# wire taps



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

BIG NEWS ON NSA WIRETAPPING

The Bush White House has gotten a lot of heat since the New York Times disclosed that it was authorizing wiretaps on suspected Al-Qaeda terrorists in this country. Democrats have called for his censure or impeachment over the issue. There is a procedure in place to get a warrant for such surveillance...it's called the FISA court. That stands for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, so named after a 1978 piece of legislation setting up the process. But the FISA process takes time, something that frequently runs short when you're pursuing an Islamic terrorist who is using different telephones to plot attacks.

So, citing his Constitutional authority to protect the nation, George W. Bush authorizes the wiretaps by executive order. This doesn't make a lot of people comfortable who feel like he should have to go to a judge and get a warrant. Well, there's some interesting news regarding that question. *One of the judges that co-authored the 1978 law appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee and said the following: "If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now." *Score one for the administration. :beer: :beer:

Here's another win for Bush. *Just this week five former FISA judges said that Bush's actions were entirely appropriate and legal.* Let's see if that ends up on the front pages and the nightly news. :eyeroll:

*By the way...the AP and the New York Times covered the same hearing, but failed to mention the judge's words that were favorable to the Bush White House.  More bias from a mainstream media that has no shame.* uke:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

bump


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> One of the judges that co-authored the 1978 law appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee and said the following: "If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now.


IF it refuses. He didn't give them the chance. His actions are likely illegal and certainly threaten our civil liberties.


----------



## SlipperySam (Jan 17, 2006)

Please remember our civil liberties were also deprived when the plane hit the tower. I think I have a right to not be killed in that manner. Pretty sure...at least. If someone listening to me talk to my uncle about our upcoming hunting or fishing trip saves 3000 people from dieing that way...broadcast it on CNN. What are you hiding anyway?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Because the government already had the power to wiretap with a warrant, or up to three days before getting a warrant.

Your questions begs another, why bother having any freedoms? Why not let the government act as it pleases to ensure that they catch all the terrorists without having to worry about infringing on our rights? Why? Because in the long run you lose more rights by giving up your liberty for security than you would from a lack of security.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Bobm said:


> Here's another win for Bush. *Just this week five former FISA judges said that Bush's actions were entirely appropriate and legal.* Let's see if that ends up on the front pages and the nightly news. :eyeroll:


So tell me MT... how do you explain the findings of the 5 independednt former FISA judges?

Your statement of illegality is wrong and has been put to rest. Move on.

Ryan


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> So tell me MT... how do you explain the findings of the 5 independednt former FISA judges?
> 
> Your statement of illegality is wrong and has been put to rest. Move on.


So because a couple of former FISA judges OK'd it that means it is legal? I don't know what world you're living in, but that is ancillary evidence in mine.

Why are you so willing to hand over your basic freedoms for no added security?


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > So tell me MT... how do you explain the findings of the 5 independednt former FISA judges?
> >
> > Your statement of illegality is wrong and has been put to rest. Move on.
> 
> ...


Ummm yeah MT WE do! THOSE judges are the very same ones who you believe need to be consulted in the first place to obtain the warrant.

NOW that they are being used as evidence against your claims they suddenly become UNqualified ACCORDING TO YOU

Does the Irony and Hypocrisy strike you hard in the A$$?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

It is five former judges. Do you have any idea how many FISA judges there have been? Do you know if these guys are still up on the current rules and regualtions? Do you know if they have any evident bias or if they are even sane? That doesn't make the case, no matter how much you want it to.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Mt its when you takes these kinds of positions that what we talked about the other day happens.
You can do better my young friend.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Bob if the unsubstantiated opinions of five former judges is enough for you to hand over your right to privacy, you can do better.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Exactly what privacy are you handing over??? Do you make overseas calls to middle eastern cities. Neither do I.

Thats who they are listening to and thats just common sense.

When you use those silly cliches it becomes boring. Concentrate on real issues there are plenty of them. :beer:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Exactly what privacy are you handing over??? Do you make overseas calls to middle eastern cities. Neither do I.


Bob we have no idea who they are monitoring. With no oversight (court), they can wiretap anyone, not just calls to the middle east, not just terrorists, anyone. This is no better than what Nixon was up to.



> Thats who they are listening to and thats just common sense.


It is common sense, unfortunately we all know that if the government has the power to do something, it will.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

MT you want to know the reason that the Dems in congress have dropped the issue. Its because there is over sight and they know it, in fact key dems are doing it. Read about it don't believe the spin.

Unfortunately the entire congress cannot be included because they cannot be trusted to not leak critical info

They dropped it because they know its not what it was portrayed in our wonderful biased media uke: who believe they should have access to everything and they should make the decisions about what should and should not be secret.

Its a shame they crippled the program by exposing it, sorry bastards in the media could care less about our security


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> MT you want to know the reason that the Dems in congress have dropped the issue. Its because there is over sight and they know it, in fact key dems are doing it. Read about it don't believe the spin.


They never picked it up because the hearings haven't occured yet and they don't want to jump the gun.



> Its a shame they crippled the program by exposing it, sorry bastards in the media could care less about our security


Illegal actions are illegal actions, even if you try to hide it behind the broad banner of national security.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I am not going to waste my time arguing with you you are misinformed period.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Feel free to give up your right to privacy, I like my liberties.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Feel free to give up your right to privacy, I like my liberties.


Sure you do, as long as someone else is willing to fight, die, or pay for them.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Sure you do, as long as someone else is willing to fight, die, or pay for them.


If my liberties were actually threatened I wouldn't have a problem fighting for them.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> If my liberties were actually threatened I wouldn't have a problem fighting for them.


Then join the military tomorrow, because Islamic terrorists are after your freedoms right now.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Then join the military tomorrow, because Islamic terrorists are after your freedoms right now.


