namelesstavern.net

Hizbollah is handing out bundles of cash to people whose homes were wrecked by Israeli bombing today. The gesture is estimated to cost at least 150 million dollars. So someone with a lot dough is backing them.

Are we condemming them for helping there own people ?

spazz wrote:Are we condemming them for helping there own people ?

so far the US government hasn't said anything about it.

What are you saying bout it mate ?

I say someone is giving them a ton of money to get increase support from the population and to embarass the Lebanese government.

Who is this someone with all teh monayz ?

Hezbollah is certainly dishing out the humanitarian aid and always has but, everything they do isn't for the same reason you're thinking.

They are garnering support, they aren't angels.

spazz wrote:Who is this someone with all teh monayz ?

Everyone says Iran gave them the money.

I wasnt saying they are angels in the slightest. Of course they are going to gain support from rebuilding its one of the reasons why isreal shouldnt have attacked in the first place.

Phlegm wrote:

spazz wrote:Who is this someone with all teh monayz ?

Everyone says Iran gave them the money.

And Iran is being supported both by arms sales and more above the water legitimate business with China.

[i]In a small section of the garden a tiny weed spoke to the blooms that grew there. “Why,â€

Ok dude.

As far as I am concerned, this so called “War on Terrorâ€

Today Bush pledged an additional $230 million aid package for Lebanon to help rebuild.

Phlegm wrote:Today Bush pledged an additional $230 million aid package for Lebanon to help rebuild.

That's ridiculous.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

B. Franklin.

I've used that quote more than once, Diekan. Unfortunately, people like Lyion never seem to grasp the concept.

-Arlos

One of us doesn't get it. I'd guess it'd be the one who wants to give the enemies of America the same rights as us, and equates Israel with terrorist groups.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

If Benjamin were around, and asked if we should be monitoring calls going into and out of Yemen, Afghanistan, and Iran, I'd be willing to guess he'd be on the other side. He'd be all for protecting the country and not capitulating to America hating groups like the ACLU.

Wrongly sterreotyping Franklin for your arguments about wiretapping strikes me as particularly amusing given Franklin's role as one of the main intelligence agents during the Revolutionary War.

The CIA has a nice summary of the intelligence activities undertaken in that war, and no one is so prominent as Franklin, including in covert activities. More to the point here, Franklin was a member of the original committee, appointed by the Continental Congress, to review and publish intercepted communications from England.

Anyways, it's funny to see you discuss a LIBERTY quote often in regards to privacy. Yet you have no problems with people having no liberty and our country being socialist in how our kids are educated, in a way that is real, or no choice in the socialist security system. No, it's all about that evil administration listening to overseas calls that you don't like, even if it is perfectly legal and has oversight.

Yep, one of us certainly doesn't get it. Not at all.

I love how certain crackpots associate left wing politics with evil

Oh please, Lyion. There you go off into hyperbole land again. Parroting that hackneyed and tired old line that if we disagree with the Bush administration, we must be in favor of the terrorists. It's patently ridiculous, and deliberately insulting as well. I furthermore laugh my ass off at the utterly asinine accusation that the ACLU hates America. Oh no, they agree with some liberal causes, they must hate america! That's absolutely fucking retarded.

No one is arguing against foreign intelligence. The entire furor about warrantless wiretaps involved wiretaps on DOMESTIC SOIL. You know, where we have civil rights and, yes, LIBERTIES guaranteed to us by the Constitution? Sorry, but the Constitution is not something you can conveniently ignore simply because you feel like it. As part of said constitution, we are protected against search without a warrant, and by ruling of the Supreme Court, wiretapping is included in that umbrella.

You keep saying the program has "oversight". By who, exactly? Administration appointed lawyers? That's HARDLY oversight. That'd have been like letting Kenneth Lay appoint the investigators investigating Enron. You want real independent oversight, it needs to be done by, *gasp* another branch of Government, like, say... The JUDICIAL branch. Funny, that sounds an awful lot like, you know, getting a goddamn WARRANT? You also keep claiming it is legal, yet the ONLY legal ruling on the case so far is that it is ILLEGAL, regardless of your opinion of it, and tons of other legal minds are in accord that it is indeed illegal.

