Medias Bias? you Betcha

[The Dude]

Lol
He doesn't know but it's good for big corps and dems don't like big corps.
Teabaggers are funny

 

[Taft2016]

That's why it got postponed for them..

Not really. Obama just didn't want the massive layoffs and booting onto the exchanges prior to the midterm elections.

 

[Taft2016]

But this does give us an opportunity to say he doesn't like the Constitution.

He has no authority to rewrite a law in this manner.

 

[The Dude]

SNL wishes they were as funny as these GED teabaggers!

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

But this does give us an opportunity to say he doesn't like the Constitution.

He has no authority to rewrite a law in this manner.

I get a kick out of the neocons who are all ready toi ignore the constitution when their guy puts out the Patriot Act, but wave it like a flag when they disagree with the opposition.

 

[The Dude]

I would call a neocon a teabagger who went to college.
None of these clowns did

 

[Big Money]

Means you are a white trash shop Forman afraid of losing what little you have. Faux news retard

 

[Taft2016]

I get a kick out of the neocons who are all ready toi ignore the constitution when their guy puts out the Patriot Act, but wave it like a flag when they disagree with the opposition.

I assume you mean the bi-partisan Patriot Act?

The one your guy ran against, but has now elevated to new levels to the point that a good chunk of the planet is pissed off at him?

To the point that he had to give out free beer to even get a few people to come and listen to him at the Brandenberg gate?

 

[The Dude]

This message is hidden because Taft2016 is soph at teabagger U, and thus is on your ignore list.

 

[Taft2016]

Liberal hypocrisy on parade:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...-1-against-extending-the-PATRIOT-Act-in-2011#

Over the past few days, anyone who follows social media, reads blogs, or watches the TV has had the delightful opportunity of listening to Obama loyalists defend a sprawling, unaccountable security complex replete with domestic surveillance which they had criticized when George W. Bush was president. I'm waiting to hear someone argue that Obama's using 11th dimensional chess and he's actually IMPROVING our privacy rights. I really wouldn't put it past people.

The Pew Research Center for People & the Press came out with a poll yesterday that demonstrated the extent of the aforementioned hypocrisy. In 2006, only 37% of Democrats found NSA surveillance acceptable, and 61% found it unacceptable. Today, the numbers almost flipped: 64% find it acceptable, and 34% find it unacceptable. What's the difference? Why, there's a Democrat in office, of course! They don't want that mean old war-mongering cowboy George W. Bush spying on them, but Obama's only listening to them because he's sensitive. As a group, Democrats now support NSA surveillance more than Independents (53%) and Republicans (52%). Republicans have their own hypocrisy, for sure: Republican support dropped from 75% to 52%, still maintaining a majority.

What I find fascinating is the contrast between this hyper-partisan public opinion and the most recent PATRIOT-related vote: that on the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, signed by Barack Obama on May 26th of that year (almost exactly two years ago).

Yeah, so tell me some more how I'm hypocritical.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

I assume you mean the bi-partisan Patriot Act?

The one your guy ran against, but has now elevated to new levels to the point that a good chunk of the planet is pissed off at him?

To the point that he had to give out free beer to even get a few people to come and listen to him at the Brandenberg gate?

Yep, that is the one. I didn't say either side was innocent. I just laughed at the people who think its fine to ignore the constitution when THEY want to, but everyone else should follow it to the letter.

 

[Taft2016]

This message is hidden because The Dude's super awesome 10" AOL chatroom penis can not be accomodated on the monitor you possess.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Liberal hypocrisy on parade:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...-1-against-extending-the-PATRIOT-Act-in-2011#



Yeah, so tell me some more how I'm hypocritical.

You are hypocritical. You are not the ONLY hypocrite, but you are hypocritical.

 

[Taft2016]

Yep, that is the one. I didn't say either side was innocent. I just laughed at the people who think its fine to ignore the constitution when THEY want to, but everyone else should follow it to the letter.

I don't think listening to phone calls coming into the country from known terrorist organizations is unconstitutional.

I think listening to phone calls and monitoring the internet activities of pretty much random people probably is.

 

[Taft2016]

You are hypocritical. You are not the ONLY hypocrite, but you are hypocritical.

Yeah, I got that. Did you miss the word "How"?

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

I don't think listening to phone calls coming into the country from known terrorist organizations is unconstitutional.

I think listening to phone calls and monitoring the internet activities of pretty much random people probably is.

Invading someone's privacy without a warrant is unconstitutional. That is simply the truth.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Yeah, I got that. Did you miss the word "How"?

You are ok with ignoring the constitution when it is the patriot act, but demand they follow the constitution concerning Obamacare. You don't see hypocrisy in that?

 

[Taft2016]

You are ok with ignoring the constitution when it is the patriot act, but demand they follow the constitution concerning Obamacare. You don't see hypocrisy in that?

How was the Constitution ignored with the Patriot Act?

I never said Obamacare was unconstitutional. I said the President has no Constitutional authority to rewrite a law passed by Congress, and which he himself signed into law.

Pay attention and stop with the liberal knee jerk reaction crap.

 

[Taft2016]

Invading someone's privacy without a warrant is unconstitutional. That is simply the truth.

It is.

So if Hitler was calling someone who lived in NYC once a week, would you have insisted that FDR went and got a warrant to tap the phone lines?

And what would you have had FDR do if the warrant application was denied?

Who would have ultimate repsonsibility if some event of terrible sabotage resulted? FDR or the judge?

Bottom line: The United States Constitution designates the President as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and as such he has the right to collect signal intelligence from the enemy. Which is what Bush was doing.

It doesn't allow a fishing expedition, which is what Obama is doing.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

It is.

So if Hitler was calling someone who lived in NYC once a week, would you have insisted that FDR went and got a warrant to tap the phone lines?

And what would you have had FDR do if the warrant application was denied?

Who would have ultimate repsonsibility if some event of terrible sabotage resulted? FDR or the judge?

Bottom line: The United States Constitution designates the President as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and as such he has the right to collect signal intelligence from the enemy. Which is what Bush was doing.

It doesn't allow a fishing expedition, which is what Obama is doing.

If you are going to argue that rights can be removed based on suspicions, then they are not rights at all.

Also, the hitler thing is laughable. It is a poor comparison. What would be more accurate is if someone from the same country as Hitler called NYC. And whether it is every week or not is irrelevant. They were intercepting the 1st call.