Not in Iraq they aren't.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Not in Iraq they aren't.


You dont have to believe terrorists are in Iraq to join the military to fight terrorism. Last time I checked The entire US military was not in Iraq. And since Iran is next, we'll probably be there in full force by the time you graduate high school and complete bootcamp.

I'd recommend the Marines myself, but thats for personal reasons.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Allow me to rephrase myself, Iraq did not pose a threat to the United States. I am not willing to fight in a war that was unjustified and fight people who do not pose a threat to me.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

You are not well informed enough to know a threat when its looming infront of you. Keep studying the subject, especially pay attention to the stuff that comes out of the study of all the tapes and records they captured from Saddam.

If it ever gets out :eyeroll: I don't trust any of them anymore,

politics first the country second is their motto :sniper:

God I wish we could kick all of them out of office.......


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Allow me to rephrase myself, Iraq did not pose a threat to the United States. I am not willing to fight in a war that was unjustified and fight people who do not pose a threat to me.


The problem with that logic MT, is that you are a reactive individual. You need proof that XXXX is a threat before you are willing to fight in a war. You need some tragedy to occur to make you "a believer".

As a nation, we cannot wait for a national security threat to actually occur. The United States government has a duty to the people to provide national security. THAT is why we pay so much in taxes. Now if they had your mentality, they'd sit around swapping conspiracy theories and getting fat behind a computer. Instead, our government wisely keeps abreast of issues that have the POTENTIAL to threaten American security.

So tell me MT... does IRAN threaten your quaint secure little world? In your opinion does IRAN pose a threat to U.S. security? Do you see the writing on the wall with IRAN and nuclear weapons? Can you connect the dots between IRAN and state sponsored links to terrorist cells that would like to use IRAN's new technology and carry out terrorist actions on American soil?

Please do tell how you see the dots connecting MT....

And tell us how your visit to the local recruiter turned out. Which branch did you join?

We are _allllllll_ curious.............


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

MT.... At there very least there is still the French Foreign Legion. They are reactive like you, albeit very slowly. You just told us how much you admired the French, how about signing up to fight with them?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

It seem that all of you boys enjoy watching the hanging before the trial. An odd way to persue foreign policy, and probably why we are so despised in the world.

The Iran problem has to be delt with, but not with military force. We staved off the Soviet Union for years and eventually won thanks to a better economy. Iran is a radical nation, and frankly I see them destabilizing within a few years. I could be wrong, and I don't oppose action against them, but military force is not the way to deal with this sort of people.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> The Iran problem has to be delt with, but not with military force. We staved off the Soviet Union for years and eventually won thanks to a better economy. Iran is a radical nation, and frankly I see them destabilizing within a few years. I could be wrong, and I don't oppose action against them, but military force is not the way to deal with this sort of people.


Once again MT you spin in circles.. you propose that the problem needs to be dealt with....yet don't give specifics... except to say no Military force...
and further that military force is "not the way to deal with this sort of people"...

so asking the question once again...

What are 3 things we could do non militarily to ensure things end well? Ohh... and just so you know...for them to end well

1. No other country has to have been harmed by Iran
2. The timeline has to be fast enough to ensure they aren't weapons grade nuclear capable.
3. What will happen (specifically) within Iran to achieve this?

We are waiting with abated breath at your wizardry on foreign policy tactics. The WORLD has been dealing with Iran for decades now. They have been unstable for DECADES now. They don't care nor do they listen to any foreign government or World Body. They have subscribed to an isolationist policy that has kept them at third world standards for years. They have a government that is formed by which Ayatollah is currently the stongest, most ruthless, and influential.

So tell me MT....with your vast knowledge of Iran... what would you do?

Please don't skirt the issue again if you continue espousing that we have "alternatives" yet refuse to even give a couple of examples...

Ryan


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

> The Iran problem has to be delt with, but not with military force. We staved off the Soviet Union for years and eventually won thanks to a better economy. Iran is a radical nation, and frankly I see them destabilizing within a few years. I could be wrong, and I don't oppose action against them, but military force is not the way to deal with this sort of people.


All this knowledge from a world traveling, all informed, *17 year old.*
:lol:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I would sanction them and attempt to cut them off from dealings with the rest of the world to ruin their economy, but that is just me.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Idealism is a good thing while you're young, MT.

Don't worry about it and enjoy it while you can, sometimes I wish I could see things that way like I did when I was your age.

You will be an adult way too soon and it lasts a long time.

:beer:

Adulthood does have some pluses though :wink:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

It is you who is idealistic Bob. You really believe that the government will only do things in the public's interest and that your liberties are still secure with wiretaps being put on anyone who the government feels like listening to.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

If I said the sun rises in the east you would try to disagree, you brat :lol:

I make highly critical posts about the congress and their rotten politically motivated activites on a daily basis.

One more example of you disagreeing just to be disagreeable.

Thats Ok I've have five teenagers at the moment I'm used to it :withstupid:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

You cannot refute that point, Bob. You trust the government to do only good with your personal rights even when there is no oversight. With that mentality you may as well remove Congress and let the president run the whole show under good faith. You are indeed the idealistic one.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> I would sanction them and attempt to cut them off from dealings with the rest of the world to ruin their economy, but that is just me.


I think that side steps the entire point of what is "suppose" to be accomplished in Iran ... Ruining the economy does not stop the Nuclear Program ...

I think that's exacty what they are counting on ... We do nothing but embargo the country, while they proceed marrily on their way to Weapons of Extinction ...

I bet the leadership of Iran likes you a lot.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

It does nothing to stop the production? How do they fund this program exactly?


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

The same way any regime of that type does ... they plunder that which is needed to further thier cause ...

An embargo will hurt the folks on the street and not hinder the folks in power ...


