• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Georgia secretary of state says cyberattacks traced to DHS addresses

KevinKohler said:
Except that, you know, if republicans hadn't put this **** to paper in the first place, no one would have needed to rely on dems to fix it.


It's Ok to be non partisan from time to time. It won't kill you.
Click to expand...

Both sides screwed up.. 98 Senators voted in 2001 for it. 89 in 2006. It has bipartisan support.
 
Manc Skipper said:
It speaks to the degeneracy of the American right that they believe Russians over their own organisations. It's deplorable.
Click to expand...

Oh Manc.. It's not the degeneracy of the American right.. but the American public as a whole. We are talking about Americans who grew up with Soviet Union being the enemy to now wondering if the US is actually truthful. But this comes from YEARS of bull**** from the US Government.. be it the older voters who watched as their kids, themselves or their friends were sent to Vietnam over Gulf of Tonkin lie. Then my generation which lived through many lies before the age of 40.. Iraq's WMDs, Yellow Cake, UK Dossier, NSA wiretapping, and Syria WMD lie.

Irony is.. WMD lie came from the BND (German) and the UK as the US intel services used them as a "2nd" source. Just like the BND is being used by CIA again over Russian "hacks".


On Syria US, UK and France is making **** up as it goes.
 
Vern said:
mmmmm, so immunity to a third party is worse than Bush's dirty work? Can you please explain why telephone companies should be held accountable for believing the lies the Bush admin told them. thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

The various telecoms worked with Bush. AT&Treason and others enabled Bush's violation of the Fourth Amendment. Had they not participated, it might not have been achieved. Their cooperation constituted a violation of the Fourth Amendment and a criminal offense.

Because FISA was either to expire or be renewed anyway, the inclusion of immunity for the telecoms for their crimes allowed those crimes to be forgiven through the legislative process. Senator Obama's vote was not needed for the measure to carry. He could have abstained or voted against it, and it would still have passed. He showed his authoritarian hand by voting for the measure.

So it's not that I think they should be held accountable for buying into Bush's lies, I think they should be held accountable for violating the law. You know, that old "responsibility" thing that the politicians throw about. Can you see the difference Vern?
 
Thoreau72 said:
The various telecoms worked with Bush. AT&Treason and others enabled Bush's violation of the Fourth Amendment. Had they not participated, it might not have been achieved. Their cooperation constituted a violation of the Fourth Amendment and a criminal offense.
Click to expand...

Oh T72, do you read what you post. You whine about accountability as you literally try to blame the telecoms for Bush’s massive illegal program of spying on Americans. “wah wah, maybe if they said no poor little bush wouldn’t have committed the massive illegal program of spying on American”.

Because FISA was either to expire or be renewed anyway, the inclusion of immunity for the telecoms for their crimes allowed those crimes to be forgiven through the legislative process. Senator Obama's vote was not needed for the measure to carry. He could have abstained or voted against it, and it would still have passed. He showed his authoritarian hand by voting for the measure.

So it's not that I think they should be held accountable for buying into Bush's lies, I think they should be held accountable for violating the law. You know, that old "responsibility" thing that the politicians throw about. Can you see the difference Vern?
Click to expand...

wow, just wow. your post only gets more desperate. President Obama voting for something that says telecoms should not be held accountable for believing the lies of the bush admin is not him showing “his authoritarian side”. As a conservative (or conservative like poster) you’re desperate to justify yet another lying conservative narrative about President Obama. You would think after the ridiculous lies like “born in kenya” and “death panels” you guys would pump the brakes on your blind obedience to lying conservative narratives. anyhoo, having a massive illegal program of spying on Americans is an example of someone showing their “authoritarian side”. Invading a sovereign nation based on lies is an example of someone showing their “authoritarian side”. Treasonously outing an undercover CIA agent is yet another example of someone showing their “authoritarian side. Authorizing torture is an example of someone showing their “authoritarian side”. Saying, “hey, its not their fault they believed the lies of the bush admin” comes across as the opposite of “authoritarian side”.

So T72, what's worse, Bush’s massive illegal program of spying on Americans or the telecoms turning over data the Bush admin said they had to? You’re non-answer will only prove “accountability” and "responsibility" are just more words conservatives (and conservative like posters) don't understand.
 
Vern said:
Oh T72, do you read what you post. You whine about accountability as you literally try to blame the telecoms for Bush’s massive illegal program of spying on Americans. “wah wah, maybe if they said no poor little bush wouldn’t have committed the massive illegal program of spying on American”.



wow, just wow. your post only gets more desperate. President Obama voting for something that says telecoms should not be held accountable for believing the lies of the bush admin is not him showing “his authoritarian side”. As a conservative (or conservative like poster) you’re desperate to justify yet another lying conservative narrative about President Obama. You would think after the ridiculous lies like “born in kenya” and “death panels” you guys would pump the brakes on your blind obedience to lying conservative narratives. anyhoo, having a massive illegal program of spying on Americans is an example of someone showing their “authoritarian side”. Invading a sovereign nation based on lies is an example of someone showing their “authoritarian side”. Treasonously outing an undercover CIA agent is yet another example of someone showing their “authoritarian side. Authorizing torture is an example of someone showing their “authoritarian side”. Saying, “hey, its not their fault they believed the lies of the bush admin” comes across as the opposite of “authoritarian side”.

