My brother says he doesn't care if Bush spies unchecked

Obviously he's a Republican - albeit a one issue Republican. National security is it for him. He wants ass kicked, wants to see brute force. He's very intelligent, he's actually liberal on almost every other issue. He loved Bobby Kennedy once upon a time.

Anyway, although I try to avoid discussing politics with him it inevitably comes up, specifically the warrantless spying and the President breaking the law. I was shocked to hear him say he didn't care if it was done without any oversight. Or warrantless searches. I just don't expect to hear something like that from a 49 year old man, smart, sophisticated. And I'm pretty sure he'd say the same thing if 9-11 happened on Clinton's watch. It's not a partisan thing for him. It's been renting space in my head for a week and I decided to share it here. I was just stunned.

the kool aid drinking republicans would only think it bad if it was being done by a dem administration.Did you see Dana Rohrbacker on Real Time?Go over to Crooks and Liars or Canofun and watch it-talk about being speechless

obsession with violence? Why does he think it's moral and A-OK for America to act like Hitler's Germany?

When did love for one's country and respect for its founding documents get divorced?

nt

That would be one funny movie.

if he has kids . . . take some discreet pics of his kids (daughters always work best) . . . send copies off to a few trusted (evil) DUers . . . have them mail them to him from different parts of the country . . . snail mail, with a note - "Heard you approve of domestic spying . . ."

nt

All you need is a free hotmail account . . .

Or he believes the President should be able to pick and choose which laws he obeys? Because to support warrantless searches is to favor one or the other of those options.

Ask him if you can search through his wallet and home PC files. If he has nothing to hide, he wont mind.

..he doesn't mind living under these types or rule?
Hmmm...there's a few countries he could move to then,
I mean, since he doesn't mind.:shrug:

or he could just stay put and allow his government
to continue to transform to his views, same thing.

will not keep those who should be spied upon from being spied upon. It will aid in the effort to ensure the use is not abused for merely political reasons; and that innocent citizens are spied for no legitimate reason. If he is concerned about national security then he obviously does not support the war in Iraq and is outraged that the president pulled our troops out of Afghanistan. "Conservatives" were wrong three years ago and they are wrongn now.

He just doesn't see it as a big deal. I of course asked him if he thought the president should be above the law, he just was like, eh. What's the big deal. I think he's too easy going, just doesn't think the our country will ever change. Nah, can't happen.

could be wiretapped, monitored, arrested, wind up on a no-fly list. That only happens to other people. They are, after all, regular guys, good Americans.

I think Republican's really have a mental block in that way.

Which I find is the norm with most right-wingers.

He went online & found out everything he could about someone he was debating on this issue. He found stuff that even I was amazed at! Then he presented it to him & said, "If I could find that in just a few minutes without any other information other than your name & where you live, think what others can find if they have more info." The guy he was debating was flabergasted & finally agreed that maybe there should be someone watching the watchers.

If you have your bros SS# you could probably blow his mind with what you find.


Good luck. My repuk mother is a "we must kick ass & show the world we're the best" attitude & I don't know if there is a way to get through that type of thinking.

With that attitude. The one with the guy who comes back from battle (Vietnam?) and says, about the war protesters burning flags, etc.'I went over and fought for your right to burn the flag', well, we (and one Senator) are fighting for the right of assholes who don't appreciate or understand the Constitution.

I love him, but, yes he is an asshole.

I used to give greedy republican's a pass for voting GOP for their tax cuts...but no more. If you voted for Bush you can no longer pick and choose the issues you support. He's too dangerous on every level. If you are pro-choice and voted for Bush, you voted for the GOP plan to undo Roe. Bush vote = never ending war, Bush vote = giving $$$ to only Christian charities, etc., etc.

Bush is breaking the law on the wireless tap issue - So I hope he's ready to support future presidents who break the law.

He's amused that I'm involved and somewhat of an activist. He rolls his eyes and says 'thank God for you people, someone has to do it', in other words, overdoing it, over-reacting. Yes, he's a big "lazy" Republican. Not to say there aren't plenty of "lazy" Democrats - they just think everything will be okay in the end. That attitude makes me just as nauseous.

With full orchestration and five-part harmony:

"9-1-1 changed EVVVVV..RYYYYYY..THINGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG....."

That might raise his hackles.

is just producing millions of bits of useless information which is simply obscuring any real information and thus increasing his security risk. It's bogus security, just like the fake national security Bush pretends we have at the borders and on planes and everywhere else...lot's of official sounding names but nothing is planned or funded or run properly. Didn't he catch a clue with the hurricanes??? We are completely unprepared for ANYTHING. Your brother falls for a con job pretty easily.