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

What exactly are they going to plunder? You see, they have oil but lack refining capacity. If we put an embargo on them they are going to have trouble driving to work much less funding and continuing a nuclear research program.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

MT says


> It is you who is idealistic Bob. You really believe that the government will only do things in the public's interest and that your liberties are still secure with wiretaps being put on anyone who the government feels like listening to.


Just a few posts up Bob M said



> If it ever gets out I don't trust any of them anymore,
> 
> *politics first the country second is their motto
> 
> God I wish we could kick all of them out of office*.......


MT, You are either stupid or just being contrary or both, make a post that is so easy to refute :lol:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> It seem that all of you boys enjoy watching the hanging before the trial. An odd way to persue foreign policy, and probably why we are so despised in the world.
> 
> The Iran problem has to be delt with, but not with military force. *We staved off the Soviet Union for years and eventually won thanks to a better economy.* Iran is a radical nation, and frankly I see them destabilizing within a few years. I could be wrong, and I don't oppose action against them, but military force is not the way to deal with this sort of people.


So you finally agree we had a good economy during Reagan's trickle down economics. Also, Regan pushed the arms race so fast Russia could not hope to keep up. He run their behind into the dirt. He improved the economy, tore down the Berlin Wall, and turned The Soviet Union towards democracy. If memory serves me right he took 49 states in his second election. The democrats still hate him. History will look favorably on Bush also.



> It seem that all of you boys enjoy watching the hanging before the trial.


Do you mean like you want to do with Bush?

MT your hypocrisy is a riot. Your also angry with illegal aliens now, but didn't you think I was racist or something like that about a year ago for wanting to close the Mexican boarder? Can't remember for sure and to tired to put any effort into searching. It is fun watching the change in you that you don't even know is occurring. Perhaps by next election you will be nearly normal.


----------



## gaddyshooter (Oct 12, 2003)

I for one, don't care one bit about the wire taps. If the government is listening in on phone calls of possible terrorists, and gains some information that might save some inoccent people's lifes, I could not give a rats *** if the information was gained through illegal activities or not. Period. Infringing on your liberties. What a bunch of crap. Infringing on your liberties would be taking away your phone and telling you that you can no longer call someone in the middle east. Listening in on the conversations of middle eastern, or other foreign people's conversations to make sure we are safe is completely acceptable. Ideal, no. Acceptable yes. The bottom line is, if you have nothing to hide then it does not affect you. It makes me sick to see some snot nose, me generation kid whining on the internet that his liberties are being comprimised by the government listening in to phone calls of foreigners. What a joke.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> I for one, don't care one bit about the wire taps. If the government is listening in on phone calls of possible terrorists, and gains some information that might save some inoccent people's lifes, I could not give a rats a$$ if the information was gained through illegal activities or not.


But with no oversight, we don't know that they are listening to terrorists only. For all we know they could be listening to political enemies. We must have oversight to maintain a balance of power.



> Infringing on your liberties would be taking away your phone and telling you that you can no longer call someone in the middle east. Listening in on the conversations of middle eastern, or other foreign people's conversations to make sure we are safe is completely acceptable.


I don't have a Constitutionally given right to a phone, I do have a right to privacy.



> The bottom line is, if you have nothing to hide then it does not affect you.


Which reminds me of the quote posted here a few times about gun rights. They came for the 50 cals, but I didn't own one, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for me, and there was no one to speak up for me. This is the same situation, you don't have anything to hide so you don't speak up, but it is only a matter of time before they come for you too.



> It makes me sick to see some snot nose, me generation kid whining on the internet that his liberties are being comprimised by the government listening in to phone calls of foreigners. What a joke.


And it makes me sick to see people who have forgotten what America is all about, freedom and liberty.



> So you finally agree we had a good economy during Reagan's trickle down economics.


He did alright, he also inhereted a pretty good economy. The unfortunate thing with Reagan is that we had a huge debt under him too, but at least he knew enough to keep spending down.



> He improved the economy, tore down the Berlin Wall, and turned The Soviet Union towards democracy.


Reagan managed a decent economy, didn't actually do anything to get the Berlin Wall torn down, and presided over the Soviets turning into a democracy.



> The democrats still hate him.


If you think that, you don't know many Democrats.



> History will look favorably on Bush also.


Man, you guys REALLY want this presidency to turn out well don't you? It is a little late for that.



> Do you mean like you want to do with Bush?


At the very least, he lied. Clinton was impeached for that. I want this to be investigated and justice to be served, that is all.



> Your also angry with illegal aliens now, but didn't you think I was racist or something like that about a year ago for wanting to close the Mexican boarder? Can't remember for sure and to tired to put any effort into searching. It is fun watching the change in you that you don't even know is occurring. Perhaps by next election you will be nearly normal.


What is hilarious is that you think you are watching some timeline of my "progress towards normalcy" when in fact you are simply viewing differing opinions on differing issues. I take a hard line liberal stance on many, and a conservative view on some. I'm certain tomorrow if a new topic arises you will claim that you are "sorry that you thought Tiger was making some progress. I see I was fooled again. :eyeroll:". Again, a cute dog and pony show, tiresome but cute.



> MT, You are either stupid or just being contrary or both, make a post that is so easy to refute


Bob actions speak louder than words. Your trust in the government to only do good with your civil liberties in their hands speaks louder than said view that many should be kicked out of office.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > He did alright, he also inhereted a pretty good economy.


Did I read that correcty ... MT said Reagan "Inherited" a pretty good economy??

In the Four Years prior to Reagan ... the Jimmy Carter Years ... were were measuring America Society using something Jimmy called the "Misery Index."

You will have to excuse me while I snicker in the corner here, but that doesn't sound "Pretty Decent"


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

I'll add a little ... Obviously the "Misery Index" can be calculated for any time you want ... (Unemloyment rate plus Inflation rate = Misery Index)

Reagan took hold of some the WORST Misery Index numbers recorded from Jimmy Carter and promptly drove them down every year for six years running.

