Democrats say No to Evesdropping
- Thread starter DreamerM
- Start date
Recommended Videos
*reads the Republican's responses* Yeah, because it should totally be OK to violate the Constitution and wiretap people without probable cause, if you decide they are a terrorist.
Or maybe simply try and extend his power over the American people in a futile attempt to disrupt the monolithic opposition to him
Speaking as one who has seen the unconstitutional removal of civil liberties in America by the passing of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act only from the far side of the Atlantic (the UK), I am somewhat relieved to see that the Democrat party are attempting to resist what feels like an inevitable slide towards Police State mentality in the West.
Since Britain tends to follow suit with whatever policy is employed in the USA (regardless of whether or not said policy works) hopefully there will be a resurgence in the defense of our civil liberties.
In response to Bush's comments in the article: This bast*rd needs to be impeached. Now. Its so blatantly obvious he is covering his arse and the arses of his cronies who ordered this whole NSA scandal. I don't understand how Clinton can be almost prosecuted for getting head from Ms. Lewinsky while this genuine monster has dragged your country into an illegal foreign war (and mine - because if the USA were to build a ten mile high sex gun so that the earth could mate with the moon, our Prime Minister would still think that were a fantastic idea), told barefaced lies to the UN and the American people, run your economy into the ground, passed unconstitutional laws and ordered the illegal wiretapping of your civilian population AND STILL GETS AWAY WITH IT.
Since Britain tends to follow suit with whatever policy is employed in the USA (regardless of whether or not said policy works) hopefully there will be a resurgence in the defense of our civil liberties.
In response to Bush's comments in the article: This bast*rd needs to be impeached. Now. Its so blatantly obvious he is covering his arse and the arses of his cronies who ordered this whole NSA scandal. I don't understand how Clinton can be almost prosecuted for getting head from Ms. Lewinsky while this genuine monster has dragged your country into an illegal foreign war (and mine - because if the USA were to build a ten mile high sex gun so that the earth could mate with the moon, our Prime Minister would still think that were a fantastic idea), told barefaced lies to the UN and the American people, run your economy into the ground, passed unconstitutional laws and ordered the illegal wiretapping of your civilian population AND STILL GETS AWAY WITH IT.
Once more, my miniscule faith in politics has been renewed. Politicians got us into this mess and now seven years later they're trying to get us out of it. It seems that Bush was trying to keep his corporate supporters under the rug until this whole thing blew over, but it didn't quite take. At least now my fears of an Inquisition forming in the US are slightly relieved.
I've honestly tried to understand how Bush avoided impeachment, and have come up empty. Eh, another few months, then we'll hopefully have McCain as president.
In Britain the guy in the big chair isn't as significant as the party they represent. How would keeping the Republicans in charge improve things? I mean, I imagine McCain will select a plethora of new folk-in-charge-of-things, but how will the policies of the party as a whole change, do you think?thebobmaster said:
I'm only dimly aware of how the system works over here, frankly.
-Nick
The thing with McCain is that he is really only a Republican in name. I personally find him more liberal than Clinton.Kayevcee said:
How? The man has the 10th most conservative record in the senate, whereas Clinton is comfortably a mainstream Liberal.thebobmaster said:
He's for war, all the time everywhere, I'm fairly certain Clinton is not (I'm not fond of her Iran saber rattling, but since McCain is more of a hawk *than Bush* I have hard time imaging Clinton is worse than him in this regard)
The man consistently supports limits on abortion, corporate expansion and power, tax cuts for the wealthy, etc. His two small differences are that he a) Isn't anti-immigration and b) He passed some ethics legislation after being caught in a huge scandal that nearly ended his career.
Explain to me how this man is liberal.
Eavesdropping.
And as far as McCain, he is a better republican than bush and any of the other candidates that have popped up recently.And that makes him much better to me than Obama or Clinton.
And as far as McCain, he is a better republican than bush and any of the other candidates that have popped up recently.And that makes him much better to me than Obama or Clinton.
