Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Barack W. Bush

June 26, 2013

I can't stand the hypocrisy of both the right and the left on the recent NSA revelations. Let's see, during the Bush years, liberals were terrified of warrantless wiretaps and E-mail surveillance....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(54)

WKnapp

Jun-29-13 11:07 AM

Where is the name-calling? I merely pointed out the obvious. I guess it's the lousy reading comprehension skills from 'one of the best high schools in the state'? I was saying that I don't trust your sources as being truthful, since you aren't truthful yourself. You historically have unreliable, or deliberately skewed information that you try to pass off as 'facts', just because you say so.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-29-13 9:53 AM

So to be clear, your response to the VERY CLEAR information I posted is basically "I can't refute the facts you posted, so I'll resort to childish name calling".

Why is that tactic so common on the modern right?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WKnapp

Jun-28-13 11:41 PM

Actually, what we have here is a Christopher who's obviously so completely lost in the extreme leftist ideology that truth doesn't matter. If you weren't so mindless, MAYBE there'd be some hope that at least SOME of ONE post from you would have a tad of sense, possibly even a smattering of truth, in it. Mindless is exactly what I expect from the brainless left. I'm never disappointed!!

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-28-13 6:19 AM

"The NSA warrantless surveillance controversy (AKA "Warrantless Wiretapping") concerns surveillance of persons within the United States during the collection of foreign intelligence by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) as part of the war on terror. Under this program, referred to by the Bush administration as the "terrorist surveillance program", part of the broader President's Surveillance Program, the NSA was authorized by executive order to monitor, without search warrants, the phone calls, Internet activity (Web, e-mail, etc.), 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."

Is any part of that not clear to you Wayne? THAT is the program you wrote letters to the paper in support of.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-28-13 6:14 AM

"The original was applied only to SUSPICIOUS communications going INTERNATIONALLY, not domestically. In order to be labeled SUSPICIOUS, the communication had to be to or from a country that supported terrorism. Domestic communications were off limits. "

That is a flat out lie. Bush asserted the authority to tap ANY call that one end was in ANY foreign country.

"Domestic communications were off limits. That's where the program has been expanded, to include domestic communications."

Um, Wayne, the data collection warrant for Verizon has been reauthorized by the court every three months, for SEVEN YEARS. Who was President 7 years ago?

And warrantless wiretaps of the communications of American citizens have ENDED.

Apparently it looks like we have another right wing genius that doesn't understand the difference between metadata collection, and wiretapping a call or email to listen to the content.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WKnapp

Jun-28-13 12:14 AM

CHayes

As has become customary, Christopher, you wish to call names and distort the positions of others because it's expedient for you to spread your lies. Not playing the name calling game any more, Christopher. I'm telling you that you always use the most radical leftwing nonsense as your 'evidence' without questioning if it's even remotely true, so you don't offer facts or proof either. Unlike yourself, I am able to consider other points and decide which points are valid based on reality. You can never break out of that socialist amusement park, seeing the impossible utopia that has never worked anywhere it's ever been tried.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WKnapp

Jun-28-13 12:02 AM

CHayes

Jun-27-13 10:06 PM

"The invasiveness has actually been EXPANDED!"

So let's get this straight. President Bush asserted authority to wiretap the phone calls, and read the emails of Americans, anywhere in the world. You not only supported the program, but actually WROTE LETTERS TO THE PAPER SUPPORTING IT.

The original was applied only to SUSPICIOUS communications going INTERNATIONALLY, not domestically. In order to be labeled SUSPICIOUS, the communication had to be to or from a country that supported terrorism. Domestic communications were off limits. That's where the program has been expanded, to include domestic communications. Your ilk was always anxious to lie, claiming it as 'domestic wiretapping', because one end of the communication was in the USA. The other end, however, was not. That was why I supported it, because I could see that it just might be an effective tool against terrorism.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-27-13 10:10 PM

So tell us oh genius Wayne, by what metrics have the NSA programs increased in invasiveness?