Point ... Reagan inherited some of the WORST economic times America had seen in fifty years (since the Depression)

When the price of Gold and Silver go through the roof as they did in 1980 you know folks don't trust the economy.

I know this has nothing to do with "wire taps" but MT threw me for a loop there ... Sorry


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Carter actually had one of the lowest national debts as a percentage of the GDP, hovering around the mid 30s.

I guess it all depends on what ruler you measure it with, but point taken.


----------



## gaddyshooter (Oct 12, 2003)

Bottom line for me is, if the government can listen in on phone calls or intercept emails, etc, and stop a possible terrorist attack and save people's lives, I don't care how they do it. I have nothing to hide. They can listen in on my phone calls all they want. Yes, America was founded on the ideals of freedom and liberty, but that was way before a large chunk of a specific religion wanted to come to our country and kill as many Americans as possible, just for the simple fact that we are Americans. We need the government there to protect us from these people. Their whole goal in life for some of these extremists is to kill Americans. They can easily get into America through either of our borders. I, for one, want our government watching, and listening to what these people are doing. If you are doing nothing wrong, then what will they "come for you next" for? Doesn't make much sence.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Bottom line for me is, if the government can listen in on phone calls or intercept emails, etc, and stop a possible terrorist attack and save people's lives, I don't care how they do it. I have nothing to hide.


Again, you are missing the point. The government already had the power to wiretap, and to wiretap without a warrant for three days. They had no problems with speed nor efficency. We gain no security by giving up this right.



> Yes, America was founded on the ideals of freedom and liberty, but that was way before a large chunk of a specific religion wanted to come to our country and kill as many Americans as possible, just for the simple fact that we are Americans.


If I remember correctly a large chunk of Western Europe wanted to come over here and remove our sovereignty when these freedoms were written.



> I, for one, want our government watching, and listening to what these people are doing. If you are doing nothing wrong, then what will they "come for you next" for? Doesn't make much sence.


The question is how long will it be until the power gets abused? We don't trust specific areas of the government to check itself because it wont. It is only a matter of time until it is used to hunt down political enemies instead of terrorists.


----------



## goldhunter470 (Feb 25, 2005)

I know everyone has seen this but here we go again:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

gaddyshooter, how do you feel about the government taking away your guns? You use the same arguments gun-grabbing liberals use.

If we really wanted to get serious about terroism, we would shut down our borders and take inventory of who is here.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety


Benjamin Franklin didn't have to worry about people flying airplanes into tall buildings and he certainly didn't have any idea about nuclear bombs. Today's technology makes the quote of two hundred fifty years ago a little obsolete.


----------



## gaddyshooter (Oct 12, 2003)

Two completely and non related issued altogether. I imagine that I feel the same way as anyone else on this site about gun ownership, and I am far, far away from a liberal. I guess we will have to agree that we will never agree on this issue. I want the government to do their best to protect our citizens from danger. If they have to step on a few toes to accomplish that, I am ok with it. 
MT, I guess I did miss some of the point to begin with. If the Govt already had the right to do this legally for three days to begin with, then I agree, they should have to file the paperwork necessary to obtain a warrant to continue.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200603150741.asp


----------



## goldhunter470 (Feb 25, 2005)

> Today's technology makes the quote of two hundred fifty years ago a little obsolete.


Gun-grabbers say the same about the second amendment.



> Two completely and non related issued altogether.


The issues themselves are non related, but the arguments used to take away both rights are the same. Grabbers take guns to keep you "safe" and wire tapping is good because it keeps us "safe".

I reallly don't have a problem with wire tapping. Using the laws we have is essential in the preservation of our rights, though. Wiretaps=good
Wiretaps without judge's approval=bad.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

racer66 said:


> http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200603150741.asp


Great information all should read, thanks for posting it. Probable why the left is running so hard away from all this. They know the President is right. Will be interesting to read the spin that I know is coming.......


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Gun-grabbers say the same about the second amendment


No they don't. Maybe you might show me where gun grabbers claim a quote from the past is obsolete as far as not owning guns are concerned. We're talking about outdated quotes from people that no longer have the same meaning in today's world. They certainly have meaning but cannot be used in the same context as the author intended. Might be a good idea to look at the difference in wire tapping and electronic surveillance also. IIRC the Administration is not going out and wire tapping anything.


----------



## goldhunter470 (Feb 25, 2005)

I should have been more clear. I have had discussions with people who say the second amendment is obsolete because the founding fathers didn't know machine guns and the like would be available today. I appologize for not remembering the exact time, date, locations and person and it was a personal conversation so I don't have a link. Sorry.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Hey MT Reagan cut taxes and the economy boomed :wink: :wink:

The real point is that *there always was and is oversight with a small group of congress men and women both DEMs and REPs* so the very basis of MTs whole argumant is flawed, as usual. :eyeroll:

The big stink was that the over sight was limited to a small committee of trusted folks, so the media traitors and the libs in congress that were not allowed to see what was going on decided to undermine the program. The whole congress was not allowed because they all cannot be trusted, isn't that disgusting. :sniper:

Those that couldn't be trusted with the details of the program decided they would then destroy the program just as the program originators feared they would.

Furthermore they did this knowing full well that it was legal and sensible to do the eaves dropping, This was done on calls from middle eastern countries ONLY and the argument about eaves droping on political enemies is BUNK.

Unfortunately there are people in our congress that don't want us to win this war because it will hurt their political position. uke:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> No they don't. Maybe you might show me where gun grabbers claim a quote from the past is obsolete as far as not owning guns are concerned.


I'll give you one, the second amendment was established in a day when people used muskets. Today you can buy assault weapons which are far more deadly. The creators of the Bill of Rights could not forsee this, and as such I am going to limit your gun rights for your protection and mine. You are seeking to diminish American rights just as much as the gun grabbers, Gohon.



