dems in congress to be fiscally responsible but hey when it’s not their money and they can be heroes by spending it why not? All they had to simply do was reduce spending. When the republicans enacted the contract with America and real welfare reform was made we began to get back on track with the budget. The only reason our budget is not balanced now is simply due to both natural disaster as well as the events post 911 due to fighting terrorism. Even through all of that revenue has increased Dio, go and figure that one out. Bush lowered taxes and the economic activity increased as did tax revenue. It’s been proven to work twice now.

The federal government’s only job is to defend its citizens against foreign threats and protect the rights of its citizens that is the rights as they are defined in the constitution of the United States. In using means of surveillance to monitor terrorist’s threats this is the job of out government thank you. And you and ilk show your inconsistency with the facts and with your selective outrage show yourselves as the hypocrites you are.

 

Categorically untrue. Bush so far has borrowed over 1 trillion dollars from foreign governments. Reagan also borrowed heavily, though he borrowed from the American public. Presidents don't have as much control over the economy as you would like to think. If Reagan is responsible for the boom of the eighties, do you also assume that Clinton is responsible for the boom of the nineties? The problem I have with Republican tax cuts is that they fund the tax cuts with borrowed money, which requires that the government pay interest. When Bush came into office every man, woman, and child in the United States had around a $28,000 share of the national debt. Since Bush came into office, with his "booming economy" and "record tax receipts" that share of debt has risen to around $45,000. In addition, under both Reagan and Bush, they're tax cuts and "economic booms" have amounted to real wages falling relative to inflation. So if the average person has less money in their pocket, in spite of the fact that the economy is "booming" then why would anyone in the bottom 90% of wage earners vote republican on economic issues?

 

So many misstatements I do not know where to begin. Dio you sure do have some kind of "fuzzy" math. Show me your source or go try to find one not so liberal with the same numbers. A good example would be the U.N. that anti-American establishment that basically lives on our generosity. The U.S. funds the U.N. paying more in U.N. dues than most countries combined If the U.N. does something against us and we say "You know what? Fuck the U.N. we are not paying our membership dues" Some economic scholar that you study under would say we borrowed against money owed to the U.N. That is laughable. If the U.N. is a club that you have to be a member of then its really simply. We do not pay our dues then revoke our membership. Otherwise what you really have is simply an empanelment scheme don't we?

Also by the way. We were talking about Surveillance a subject you seem to have skirted. You may want to start a new thread or I will simply keep reminding you that I have beat you soundly on that debate.

 

You should pay attention Joe. You never responded to that statement. Your argument that you can't tell elected officials anything without making that information public, would you be using Valerie Plame as an example?

Illegal surveillance.

On top of that, they are trying to make it illegal for the free press to report on such violations of the fourth amendment.

Bushes surveillance program is illegal.

They've also been conducting surveillance of non-violent protest, which is clearly an act of terrorism according to the Bush Administration.

As for the National Debt, here is a clock counting it and several dozen links in regards to the National Debt.

Sorry I wasn't perfectly accurate with the debt numbers. Although they are still substantial, here is a table that expresses them quite clearly.

Of course, these are all "liberal" sources, so none of them has any validity in your mind. Since the definition of "liberal" to you is any point that varies from your own, and is therefore invalid.

 

Its a chilly wind blowing, when major powers threaten to leave the UN. 30s and Germany and the league of nations, Remember ? Careful Joe !

It will be hard to blame the new chinese grip on USeconomy on the dems. The classic medicine of economic liberalism. Reducing government part of income. Its good as long as the natural resources and invention can support it. The natural rescources are finite. Bushs C-level understanding of history; ( And thusly, USAs place and position in the world ), might not have been the best bet made.

Hugo Chavez was asked about the US weapons embargo on Venezuela. "Its an empty gesture from an impotent power", was his answer.

"Owned" is an expression that springs to mind.

COUNTERING THIS

There will be one or two possible exeptions:

1:The technological benefit of massive weapons-purchases.
2: The possibilities of gaining market-advantages through terror and coercion. ( Pending on use of said weapons-investment ).