The reality is, as usual, you have absolutely no idea whatsoever what you're talking about.

I'm sure it's very easy for you to say the programs today are more invasive. That is until you're called on it, and consider yourself called.

So put up or shut up.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-27-13 10:06 PM

"The invasiveness has actually been EXPANDED!"

So let's get this straight. President Bush asserted authority to wiretap the phone calls, and read the emails of Americans, anywhere in the world. You not only supported the program, but actually WROTE LETTERS TO THE PAPER SUPPORTING IT.

The NSA no longer has the authority to listen to the phone call content, or read the email content of ANY American, even if they are abroad, without a warrant.

To you, that's an "expansion"?

The metadata collection that is substantially less invasive than a wiretap, has been going on since your hero George W was in office. The Verizon collection has been going on for 7 years Wayne, so dust of your abacus and tell us all who started it.

It's telling that you never produce facts or details, just vague allegations.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WKnapp

Jun-27-13 4:43 PM

referring to President Bush as a 'traitor'!

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WKnapp

Jun-27-13 4:42 PM

CHayes

Jun-27-13 10:26 AM "Actually Mr. Hayes you didn’t state that you disagreed with any assertion. What you said was: “I've never heard anyone refer to President Bush as a traitor."

And somehow you think that in my statement "anyone" would exclude me?

Never 'heard' anybody do that, but unless you didn't read the letter on which you were commenting, you certainly READ SOMEBODY

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WKnapp

Jun-27-13 4:39 PM

CHayes

Jun-27-13 10:24 AM Also I would say that if someone posting here supported a highly invasive surveillance program by the previous President, and even wrote letters to the paper demonstrating fawning support for it, then go crazy over a much less invasive version of the same program, that is CLEARLY fair game for comment.

"MUCH LESS INVASIVE"?? In what universe? The invasiveness has actually been EXPANDED! You're very funny!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WKnapp

Jun-27-13 4:36 PM

CHayes

Jun-27-13 10:24 AM

I disagree CQ. First, I wouldn't say I " often bring the previous administration into the various postings".

Of course YOU wouldn't say that! You have that enormous aversion to the truth!

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CitizenQ

Jun-27-13 3:47 PM

Just to be clear Mr. Hayes, I don’t have a single problem with you posting whatever comments you want to express. The same as I will post that it is my opinion that you often bring up the previous administration in your postings. My comments to you weren’t agreeing or disagreeing with your opinion on the subject. I was simply correcting your statement that you “never heard anyone refer to President Bush as a traitor.” when the actual letter you were posting on was specifically referring to President Bush as a traitor.

And I have no idea what you mean by: “And somehow you think that in my statement "anyone" would exclude me?” I don’t care if you do or do not believe him to be a traitor. Again, my comment was only to point out that if you read the letter to which you commented, then you did hear (albeit “read”) someone referring to President Bush as a traitor.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-27-13 10:26 AM

" Actually Mr. Hayes you didn’t state that you disagreed with any assertion. What you said was: “I've never heard anyone refer to President Bush as a traitor."

And somehow you think that in my statement "anyone" would exclude me?

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-27-13 10:24 AM

I disagree CQ. First, I wouldn't say I " often bring the previous administration into the various postings". Also I would say that if someone posting here supported a highly invasive surveillance program by the previous President, and even wrote letters to the paper demonstrating fawning support for it, then go crazy over a much less invasive version of the same program, that is CLEARLY fair game for comment.

If you don't like that, sorry but this is a political message board. Former President's names, as well as the names of both former and current political figures will come up here from time to time. And it is in fact people's Constitutionally guaranteed right to elicit those names.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CitizenQ

Jun-27-13 8:27 AM

CHayes – June 26, 3:52 pm: “Sorry John, but I'm not the one that brought President Bush into this. . . . . I simply said I disagreed with the assertion that people called him a traitor.”