> If the Govt already had the right to do this legally for three days to begin with, then I agree, they should have to file the paperwork necessary to obtain a warrant to continue.


They did have the power, and to protect the rights that make America great we must ensure that they get a warrant.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > No they don't. Maybe you might show me where gun grabbers claim a quote from the past is obsolete as far as not owning guns are concerned.
> 
> 
> I'll give you one, the second amendment was established in a day when people used muskets. Today you can buy assault weapons which are far more deadly. The creators of the Bill of Rights could not forsee this, and *as such I am going to limit your gun rights for your protection and mine*. You are seeking to diminish American rights just as much as the gun grabbers, Gohon.
> ...


I knew it! MT is just a closet BRADY BILL SUPPORTER! MT you are against gun ownership aren't you! We have a GENUINE ANTI among us! Militant_Tigercub is full fledged member of HandGun Control!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

That was an example of the type of argument that could be used under the same line of logic as Gohon uses to insist that the government can trample our right to privacy. This is unlike your argument that we should employ terrrorist tactics, which evidently you really believe in.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

One thing you have to respect MT for he will get on here and say what he thinks, unlike the other libs.

They all whine about how unfair it is when they are shot out of the saddle with their ridiculous positions. A little kid like MT has more balls then the rest of them put together.

:beer: :beer: MT

Mt, you will end up a real smart conservative when you grow up. :wink:


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> I have had discussions with people who say the second amendment is obsolete because the founding fathers didn't know machine guns and the like would be available today


Yes I have had those same discussions with the same type of people. There is no question that gun control advocates are constantly trying to remove our rights to own guns. We must and are constant vigilant to keep that from happening. However, Muslim terrorist are trying to remove your right, your parents right, and your kids right to live on this earth. Do you really want to take the chance they will succeed over nothing more than electronic surveillance aimed at stopping only them, and in no way hinders your life. The comparison to gun control is at best naive and at worst deadly.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

The gun grabbers would claim that assault rifles pose a risk to my family and me as well. They would claim that unless said weapons are removed we all stand at risk to be killed. It is sad to see you willing, like ben elli to use the very same tactics as those you despise.



> However, Muslim terrorist are trying to remove your right, your parents right, and your kids right to live on this earth. Do you really want to take the chance they will succeed over nothing more than electronic surveillance aimed at stopping only them, and in no way hinders your life. The comparison to gun control is at best naive and at worst deadly.


The government already had the power to wiretap without a warrant for three days. They had all the power they need. I am not willing to give up my basic rights for no added security, much less for security. If the very rights that made America great are gone, why bother defending against the terrorists at all? With your attitude, they have already won.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

MT,
Once again, they are eavesdropping ONLYon foreigner's from the middle east and I remember a thread not too long ago about Illegals where you correctly point out that if they are not citizens of the US thay are not elligible for our constitutional protections, you can't have it both ways :lol:

And yes there is oversight and key ( hand picked ones that are known to be honest and not the ones that will leak this info) Democrats are on the commitee. So the no oversight argument is bunk 

So your argument about oversight and rights don't apply, do they :wink:

Good debate tactic though, change the subject and confuse the opponent :beer: You're getting better


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Once again, they are eavesdropping ONLYon foreigner's from the middle east and I remember a thread not too long ago about Illegals where you correctly point out that if they are not citizens of the US thay are not elligible for our constitutional protections, you can't have it both ways


Once again Bob, you don't know that. With no oversight we have no clue who they are wiretapping. Even if one assumes that they are only wiretapping calls to and from the Mid East, there is still an American on one end who's rights are being violated.



> And yes there is oversight and key ( hand picked ones that are known to be honest and not the ones that will leak this info) Democrats are on the commitee. So the no oversight argument is bunk


Bob this argument that they refuse to use the courts because of the threat of an information leak is absolutely ridiculous. Can you point out just one instance where the FISA court has leaked information? With your attitude we may as well have a dictator to ensure that only one person knows all the facts and it cannot be leaked. We need checks and balances, that is what this country is based on.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

MT read this maybe it will help you understand the reality, and I never said acourt leaked it I said that the oversight was limited because certain member of congress cannot be trusted to keep their personal politically motivated bias out of it. And yes the congress is famous for leaking things

Anyway read this article

Congress Is Acting Like the "Imperial" Branch
By The Wall Street Journal

Let's hope that the next time some Beltway potentate bemoans the "Imperial Presidency," everyone starts hooting with laughter. What we're watching this week is the Lilliputians on Capitol Hill tying down a Bush Administration that increasingly looks like Gulliver.

Over in the House, Republicans are preparing to block the Dubai port management investment as a political sacrifice to Democratic criticism. This even before the new 45-day review requested by the company is even two weeks old. Let's hope the world's investors conclude that this is a craven, one-time political surrender, rather than the start of an attempt to politicize every foreign investment in America that can be linked to "national security." If it's the latter, we're all in for some heavy economic weather, and Republicans won't believe how low their approval ratings can go.

At least this rout can be attributed to GOP panic in the face of lousy poll numbers and a company owned by Arabs. Less explicable is this week's White House mugging by Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee over warrantless wiretaps of al Qaeda by the National Security Agency. On this one, Republicans were winning, the polls showed public support, and everyone outside the fever swamps had dropped their "impeachment" fantasies.

Nonetheless, a couple of GOP Senators forced the White House into conceding more Congressional oversight of wartime intelligence programs. Olympia Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska vowed to join Democrats in voting for a full-scale Senate probe of the NSA wiretaps unless President Gulliver bent to their wishes. Such a vote would have humiliated their Chairman, Kansas Republican Pat Roberts, at a minimum. But it would also have risked exposing intelligence sources and methods in a way that could have made the wiretap program less effective, if not entirely worthless.

