Democrats seek criminal probe of Bush 'abuses'

[Dos Equis]

Are you fucking stupid? 

No.  He's much smarter than you.   

[Dos Equis]

Ok, so you can't name anyone.  That's fine, it's ok to admit it.




How have your rights been affected??  Be specific.

He didn't answer your question?  What happened?  Here is the answer:  none.  A lawsuit filed over wiretapping was dismissed because they couldn't find a single person who claims to have been the subject of wiretapping:

Lawsuit Against Wiretaps Rejected
Case's Plaintiffs Have No Standing, Appeals Court Rules

By Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 7, 2007; Page A01

A federal appeals court removed a serious legal challenge to the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program yesterday, overruling the only judge who held that a controversial surveillance effort by the National Security Agency was unconstitutional.

Two members of a three-judge panel of the Cincinnati-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ordered the dismissal of a major lawsuit that challenged the wiretapping, which President Bush authorized secretly to eavesdrop on communications involving potential terrorists shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The court did not rule on the spying program's legality. Instead, it declared that the American Civil Liberties Union and the others who brought the case -- including academics, lawyers and journalists -- did not have the standing to sue because they could not demonstrate that they had been direct targets of the clandestine surveillance.

. . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/06/AR2007070600779.html

[mightymouse72]

No.  He's much smarter than you.   

What up beach!!   

You see what happens!  I make one post on my return and I'm already being flogged.

[tu_holmes]

I think ur knowledge and understanding of the 2006/2008 election is about an inch deep. If u look at the majority of those elected in 2006, many of them were conservative or middle of the road dems and not Libs. Take Webb, the Repubs already had their guy, so he "became" a Dem. Nobody mistakes Webb for a Lib. In 2008 it was all about anybody but Bush. U guys have ur Hil faction and ur Obama faction. They will try and get him back in line. If Obama thinks he has an unshakable mandate to push us left, ur completely wrong.

So far, I've only been able to see where Obama has been pretty much talking down the middle... So far he hasn't sounded "left" at all.

If it happens, I'll be sure to bitch about it.

[Dos Equis]

What up beach!!   

You see what happens!  I make one post on my return and I'm already being flogged.

lol.  That's what you get for asking commonsense questions.   

[mightymouse72]

lol.  That's what you get for asking commonsense questions.   

That's the usual way to do it. 

Back 'em into a corner.  The less effort and uncomplicated you make your point, the more foul language and name calling you'll recieve. 

BTW, nice find with the Washington Post article. 

[Eyeball Chambers]

It's as simple as this; if we knew specifics there would be no reason to launch a criminal investigation.

When you violate the rights of one American you violate the rights of all Americans.

Hang em high!   

[Eyeball Chambers]

No.  He's much smarter than you.   

I'm guessing he voted for Palin.

'nuff said

[mightymouse72]

if we knew specifics

Exactly.

If you knew specifics you would certainly be discharging them here all day long.  Wouldn't you?
It would come easy for you.  We would have post after post after link after link.

But you can't because there are none.

But it is easy for you to dribble on your keyboard about crap that you have no clue on whether it's true or not.

 

[Eyeball Chambers]

If you knew specifics you would certainly be discharging them here all day long.  Wouldn't you?
It would come easy for you.

You're not understanding chaverah.  It's not my job to "discharge" them.  On top of that there would be no need to investigate if we already knew the facts.  It's possible that the Bush administration is innocent in this respect.  We don't know, it looks like they've abused their power.

Let's just hope justice is served!

[Eyeball Chambers]

T-T-T-TODAY JUNIOR!  

[Dos Equis]

I'm guessing he voted for Palin.

'nuff said

No one voted for Palin.  But don't try Decker's "everyone who votes for McCain is stupid" argument.  That one doesn't work. 

[Eyeball Chambers]

No one voted for Palin.  

 

[Eyeball Chambers]

You're so articulate my Israeli friend.  The way you express your thoughts so quick and clearly.  

[Dos Equis]

You're not understanding chaverah.  It's not my job to "discharge" them.  On top of that there would be no need to investigate if we already knew the facts.  It's possible that the Bush administration is innocent in this respect.  We don't know, it looks like they've abused their power.

Let's just hope justice is served!

You're missing the point.  Here was the exchange:

Can anyone name a person that has been illegally wiretapped by order of the Bush administration??

Your response was:

Are you fucking stupid? 

You called him "f-ing stupid" for asking a very reasonable question.  In reality, you can't name a single person affected by this and that's the reason the lawsuit was dismissed.   

[Option D]

Libs will never get it.

Kind of like the Clinton BJ thing huh...like witch hunts like that?

[Eyeball Chambers]

You're missing the point.  Here was the exchange:


Your response was:


You called him "f-ing stupid" for asking a very reasonable question.  In reality, you can't name a single person affected by this and that's the reason the lawsuit was dismissed.   

No you're missing the point as usual.  His reply to a thread about a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION on abuses was:

Can "anyone name a person that has been illegally wiretapped".

 

If that information was known we wouldn't need to investigate.

[Eyeball Chambers]

You two aren't for investigations until you first know the outcome? 

ass backwards

ROFL

[tonymctones]

You two aren't for investigations until you first know the outcome? 

ass backwards

ROFL

what reason do you have for investigation?

[tonymctones]

what reason do you have for investigation?

T-T-T-TODAY JUNIOR!  

[Dos Equis]

No you're missing the point as usual.  His reply to a thread about a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION on abuses was:
  

If that information was known we wouldn't need to investigate.

You're still missing the point.  You called him stupid when he asked a commonsense question.  You couldn't answer his question.  I was kind enough to do it for you. 

[Dos Equis]

You two aren't for investigations until you first know the outcome? 

ass backwards

ROFL

 

[Dos Equis]

what reason do you have for investigation?

Maybe it's all those people who subject to warrantless wiretaps.  (No one can find them.)   

[Eyeball Chambers]

what reason do you have for investigation?

"Under this program, referred to by the Bush administration as the "terrorist surveillance program",[1] the NSA is authorized by executive order to monitor, without warrants, phone calls, e-mails, Internet activity, and text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lies within the U.S."

[Eyeball Chambers]

You're still missing the point.  You called him stupid when he asked a commonsense question.  You couldn't answer his question.  I was kind enough to do it for you. 

That is the exact opposite of a commonsense question.  No one would call for an investigation if we already knew of specific people who's rights had been violated.  I can't make that more clear for you.