Actually Mr. Hayes you didn’t state that you disagreed with any assertion. What you said was: “I've never heard anyone refer to President Bush as a traitor. I have heard them refer to him as a war criminal, because of the whole torture, indefinite detention deal.”

And John didn’t state that your repeated blaming of President Bush was for this posting alone. You often bring the previous administration into the various postings. No administration is going to handle things to suit 100% of the people 100% of the time. But I do believe to be progressive we should be looking forward to handling situations in the proper way. Not looking back with the “he started it” mentality OR “he didn’t do any better”.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-27-13 12:08 AM

How are things going down at that factory you told us you owned boobie? You never told is there's a flat top and a deep fryer in your "manufacturing" facility. Why not?

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-26-13 11:10 PM

And the comment that John Zook directed at me, a person who just started a business, and is in the process of opening two more...

"Your visions are more in line with a heathen Communist/Marxist society hell-bent on destroying freedom and all that is a free market economy. In summary, you suck!!!"

And you claim I'm guilty of "degrading someone with a condescending remark"? Why because I pointed out that the plantations that you seem to embrace had slaves?

Tsk, tsk, tsk, John.

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-26-13 11:05 PM

"Hayes-Does 2+2=5? In your world it does. By the way, have you evr directly answered a question without degrading someone with a condescending remark? And believe me, there are lots of Lib/Coms on YouTube. You just don't recognize it when you see it."

YouTube? I didn't say anything about YouTube. Of course there are liberals on YouTube. There are also Republicans, teabaggers, white supremacists, homophobes, Glenn Beck, and everyone else.

And what exactly does YouTube have to do with anything?

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-26-13 11:01 PM

"Gutted? Please clarify."

Gutted, as in rendered COMPLETELY ineffective and unenforceable. Gutted as in they stripped the forumla from the law that is required to enforce the law. Gutted as in the Voting Rights Act that is extremely popular with people on both sides of the aisle was ripped apart and tossed into a trash can like a used tissue.

You know, "gutted."

0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

USABorn

Jun-26-13 9:03 PM

CHayes - 12:19 PM

"Tell that to Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. All 4 voted yesterday to gut the Voting Rights Act,"

Gutted? Please clarify.

"and today that gay Americans don't deserve the same rights as straight Americans."

Again, clarify. Why are gays out dancing in the streets and setting wedding dates since release of the S.C.'s decision?

By the way, I'm glad that piece of business is out of the way....HOPEFULLY! The liberals will have to find something new to whine and whine and whine about, and the conservatives can move on to something important, like fighting for smaller government, lowering taxes, defending the Constitution against idiots like Dumbama, etc.

As for me.........I'm going to the wedding of gay friends!!!!

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-26-13 8:02 PM

I'm shocked that I haven't seen a single conservative here trashing the Supreme Court Justices for being "activist judges". Why in just the last 48 hours they've overturned 2 laws and a ballot measure specifically. Doesnt get much more "activist" than that.

And as for the Voting Rights Act they gutted yesterday, uber-conservative Justice Scalia essentially argured that they had to gut it because it was too popular with Congress, so they would never gut it themselves. Talk about judicial activism gone wild.

0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JohnZook

Jun-26-13 8:00 PM

Hayes-Does 2+2=5? In your world it does. By the way, have you evr directly answered a question without degrading someone with a condescending remark? And believe me, there are lots of Lib/Coms on YouTube. You just don't recognize it when you see it.

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GysgtUSMC

Jun-26-13 5:19 PM

Hayes: Tell that to Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. All 4 voted yesterday to gut the Voting Rights Act, and today that gay Americans don't deserve the same rights as straight Americans.

Ok I'm confused. I thought the original comment was about the tea party. Are you saying these Justices are tea party members? And are you saying that they are racist and hate gays because of how they voted/interpret the constitution? Like I said I may just be confused because that is a very shallow comparison.

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 54 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web