Faced with this ultimatum from Lilliput, the White House agreed to let the Senate, and presumably also the House, set up a new subcommittee to oversee the NSA program. That means seven more Senators (and more in the House) will at any one time have to be briefed on the program,* in addition to the eight Members of Congress who already are. *Given committee rotation, this means dozens of more tight-lipped Members will have access to the details of one of the country's most highly classified programs. Of course, none of them will ever leak. puke: note MT this sentence was meant to be sarcastic)

It's true that Mr. Bush at least prevented any expansion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), or any further intrusion by the courts into the President's war-fighting power. But the White House did concede to bring the warrantless wiretaps under the current FISA process after 45 days at the discretion of the Attorney General. And rest assured that the pressure from Congress will be to prod Alberto Gonzales to move every such search under the FISA court's purview.

We'd be less critical of this concession if Congress gave any indication that, having won this new power, it will behave more responsibly. But Congress is by definition a committee with diffuse responsibility and a penchant for running for cover in a storm. That's what happened when the NSA wiretap story first leaked, and Senate Democrat Jay Rockefeller immediately joined the blame game


> even though he'd been briefed on the program for years as Vice Chairman of the Intelligence Committee.


Expanding the list of Senators who oversee the program is likely to make every individual even less accountable if something does leak, or if there is an intelligence screwup. We'll know that's the case if Mr. Rockefeller names Michigan Democrat Carl Levin to the new subcommittee, even though he has harassed and undermined the Bush Administration at every turn over the last four years. He has single-handedly blocked numerous Presidential appointees from confirmation, including the general counsel nominee for the new Director of National Intelligence office. Mr. Bush finally had to make Benjamin Powell a recess appointment.

We appreciate that a President with a 40% approval rating has to pick his fights carefully, though we think he could have won this one had the Senate voted for a wiretap probe. Far less defensible are those Senators who are taking advantage of Mr. Bush's weakened political state to grab more power, though not real responsibility, for themselves. Mr. Hagel has made it clear to everyone that he thinks he deserves to be President, but he ought to run and get elected before he starts behaving like he already is.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> MT read this maybe it will help you understand the reality, and I never said acourt leaked it I said that the oversight was limited because certain member of congress cannot be trusted to keep their personal politically motivated bias out of it. And yes the congress is famous for leaking things


Indeed, but it is not the Congress which approves said wiretaps, it is the FISA court. You are arguing to the wrong end.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

MT,
read this and give it some thought....
As we enter another year of extreme international danger, the one threat that solely is within America's power to reduce or eliminate is our lack of national unity.

There may be no more agonizing weakness for a nation than major internal division during a time of war, because, unlike the conduct of foreign nations or forces, a lack of internal unity is exclusively our own collective fault&#8230;..

*If we had national unity, government employees and the major media would not think it their patriotic duty to leak or publish classified war secrets.* uke: uke: uke: 
(Only traitors or the careless would be releasing such information, as opposed to today's perhaps subjectively well-intentioned, if objectively misguided releasers of such information.)

Most damaging of all, *America's loud, nasty and publicly displayed disunity heartens our enemies around the world -- as well it should. *

Whether the enemy is a terrorist operative in Fallujah, Frankfurt or Falls Church, Va., he knows that defeating our will is the supreme strategic goal. Once we are more concerned with defeating our domestic opponents than our foreign enemies, the downside potential for America is almost unlimited. The enemy now lives in justifiable hope -- as we slip into increasingly justifiable despair.

Dissent is the fundamental right of every American and can often be a constructive part of getting to the correct strategies and/or tactics that will lead to victory. The key, however, is that everyone has to be on the same team. *The problem we have is there is a huge block on the left who hate Bush and hate this war. Their attitude is that Bush got us into this mess, it's his problem, and - let's be honest - many of these people are pulling for a Vietnam type quagmire.*

Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Joe Lieberman have all been critical of the Bush administration's prosecution of the war. Despite their dissent, however, no one can question their commitment to win. *Unfortunately, that is not true of large factions in the Democratic Party, including its Chairman.*

President Bush is going to be Commander in Chief for the next three years. Relentless demagoguery, comparisons to Nixon and talk of impeachment do a disservice to our fight against Islamic Radicalism. The country needs to find a way to honestly debate legitimate security vs. civil liberty issues, as well as other tactics in this war *while making it clear to our enemies that though we may have disagreements in approach, there is total unity when it comes to their ultimate defeat. *


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

So your heavily biased article should cause me to believe that if I unify behind the idea of giving up my civil liberties that things will turn out right? Do you realize that this is the same attitude that allows dictators to rise to power?


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Just a thought ...

But, I wonder how many times during a Civil War a messeger carrier was caught and messeges read ... WITHOUT A WARRANT ...

and I wonder if anyone cared.

Point is when you have a war take place on American soil ... those in charge must take steps to protect ...

It doesn't surprise me that it isn't treated like "Just another sunny day in America." And if The Buck has to stop someplace in that scenerio ... where better than the Oval Office (an Elected Official) rather than some Judge who very likely has a lifetime appointment.

I'm sure that if these attacks were going on several times a day all across the country ... a lot less folks would be concerned about how the President gathers the necessary information to end it.

During a time of War the President is responsible for protecting Lives ... Judges are responsible for protecting ONLY Constitutionl Rights.

Just a silly thought ... from where I sit


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

The power to put a wiretap in place without a warrant for three days was already set in the FISA rules. The government had all the power it needed to protect us, we are simply throwing our civil rights away like little girls in hopes that this will provide some extra protection from terrorists. It won't.

The whole problem with this is that the buck doesn't stop. There is no oversight so no one can be held responsible for the wiretapping. There must be checks and balances.

