Stace said:
First of all, I'm a ma'am, not a sir.
Thank you for clearing that up, ma'am.
How is that false information? Go look up Robert Bork. He's the guy that was nominated BEFORE Thomas.
I didn't say that was false.
It is preciesly the point, he read Playboy and the Dems get upset when government looks into what we read except when it suits their agenda.
Again the point, what's the difference between government snooping into library records or video records?
Not really, but ok. Funny how you say "the left" when there are Republicans that have already publicly stated that they don't support this.
Because those specific Republicans lean to the left but the greater noise is coming from the left, do you deny that fact?
Funny how a judge nominated to the "secret" FISA court has now resigned because he doesn't think that Bush was within his legal limits.
He has every right to do so, but his action does not change the facts.
Funny how they're going to have hearings over this.....why have hearings if he's so clearly within his legal limits?
How does that negate the court rulings, the constitution and the findings of every AG and President beforehand.
I have posted several times the statements of all of the above. I can post the Executive Orders of Clinton and Carter authorizing just such surveilence. And all you can do to rebut is post silly rhetorical questions. Try rebutting with actual facts.
Why have hearings, because the Democrats want to demogog and misrepresent the issue and try to smear Bush so they can regain power. That is dangerous and harms our national interest. It is a total waste of time and energy.
Actually, she did it to herself more than anyone, but again, you're missing the whole point.
Hmm, perhaps because I was picking with cnredd? I wasn't trying to prove any point, other than to say that both parties do some shady things, and most people around here would realize that pretty quickly.[/quote]