Eh. As far as I can tell, McCain's platform is "everything Bush did, only HARDER." The man has no interest in economic policy, or really, anything, except more war. He doesn't even have any real knowledge of what's going on in Iraq, he's just happy to stay there forever. Makes him feel warm at night, it seems. And wnats to go to "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" and North Korea. And..and...and...VikingRhetoric said:
And where do you derive the curious idea that he's against eavesdropping?
And what, precisly, is objectionable about Clinton and Obama?
I mean, hearing an actual argument might be anything from interesting to amusing.
Not gonna happen.
I generally don't post in threads like this because of the astounding ability I have to get into random, four page arguments over something I really don't care about.
So no.
I generally don't post in threads like this because of the astounding ability I have to get into random, four page arguments over something I really don't care about.
So no.
Yeah. I'm stunned that the original "let's break up the first amendment" bill of good o'l GWB got passed in the first place.
Seriously, it's like noone in office ever read 1984 and the rule of terror where anyone who disagrees with the government even in private thanks to extensive wiretapping is "taken care of" silently with torture followed by killing.
The difference? In 1984, they weren't designated "enemy combatants", and the torture methods were more refined. They were still in a futile, completely needless war that they told the people was absolutely imperative to the existance of democracy, though.
You know, I really wish that modern USA and Oceania had less in common. I really do.
Big Bush Fucking Sees You. Remember that, kids. And if you disagree with the war in Iraq, you're a terrorist enemy combatant. Triply so if you're muslim. Because, you know, freedom of religion doesn't count if it means that some of your fellow worshippers wear turbans.
Seriously, it's like noone in office ever read 1984 and the rule of terror where anyone who disagrees with the government even in private thanks to extensive wiretapping is "taken care of" silently with torture followed by killing.
The difference? In 1984, they weren't designated "enemy combatants", and the torture methods were more refined. They were still in a futile, completely needless war that they told the people was absolutely imperative to the existance of democracy, though.
You know, I really wish that modern USA and Oceania had less in common. I really do.
Big Bush Fucking Sees You. Remember that, kids. And if you disagree with the war in Iraq, you're a terrorist enemy combatant. Triply so if you're muslim. Because, you know, freedom of religion doesn't count if it means that some of your fellow worshippers wear turbans.
This gets little into inside baseball territory, but ehre were alot of reasons why the original bill passed.propertyofcobra said:
1) The United States, since at least the Civil War, has not had a fully functional two party system. Both parties were divided between themselves ideologically, making each one less coherent in a way that would seem very strange to most European observers at first glance. For the last twenty years, this has been changing, with the Democrats losing conservative party member and the Republicans losing liberals. For a number of reasons the Democrats happened to lose conservatives faster than the Republicans lost "liberals." The last few bad bills have been passed as a "coalition" of Republicans + Some of the remaining conservative Democrats.
2) Add the generally counter-majoritarian features of the American political system and you have a situation where a small groups have power entirly out of proportion to their actual support. For a number of reasons that would take too long to explain in a post of this nature, but at leats partly due to the reasons alluded to in #1, this had advantaged conservatives.
3) Similarly, some of these features make politicians partiuclalry vulnerable to the power of small welathy groups (telecommunciaitons corporations, defense contractors, etc)
4) Since the start of the Cold War and the birth of the military industrial complex, there has been a general tendency on the part of the american government to due all sorts of things without tis populace being truly informed of them (See: The Pentagon Papers, the abuses that led to the Churchill committee hearings, Iran-Contra, Watergate and other Nixon activities etc). The fact that a) These things are done without any real public scrutny, and b) Their consequences tend to be buried or ignored by American media, leads to a situation where responsibility is never determined or issued for these activities. It's instructive to look at how many of the worst actors of the Bush admin were involved in Iran Contra, and how the general lack of culpability for those responsible sowed the seeds for some of what is currently going on.
5) There is also the general fact that Empire and Democracy are not terribly compatible, as the British found out to a degree. But of course, the Americans by and large inherited the British Empire and its "world policeman" duties after WW2, and it most of the abuses of power etcetera have resulted from this fact. (See: Iran, Latin America, etc)
6) And add of course, the general hysteria that followed 9/11, followed with the general political lesson some Democrats learned from 2002, and have never seemed to question.