You really shouldn't bother fighting the terrorists, with that attitude they have already beaten you.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Oversight was done by the so-called Gang of Eight - which includes the Speaker and Minority Leader of the House, the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate and the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the congressional intelligence committees.

Some of whom are ardent critics of the president, yet nothing was said for three years until our left wing media found out and ruined the program. Then they all started wringing their hands for political advantage :eyeroll: uke:

Unfortunately the rest of congress could not be trusted not to leak, which is the real problem.

We will be hit hard by terrorists because of our idiotic refusal to see who the real enemy is, and then the same people that are now whining about wiretaps will be the ones complaining the govt didn't do enough to protect us.

Our enemy doesn't play by any rules and they are loving this debate they have nothing to fear, :******: the fools in this country are on their side.

There was oversight!
the rule of law is not clear in this area!

what is clear is the anti war bush haters will risk our national security for their political ajenda, they can't see the forest for the trees and MT you can't either.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Unfortunately the rest of congress could not be trusted not to leak, which is the real problem.


Bob, it is FISA who hears each individual request for wiretaps.

What you suggest is essientially not briefing Congress on national security. Why do you support the creation of a dictatorship?

Simply because 8 senators were slow to expose this egregious assault on our civil liberties doesn't mean I will sit down as this activity persist.



> We will be hit hard by terrorists because of our idiotic refusal to see who the real enemy is, and then the same people that are now whining about wiretaps will be the ones complaining the govt didn't do enough to protect us.


The enemy is anyone who tries to deprive Americans of their liberties. You have identified yourself as an enemy of liberty.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> The enemy is anyone who tries to deprive Americans of their liberties. You have identified yourself as an enemy of liberty.


Can these statements get any more stupid than this. I know he is a troll with only one goal and that is to disrupt any thread with moronic comments. His one and only pleasure in life is to see how many arguments he can get started on here. He has no other life except to sponge from mom and pop as long as possible and cause disruption here, but how long are you people going to keep replying to him. I'll give you something else to think about..... is this the same mt that ran away crying a few months ago? Read the old posts, take note of the spelling, sentence construction, and knowledge he had at that time then think about it. Remember how he was constantly challenged about so little he knew to be in high school. You might just get a wake up call. Ignore him like the phony nothing he really is and let him wither away in his own stupidity.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Gohon I am pointing out simple facts. If you are pro warrantless wiretapping you are for degrading American civil liberties.

You are welcome to continue insulting me, I'm certain it makes you feel better when faced with overwhelming facts contrary to your beliefs.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Gohon I am pointing out simple facts. If you are pro warrantless wiretapping you are for degrading American civil liberties.
> 
> You are welcome to continue insulting me, I'm certain it makes you feel better when faced with overwhelming facts contrary to your beliefs.





> Quote:
> The enemy is anyone who tries to deprive Americans of their liberties. You have identified yourself as an enemy of liberty.


So MT........You don't support our troops which ARE the defenders of our liberty, where does that put you? NON-SUPPORTER! So get off your HIGH HORSE! uke:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I support the troops. Frankly I think they are doing an excellent job. I dislike the head of the military and think that he and his subordinates are doing an awful job. At the outset of the war I did not make the separation between commander and soldier, and said a few things I regret.

Can we stay on topic? I find this issue rather important.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> I support the troops. Frankly I think they are doing an excellent job. *I dislike the head of the military and think that he and his subordinates are doing an awful job*. At the outset of the war I did not make the separation between commander and soldier, and said a few things I regret.
> 
> Can we stay on topic? I find this issue rather important.


That doesn't sound like support to me; sounds like another moronic comment, I'm done here with you; seems like groundhog day with you everyday. you just are wrong and spin way too much. I will just ignore you and your post. Thanks for playing :beer:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Allow me to specify so you cannot purposely misinterpret my statement. I think that the president and his close subordinates (IE Donald Rumsfeld) are doing a terrible job and are too incompetent to properly deal with the situation.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

MT ... Exactly WHO is it that is being "wire tapped"????

Do you have any idea how many (if any) "Amercan Citizens" have had their rights violated?

If we were to listen in on Mohammed Atta when he was in the USA prior to 911 ... would we have been violating the Constitution?

Personally I think you read the Constitution and conveniently leave out the word "UNREASONABLE" ... because it suits your purpose of poking at the President.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

DecoyDummy, it has been 7 hours since your question was asked......I think you are being ignored. I'm curious also if he or most of the others complaining are even knowledgeable in how the system even works that detects what is listened to. Do they really think there are a few million agents sitting around listening to the tens of million daily wireless phone calls that enter and leave this country. Are they aware that it is only wireless calls that are monitored by the use of a special computer system, or that all land line phones tapped have been conducted as required through a court order. I personally don't think they do know and that is why all they can complain about is loss of freedom with no explanation of what they think they have lost except to say my privacy and again they can not tell you what privacy has been lost.


----------



## goldhunter470 (Feb 25, 2005)

> MT ... Exactly WHO is it that is being "wire tapped"????


www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> MT ... Exactly WHO is it that is being "wire tapped"????
> 
> Do you have any idea how many (if any) "Amercan Citizens" have had their rights violated?


Therein lies the problem. With no ovesight we will never know who is wiretapped, whether it is just to wiretap them, nor how the information is being used. Without oversight there is no check on the power of the NSA. That can be very dangerous.



> If we were to listen in on Mohammed Atta when he was in the USA prior to 911 ... would we have been violating the Constitution?


No, because the NSA already had the right to wiretap WITHOUT a warrant for up to three days. After three days they have to face the music and prove that they were just in doing so, or else it must cease the wiretap.



> DecoyDummy, it has been 7 hours since your question was asked......I think you are being ignored.


Could it be that I did not see the post? Your conspiracy theories get more ridiculous by the day.