I have no doubt whatsoever that Franklin would be thoroughly appalled at the entire Bush regime, including the warrantless wiretapping. Besides which, *NO ONE* has given ONE REASON WHATSOEVER why it is so hard to get a goddamn warrant.

As for schooling: Is our education system laid out in the Constitution? No? Well then, no constitutionality argument there. Social Security? Also no? Same thing. Those are far from "liberty" issues. Impinging upon our basic right to privacy and freedom from abusive searches by an unchecked branch of government... THAT'S a liberty issue.

So you are correct. One of us doesn't get it. Look in your mirror, and you'll see who that person is. Hell, you have gone COMPLETELY off into the deep end of right-wingnuttery. As bad or worse than Mindia ever was, even at his worst in previous incarnations, when I couldn't stand him.

-Arlos

I think you're missing the point, Lyion. It isn't about violating the rights of terrorists [non-Americans] as much as it is about giving the government a power that will surely be abused and used against US.

You just can't blindly give a certain power to a governmental body and expect them to use said power for one specific reason - they will ALWAYS abuse it.

The 'scare' isn't so much in regard to terrorist A (in NYC) being tapped during a phone coversation with terrorist B in Libia. The scare, and very real possibility here, is with Big Brother kicking in my door and hauling me off because during a phone conversation I have with someone I call W a flamming moron who should be impeached (because I'm then suspected of terroristic rhetoric, or what have you).

Do you not see the potential here? Do you honestly believe that the government (whether democrat or republic) is going to leave well enough alone and just use the power solely for terrorism?

I personally don't give a fuck about the rights of Abu and his jihad goatfucking buddies.... what I DO care about is the potential for the government to turn the power around on us.

I don't recall saying most of what you are quoting. Again, anything to launch an attack at the evil and soulless types, and then label anyone who disagrees with you as insulting.

The wiretaps are for specific calls to Islamic Regimes. There are no domestic to domestic calls without warrants. It has Justice department, bipartisan, and judicial oversight. With the lawsuit it has double judicial oversight. Maybe there aren't enough leakers for you there, who are partriots in your mind. Is the UK fascist? Is France fascist. The same programs are run there, and they have even more latitude and less oversight.

Also, you completely missed my Franklin points. I'll let rational non partisan people make their own decisions on him, but anyone who objectively looks at things will probably come up with the same conclusion. Especially given Ben's history.

Oh, yeah, the ACLU. I'm sure they sue the Boy Scouts, The Government, anything Christian they can, and anything at all the government tries to do for fair security and in your mind its patriotic. It would be if they didn't push an Agenda, like in this wiretapping lawsuit. That is pure politics and you fucking know it!

I doubt most people are inline with the ACLU's wonderful support of Child Porn, and despite it being in agreement with me, they sure are against the second amendment even more than I am. Civil Liberties? Har. More like Socialistic left wing values that a few agree on and want to force on everyone. They are an agenda driven left wing organization that cares nothing for liberty, just their own views, which in most ways are vile and anti American.

You do know that the "soulless and evil" comment was a joke that referenced the Daily show, right? You certainly have siezed on it as evidence of my Liberal Perfidy or some such.

The wiretaps are for specific calls to Islamic Regimes. There are no domestic to domestic calls without warrants. It has Justice department, bipartisan, and judicial oversight.

Bullshit that it has judicial oversight. The "Bipartisan" oversight consisted of 2-3 Democrats being told about it, told they couldn't talk to anyone else about it, and despite the fact that they objected to it, it went ahead over their objections. I repeat, ad nauseum: If everything is so above board, WHAT IS THE FUCKING PROBLEM WITH GETTING AN ACTUAL WARRANT?

I don't care WHO it's going to from this end. I don't care if someone is calling the mafia, Castro, whoever the fuck, the Constitution guarantees us the freedom from warrantless search. PERIOD. If there is REAL probable cause that the phone call involves terrorists, and there is ACTUAL evidence to that effect, then there is ZERO problem with getting a warrant. None. No one, in the media, on here, ANYWHERE has come up with ONE reason why that that is a problem, and thus there's a NEED for a "warrantless wiretapping" program.