The first will be "good" and the second "bad", but bad should be tempered by the theft of tech and license-income. China stealing US nuculear tech. Indonesia stealing german avionics. Westerners stealing the ancient inventions of paper, coinage, gunpowder etc. :lol: Hilarious aint it !
So if you guys pay for your downloads, you might have the right to use all that investment. :lol:

 

If usmedia is socialist. Then we have a problem coining labels for the media of the rest of the world.

The most dire warning yet would be the number of us church-goers. 40% attendance ! The correlation between organized ( tyrannical ) religion, and poverty is well documented.

Satanist media perhaps ?

Best of luck !

 

So your sticking to your stratagy of skirting the subject again.

 

look Dio here is the challange. I say as does the Atterney General as does the Judicial branch that G. W. is not breaking the law. So, you on the other hand have PROOF BY GOD!

You have a miserable list of sources to validate your point.

Take your miserable list of sources and show me that one that was writing articals complaining about the agregeous breach of peoples rights in 1994 specifically regarding Bill Clintons bill that was passed making all of this possible.

I'll tell you right now I have not read a fucking one but I don't need to there all a bunch of miserable shitass Democrats wearing journalists hats with not one bone of integrity in their body. That is unless you can do your research and find the same journalist complaining in 94.

It is a challenge Dio if you are up to it. I doubt you are.

The Democrats bill brought up by that shit bag Patrick Leeky Lahee had written into the bill that ALL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A MEANS FOR THE GOVERNMENT (and this part is imporntant) TO ACCESS CITIZENS INFORMATION WITHOUT WARRANT".

Either

1. Call me a fucking liar and prove it is true

or

2. Shut the fuck up going around posting what every shit bag anti-American journalist says like thats the way it simply is.

Cause your have not got a clue what you are talking about.

 

I'm fairly certain that the majority of Americans feel that Bush is breaking the law. You don't because you lack foresight. As far as I can tell you're the classic example of the delusional American, and I'm glad I have you around as an example of the typical know-nothing American in my End of the World shit talk.

 

Same events different parties. The world wand not spoon fed that there were serious breaches into rights to privacy in the 90's therefore it happened and noone complained. They did not know and it apparently did not hurt them.

They were spoon fed the idea that G.W. bush is spending his time invading the privacy of honest citizens.

The public should be pissed if that were true and that is the truth they know to be.

 

So you agree that it is an "agregeous breach of peoples rights" when Clinton does it, but not when Bush does it? I was 12 in 1994, so I really don't give a shit what they were monitoring back then. I care what they are monitoring now.

Like I said Joe, your definition of liberal is anyone who doesn't agree with you. The fact that you didn't bother to read the links, a classic example of you ignoring evidence, further proves that you are unwilling to examine any point of view you don't already possess. For those who refuse to think, it is best they at least rearrange prejudices from time to time.

Funny, like I said you only have a problem with it when the democrats are doing it. I don't agree with either party doing it. You're trying to make this a partisan issue, so who's making this into something it's not? This is an issue of big brother invading people's privacy.

 

Dio I am challenging you to put up or shut up. It is real simple I am proving the stories are bullshit.

I knew of the privacy rights issues then and was alarmed by it. But Dio, the silence was deafening.

If the reporters have an obvious agenda that can be proven by a two faced approach of reporting and it can be proven that they were misrepresenting the facts in this case also then your whole house of cards just collapses doesn’t it?

I am afraid your theory is proven unequivocally beyond a shadow of a doubt already.

My offer still stands I do not know how I can make it any easier for you. If it will help I'll explain how try Google the name of the person that wrote the bullshit column. Include surveillance, telecom, and privacy. etc. and see what you come up with. I was there and there was no outrage. On top of it the times were very different then. There was not the obvious terrorism issue then as it is now.

 

This post is not about media bias, I really don't care. It's about the federal government encroaching on people's rights. Get it straight and stop trying to make this a liberal vs. conservative issue. Stick to the topic.

 

Who is being spied upon Dio?

 

Oh ! Nobody close, I am sure. Its the kind of thing that happens somewere else. Like in hollywood-movies. With fast cars and women.

And it really gets to you, and in the end you cant work :x

 

Fast cars, women... ok tell me more.