OK he's over age but he can lie about his age. I have used this argument myself with people who are just over the limit but are rabidily pro-war.

the conversation goes something like this:
Me:"If you feel so strongly about it , you could join up"
He:"I'm too old, I wish I was young enough, I'd join up in a minute."
Me:"Lie about your age then"
He:"What!"
Me:"Lots of guys have lied about their age to join up"
He:"But that's young guys saying they're older than they are"
Me:"Not always , don't forget the forces are desperate for recruits, they'll turn a blind eye"
(crickets)
Me:"Chickenhawk, you talk the talk but won't walk the walk"

And then he should review the history of why this country was founded.

Sheesh!

The warrantless wiretapping is bad and all, but the real threat to privacy in the future isn't Big Brother watching over you. It's your brother. And everyone else's. With all the technology we're carrying around, we are our own best (or worst) spies. We're giving our privacy away to each other. The government doesn't even need to take it.

I guess you missed the part about kids turning in their parents to the Thought Police...

I tried this on my sister when she said the same thing:

would it be ok with you if the FBI barged into your house
and searched through everything?

what do you think is next, anyway?

anyone know that Bush is spying to fight the terrorist. Perhaps he is spying on Dems? No one knows for sure because there are no checks and balances. Does he know that the law allows Bush to spy without a warrant and that he only needs to obtain a warrant after the fact. It's not hard to put 2 and 2 together to figure out that Bush has something to hide (e.g., Nixon).

...political mind set of neocons. I live in an apartment building where most people absolutely loathe Bush/Cheney and company but one woman who thinks the sun rises and sets on Bush.

According to this one resident, "I love our pResident because he doesn't believe in abortion. I'm a born-again Christian, saved by the blood of the lamb and I love our President."

I sat there :wow: to that and no matter what other issue I brought up, violating our Constitution by spying on Americans without a warrant, starting an unprovoked war, lying about WMD, she absolutely ignored all that and always brought it back to, "I love our pResident because he doesn't believe in abortion."

In the end I couldn't take anymore and finally said with all the :sarcasm: I could manage, "I don't know if I would ever want to ignore all the violations to our Constitutional laws in the hopes of remaining so politically ignorant."

I know, I know, that was mean and it was uncalled for and I obviously lost what might have been a nice friendship. But it required every bit of self-restraint I could possibly muster to refrain from slapping her up the side of the head and say, "Now wake up, don't you see what is going on around you?" I wouldn't truly have done something like that but it was tempting none the less.

Give me liberty or give me DEATH.

when they ask him to register all of his guns? For National Security of course.

Tell him the explosives are ready for the Washington job. And hang up. Over and over. Then make sure to mail him Penthouse and toiletries and money for cigs and lots of condoms every month.

That's hilarious. To talk about, anyway.

I know this will get me flamed but I think this is a loser issue for Democrats. The following doesn't necessarily reflect my own views but I think is a reasonable reflection of what most of the public thinks. I say this is a loser issue for the following reasons:

1. No one is really clear on what sort of information gathering was/is being done.

Was the NSA actually intercepting and listening to conversations or was the NSA just tracking what phones called other phones. In other words was this an attempt to intercept communications or was is a highly developed form of traffic analysis? I've listened to numerous news reports but I've never heard a definitive answer to that question. It's hard to get rational people very worked up over an issue that is not clearly explained or understood.

2. Has the characterization been overblown?

Many reports refer to "domestic spying" but other reports say that the calls either originated or terminated out of the country. By definition a call with one endpoint in the US and the other endpoint in some other country is an international, not a domestic, call. Again, I haven't seen anyone give a definitive report which clearly spells out the true state of affairs. Potentially overstating the case undermines credibility.

3. No one has called for abandonment of the program.

If the program is an affront to elected democrats one would think at least a half dozen could be found to call for its termination. To date the complaints seem to be that Bush did the right thing but he didn't do it the right way. That is a pretty weak argument and to most folks it sounds like an argument over technicalities, not principles.


It may be that I've missed something in the news coverage. If so, I'll appreciate a link to any definitive report.

Russ Feingold makes it very clear and simple, and it looks to me like the Republican's are getting complex and shaky when they are put on the defensive about it. Check Feingold out from this Sunday:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/

and then, if you can find it, watch Lindsey Grahm doing cartwheels to try to defend it. I think if it's explained clearly with an honest and straightforward tone, no waffling, it's compelling. And then, on the same Faux show, RW intellectual Bill Kristol says basically the same thing, gives the same analysis of the issue that I'm expressing here in this post.

and it will go to SCOTUS.