I repeat again, wiretap all you want, just have EVIDENCE first, and get a damn warrant. I don't care WHAT other countries do; I am not a citizen of those countries, nor do I live there. Our constitution does not apply. I may DISAGREE with them, but the moment I become a British citizen and live in England, then I'll start protesting their policies. Until then, I will protest the US policies when they're illegal.

I once more laugh at your interpretation of Franklin. Considering that the very definition of what's been going on in the US recently is the trading of civil liberties in the name of "Security", I am entirely confident he would look on the current administration in disgust.

<Long Far-Right Wing Nuttery Rant vs the ACLU deleted>

We get it. You consider Socialism to be right up there with buggering your pet poodle while rolling around in a kiddy pool filled with tapioca and distributing the live feed via webcam.

Of course, the ACLU is not in the least socialist, and they defend both sides in cases of Constitutional infringement. You think the liberal camp was happy about them defending the Nazis over Skokie? Riiiiiiiiiight. But gee, we live in a real world here, and no organization is ever going to do everything you agree with. They do a lot of good work, but I disagree with them on some cases. *gasp* What a horrible concept!

Oh, and by the way, yes, I consider those that were whistleblowers for the warrantless wiretapping to be heroes, of a sort. Same as I would if someone at, say, Enron had blown the whistle about their illegal actions. If an employer I worked for was committing major illegal acts, I would first try and work through channels to get it stopped, and if that failed, you bet I'd go to the police. Considering that egregious breaches of Constitutionality certainly constitute something "major", and they couldn't get the programs stopped via internal channels, they were left with no choice.

-Arlos

You are either blantantly lying about the wiretapping program or you just don't know the facts and truth. I suggest you read the facts, and not far left nutjob vitriolic sites. There is room for arguement but discussing this issue with you is like discussing women with Diekan. Again, you may want to take a history class or two about Franklin, but you won't accept who he was and what he did, so it doesn't surprise me.

Throughout it's history, the ACLU has been pro socialist, and has nothing to do with real civil liberties.

The ACLU even keeps scorecards of congressmen. Is this based on civil liberties? Nope, it's those all important liberal issues of drug legalization, abortion, and gay marriage. Even among the very liberal NT people, I doubt you'll get support for the ACLU, since they seem to pick and choose the things they support, and hold many real civil liberties in disdain, like the second, ninth, and tenth amendments.

Hey, I'm sure to you a group that sues the Boy Scouts, supports child pornography, and is all for eroding the Bill of Rights is as American as apple pie. I think most people would disagree.

Well, at least you posted an article from a less-far right nespaper than usual. Still, the Wall Street Journal isn't exactly unpartisan, and has a long history of being staunchly conservative, as well as firmly in support of Bush's camp.

But see, I can post articles favoring my side too! http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/ ... ndment.php

Watch Lyion call the law forum at Pittsburgh University a "left Wing Vitriolic site". That article actually strictly refutes some of the claims in the WSJ article, no less. I'll trust the opinion of: "the Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor at Syracuse University College of Law, the Director of Syracuse’s Institute for National Security and Counter Terrorism, and co-author of the casebook National Security Law)." to some unnamed op-ed writer, thanks.

You still have failed to answer the one question I keep asking repeatedly: What POSSIBLE scenario is there where we have actual evidence of terrorist ties that they could NOT obtain a warrant? I certainly can't think of one. So, if in all LEGITIMATE cases they COULD get a warrant, what does that leave us with the wiretaps they want to perform without a warrant? That's right, the ILLEGITIMATE ones, where they don't actually have evidence, etc.

I repeat again, I don't care which administration was doing it, whether they were Democrat, Republican, Green, whatever. Wrong is wrong, and giving one branch unilateral power to decide when they can and cannot ignore the Constitution, especially for something as vague as "Security needs" is a huge slippery slope.

I'm not going to get into a seperate argument about the ACLU with you. Some things they do I support, some things they do, I do not.

You used to actually display moderate and rational tendencies. Now, if not for your actual ability to spell, I'd consider you as whacked out as Hammerkeg.

-Arlos