So T72, what's worse, Bush’s massive illegal program of spying on Americans or the telecoms turning over data the Bush admin said they had to? You’re non-answer will only prove “accountability” and "responsibility" are just more words conservatives (and conservative like posters) don't understand.
Click to expand...

My goodness Vern, your analysis is so damn superficial.

I don't need to choose "what's worse". If that suits your simple analytical abilities, so be it. Fine by me.

As for me, Bush & Co conceived the crime, he admitted in Congress on TV that he and his had violated FISA, and the several telecoms facilitated his crimes. Hence Colbert's excellent tag, AT&Treason. ;)

So keep it superficial and simple Vern--that apparently fits your style. In the meantime, try to keep posting things that come across as lacking substance. All these key strokes (maybe it's just me) and I still don't know YOUR thoughts on Congress giving immunity to the telecoms for their role in the criminal actions, and I don't know your thoughts on Bush ordering the violation of the Fourth. Somehow, my bet is you approve of both--the crime itself, and the legislative effort to grant immunity ex post facto
 
Thoreau72 said:
My goodness Vern, your analysis is so damn superficial.

I don't need to choose "what's worse". If that suits your simple analytical abilities, so be it. Fine by me.
Click to expand...

fine by you but you didn't choose. do you realize how hilarious that is. You feign righteous indignation but don't answer the question so obviously it isn't "fine by you".

As for me, Bush & Co conceived the crime, he admitted in Congress on TV that he and his had violated FISA, and the several telecoms facilitated his crimes. Hence Colbert's excellent tag, AT&Treason. ;)

So keep it superficial and simple Vern--that apparently fits your style. In the meantime, try to keep posting things that come across as lacking substance. All these key strokes (maybe it's just me) and I still don't know YOUR thoughts on Congress giving immunity to the telecoms for their role in the criminal actions, and I don't know your thoughts on Bush ordering the violation of the Fourth. Somehow, my bet is you approve of both--the crime itself, and the legislative effort to grant immunity ex post facto
Click to expand...

T, watch how I don't cowardly avoid your point (like you did mine). I don't approve of both. Bush showed his "authoritarian side" by running a massive illegal operation to spy on Americans. the telecoms "cooperated" because they were told it was legal and had to cooperate. so one is an "authoritarian " scumbag who invaded a country based on lies, treasonously outed a CIA agent, approved torture in addition to a massive illegal operation to spy on Americans, the other isn't. Lets see if you can figure out which one is bad and which is not.

So T, before you cowardly cut and run, remember I said your inability to answer a simple question would prove “accountability” and "responsibility" are just more words conservatives (and conservative like posters) don't understand. Your cowardly and dishonestly attempt to "spread the blame around" for Bush's (yes Bush's) massive illegal operation to spy on Americans proves my point. thanks.
 
Vern said:
fine by you but you didn't choose. do you realize how hilarious that is. You feign righteous indignation but don't answer the question so obviously it isn't "fine by you".



T, watch how I don't cowardly avoid your point (like you did mine). I don't approve of both. Bush showed his "authoritarian side" by running a massive illegal operation to spy on Americans. the telecoms "cooperated" because they were told it was legal and had to cooperate. so one is an "authoritarian " scumbag who invaded a country based on lies, treasonously outed a CIA agent, approved torture in addition to a massive illegal operation to spy on Americans, the other isn't. Lets see if you can figure out which one is bad and which is not.

So T, before you cowardly cut and run, remember I said your inability to answer a simple question would prove “accountability” and "responsibility" are just more words conservatives (and conservative like posters) don't understand. Your cowardly and dishonestly attempt to "spread the blame around" for Bush's (yes Bush's) massive illegal operation to spy on Americans proves my point. thanks.
Click to expand...

So sorry I'm disappointing you Vern. You are so verbose here that the "simple" question you asked was lost in the static. Would it be too much to ask you to rephrase the question so I might answer it, avoiding your label of "cut and run"? Please try to be concise, and perhaps we can continue.
 
SMTA said:
You can thank Bush and that ****ing Patriot Act for destroying the privacy of Americans, among other domestic governmental invasions.

The NSA exists to violate our citizens.
Click to expand...