The rest is blather: politically charged blather, but blather.

The FISA appeals court had to rule back in 2002 on a case. It didn't like the FISA court decision and overturned it. A pre-FISA ruling ( United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980) had said there was 'inherent constitutional authority' for warrantless wiretapping by Presidential authority in the pursuit of foreign policy, but considering it wasn't necessary in this case (http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html), whatever the arguments that had been presented tried to claim.

"Even without taking into account the President’s inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance, we think the procedures and government showings required under FISA, if they do not meet the minimum Fourth Amendment warrant standards, certainly come close." Whether or not the first clause is merely mentioning the previous assertion as existing, or is presuming it be valid, is difficult to determine. Note this does not apply to the warrantless wiretapping debate that's been going on for a month or so--it's an entirely different matter.

The conservative blogs were briefly abuzz with this discussion, having assumed that it was specifically foreign nationals that were wiretapped under the once-secret program; while everybody here was saying warrantless wiretapping of foreign nationals must be inherently unconstitutional, many assuming that it applied chiefly to US nationals (some assuming for political reasons), the right was quoting an older case that said it would be constitutional, and the FISA appeals court that at least non-judgmentally acknowledged that the older case had existed. The right assumed that the 2002 FISA appeals court agreed and was to some measure re-asserting the existence of the inherent authority; I don't know that I agree that's a necessary implication.

This will have to go to SCOTUS, lay opinions are just that.

Try reading the Constitution.

Learning a bit about the founding of your Nation may be helpful too.


:dunce:

When Hilary does it? Remind him if this happens now, it can happen always.

For some people it's just impossible to understand something until it happens to them, that's one of the qualifiers of being a repuke. Then, when something terrible happens, they do a 180 like Nancy Raygun did on stem cell research.

Either that or they go off the deep end of insane denial while screaming racist comments as their head wobbles in a pre-Alzheimers fit of frontal lobe dementia.

Give him this situation:

A stranger walks into your house, goes through all of your clothing and personnel items. Backpacks and other carriables are opened and their contents either strewn about or taken away by the stranger. The stranger then goes to your computer and takes that away too. He puts an eviction sign on your house to make sure that everyone inside is not a terrorist. Before he leaves, he says what he's done is for security reasons.

Someone also came up with something similar.

dig through his closets, empty out his kitchen cabinets, find all his bills and go over them all, look in every private space he has and hire someone to hack the hard drive on his computer. Then we'll see how much he cares.

As far as ASS KICKED and BRUTE FORCE goes, bushco is right up his alley. No offense meant, but it sounds like your brother doesn't care who gets harmed or killed, or what civil liberties we lose, so long as he is protected. I am glad that I am not so self serving that I am willing to give up EVERYONES' freedoms/lives to justify my own fears.

over there "kicking ass"?
And tell him to be sure to leave his blinds open so everyone can see that everything is on the up and up in his house.

have. The RWing wants a one party system with Rethugs in charge and Pres. with the powers of a King. Fundies believe that Jesus will come back and be in charge of all Nations, as the King of Kings. Debating with RWingers and Fundie RWingers is a waste of energy.

The Right Wing Agenda In Progress
Abolish &/or nueter.

Social Security
Medicare
Employer supplied health insurance
Welfare
FEMA
Abortion Rights
Collective Bargaining
EPA
Public Education
Public Housing
IRS

...been royalists. When they decry liberal government as the Mommy State, it's because they secretly, or not so secretly, yearn for a Daddy State. They need to feel that there is One True Way to think, because what they hate most of all is thought.

is that he's not a hard righty, just conservative on national security. He's willing to turn a blind eye to everything these thugs are pulling, justifying it by saying 'it's politics' it's no biggie, so he can have a "big tough" Republicans in power.

To a police state where he will be nice and safe.

I've had educated, established, self-described 'libertarians' not only defend Bush spying, but in the past they have defended the patriot act and racial profiling (after all, no one is profiling their demographic, so what do they care?)...

I've also had more than one sane, educated, otherwise level-headed american defend with a straight face torture of suspects...The part that pisses me off is that these were the same people 10 years ago scared shitless at the prospect of Janet Reno taking their guns away or checking their tax returns...During the Clinton admin, it was almost all of the RWers in print and on talk radio that were referencing "1984" and "New World Order"

is not doing a lot of spying on his enemies for simple political purposes (i.e. DNC, Kerry campaign, congressional Dems etc.).

I certainly don't have any confidence in that at all.