> I'm curious also if he or most of the others complaining are even knowledgeable in how the system even works that detects what is listened to. Do they really think there are a few million agents sitting around listening to the tens of million daily wireless phone calls that enter and leave this country. Are they aware that it is only wireless calls that are monitored by the use of a special computer system, or that all land line phones tapped have been conducted as required through a court order. I personally don't think they do know and that is why all they can complain about is loss of freedom with no explanation of what they think they have lost except to say my privacy and again they can not tell you what privacy has been lost.


I spent several weeks studying this practice for my final project in my bioethics class. I am well aware that physical wiretaps have given way to the digital wiretap, which is impossible to detect. I am also aware that this program poses a large threat to our civil liberties while giving us no more security from terrorists.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Could it be that I did not see the post? Your conspiracy theories get more ridiculous by the day


Wow..... another bs reply which was not unexpected reply and you still danced around and didn't answer the question. Doesn't matter, no one expects a straight and honest answer from you anyway. BTW, the wiretap story broke in the New York Times a little over three and a half months ago, and you spent weeks on a report of the incident for a bioethics class? :lol: Sure you did...............


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

The report was actually comparing _1984_ to modern surveillance programs in the UK and the US including the warrantless NSA wiretapping. Again, your conspiracy theories are laughable.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> The report was actually comparing _1984_ to modern surveillance programs in the UK and the US including the warrantless NSA wiretapping. Again, your conspiracy theories are laughable.


Oh bull****....... if you're going to lie at least pick something that isn't so obvious and then try to dodge being caught. The world didn't know about the NSA wiretapping until the story was broke December 16th 2005 by the New York Times. You're constantly calling people bigots, un-American, and a host of other insults and then you just flat out lie and expect everyone to buy it. You would make even finger waving Bill Clinton want to puke.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

MT
If you did all that research you should understand that they were not talking about physical wiretaps vs. digital. Physical wiretapping would be impossible, because what they were referring to is that they are wiretapping/monitoring cell phones and like technology, not landline. At least this is how I understood it.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Not only did it just concern monitoring cell phones and wireless transmissions but this happened around the Christmas Holidays. Congress didn't make a fuss until they returned from vacation in January and it was late January 2006 before the Bush administration came out in defense and information about what they were doing. All this supposedly weeks of research he claims he did would have had to of been done in February and March, which is just within the last 8 weeks if there was any kind of comparison to have been done. Maybe he just skimmed over his research also.......


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Oh b#llsh*t....... if you're going to lie at least pick something that isn't so obvious and then try to dodge being caught. The world didn't know about the NSA wiretapping until the story was broke December 16th 2005 by the New York Times. You're constantly calling people bigots, un-American, and a host of other insults and then you just flat out lie and expect everyone to buy it. You would make even finger waving Bill Clinton want to puke.


I see, so because I spent a few weeks week researching a project, in which one of the points broke in December I am a liar? Not only are your conspiracy theories consistently wrong, they are consistently ridiculous and illogical.



> If you did all that research you should understand that they were not talking about physical wiretaps vs. digital. Physical wiretapping would be impossible, because what they were referring to is that they are wiretapping/monitoring cell phones and like technology, not landline. At least this is how I understood it.


I'm well aware, in fact I explained the difference in one of my slides. Physical wiretapping could still be done I suppose but with modern technology it is almost always done digitally at the switching stations.



> Not only did it just concern monitoring cell phones and wireless transmissions but this happened around the Christmas Holidays.


Only wireless transmissions? That is wrong.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> I see, so because I spent a few weeks week researching a project, in which one of the points broke in December I am a liar?


Yes, you are and a bad one at that. You can't research something you didn't know about, or are you now going to tell us you had information before the New York Times broke the story. Your spins get dumber with each and every post. You're caught once again in another lie kid.



> Only wireless transmissions? That is wrong.


Prove it&#8230;&#8230;..


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

To begin with, your time logic doesn't stand at all. I had plenty of time to research. How do I know? Because I did.



> Prove it&#8230;&#8230;..


Can't do that hot shot, no one said "wireless transmissions" because the scandal doesn't deal with them exlusively. Thus, no site would say that it did not deal with wireless transmissions exclusively, and because no one lists what an article isn't about, the burden of proof rests on you.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Probably due for another shovel eh MT.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> To begin with, your time logic doesn't stand at all. I had plenty of time to research. How do I know? Because I did


Considering that you have been on this forum posting practically 24/7 for the last couple months I would venture to say you just spewed out another line of bs, or as some might conclude, another lie.



> Can't do that hot shot, no one said "wireless transmissions" because the scandal doesn't deal with them exlusively. Thus, no site would say that it did not deal with wireless transmissions exclusively, and because no one lists what an article isn't about, the burden of proof rests on you.


You said the statement was *wrong* when it was stated this was about wireless transmissions, but in truth that is what it is all about. Once again little boy...*YOU SAID WRONG*, so prove it. What's really funny is you just tripped up and proved that your little research project you claimed to have done is just another bs line of crap from you, or you wouldn't have made such a stupid comment as that quoted above. Keep going little troll boy........ every time you open your mouth the laughter just gets louder and louder.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Gohon as I sit here two seats away from the very teacher who taught the class and gave me an A on said project I cannot help but think that you are incredibly ignorant. Whether you believe me or not, I remain better informed for my research for said project, and your conspiracy theories remain absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Definition of Conspiracy:
# a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act
# a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)
# a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose

If you're going to dance and spin your bs little boy, at least understand what the terms you are using mean. maybe you could ask for a lesson from the teacher that is only two seats away from you, as if anyone would believe you're tell the truth with that one....... :lol: Better yet, get him, her, or it to explain the word loser to you so you know what you really are. Now go back out side and play in your sand box little boy and stop pestering the adults. I'm through with you here, you've become very boring with your constant bs.


----------