Bwahahaha!!!! It's still Bush's fault.
:lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo
 
Thoreau72 said:
So sorry I'm disappointing you Vern. You are so verbose here that the "simple" question you asked was lost in the static. Would it be too much to ask you to rephrase the question so I might answer it, avoiding your label of "cut and run"? Please try to be concise, and perhaps we can continue.
Click to expand...

there was nothing "verbose" about my question. Here it is again

what's worse, Bush’s massive illegal program of spying on Americans or the telecoms turning over data the Bush admin said they had to?

yep, seems pretty "concise". and not that its necessary but the reason I asked was you seemed to want to blame the telecoms for a Bush "operation".
 
Vern said:
there was nothing "verbose" about my question. Here it is again

what's worse, Bush’s massive illegal program of spying on Americans or the telecoms turning over data the Bush admin said they had to?

yep, seems pretty "concise". and not that its necessary but the reason I asked was you seemed to want to blame the telecoms for a Bush "operation".
Click to expand...

Your two choices are equally illegal, with a slight edge to Dubya's being slightly more illegal because he took the oath to protect and defend the USC. The telecoms were by implication invoking the Nuremberg Defense, saying they did it because POTUS told them to.

Equally illegal for the most part. I hope that's not too nuanced for you.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Your two choices are equally illegal, with a slight edge to Dubya's being slightly more illegal because he took the oath to protect and defend the USC. The telecoms were by implication invoking the Nuremberg Defense, saying they did it because POTUS told them to.

Equally illegal for the most part. I hope that's not too nuanced for you.
Click to expand...
mmm, not too nuanced, too delusional. Bush set up a massive illegal program to spy on Americans. the telecoms were told it was legal (say that out loud to help it sink in) so not quite the Nuremburg defense. But your narrative requires you to overblow the telecoms cooperation in turning over the data and underplay the "authoritarian" aspect of Bush's massive illegal program to spy on America. Here's the truly funny thing. Here's the order of responsibility you have

1 Senator Obama
2 telecoms
3 poor little bushie
 
Vern said:
mmm, not too nuanced, too delusional. Bush set up a massive illegal program to spy on Americans. the telecoms were told it was legal (say that out loud to help it sink in) so not quite the Nuremburg defense. But your narrative requires you to overblow the telecoms cooperation in turning over the data and underplay the "authoritarian" aspect of Bush's massive illegal program to spy on America. Here's the truly funny thing. Here's the order of responsibility you have

1 Senator Obama
2 telecoms
3 poor little bushie
Click to expand...


Poor little Bushie? If that is how you think I see Bush, then my earlier joke that English is not your first language may be closer than I thought.

We are talking about historical events here Vern, events that are about 15 years old. I condemned Bush as he was doing it, and despite the fact that I am a reluctant customer of AT&Treason, I've been using that term since Colbert coined it. To put things in perspective, in various phone calls to the company, I have courteously told several employees of the Colbert term. None of them laughed, but I told them.

I have also condemned Senator Obama for his vote in favor of FISA II. FYI, it was that vote that persuaded me to vote against Candidate Obama. So now you know the truth Vern, and I'm curious if that will change your mind. I will be pleasantly surprised if it does.

POTUS organized the illegal effort, the telecoms went along with it with no complaints, several whistleblowers went public after the fact, Senator Obama could have abstained from the vote but chose instead to support giving immunity to corporate law breakers, President Obama told the country to look forward, not backward, and refused to prosecute the very public crimes of his predecessor, and you're happy as a clam.

U da man Vern, U da man!
 
Thoreau72 said:
Poor little Bushie? If that is how you think I see Bush, then my earlier joke that English is not your first language may be closer than I thought.................
Click to expand...
I have to laugh T, you complain about the list I posted but basically restate it. You claim you were “mad” about poor little bushie but you posted this
Thoreau72 said:
The various telecoms worked with Bush. AT&Treason and others enabled Bush's violation of the Fourth Amendment. Had they not participated, it might not have been achieved. Their cooperation constituted a violation of the Fourth Amendment and a criminal offense.
Click to expand...
And this
Thoreau72 said:
Equally illegal for the most part. I hope that's not too nuanced for you.
Click to expand...

That’s you trying to downplay poor little bushie’s massive illegal program to spy on Americans and blame others. Again, you post the words over and over but have no idea what “accountability” and “responsibility” mean. Just go ahead and post “those mean ole telecoms and Obama, its all their fault”. You know you want to.
 
Vern said:
I have to laugh T, you complain about the list I posted but basically restate it. You claim you were “mad” about poor little bushie but you posted this

And this


That’s you trying to downplay poor little bushie’s massive illegal program to spy on Americans and blame others. Again, you post the words over and over but have no idea what “accountability” and “responsibility” mean. Just go ahead and post “those mean ole telecoms and Obama, its all their fault”. You know you want to.
Click to expand...

We're both laughing Vern, and I'm shaking my head too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom