I don't believe I said that, but tell me what you believe the vote accomplished?

"In a preliminary victory for the likes of AT&T and Verizon, the U.S. Senate has ventured a step closer to passing a law that would crush lawsuits accusing telecommunications companies of illegal cooperation with government spying programs. By a 76-10 vote on Monday, the senators agreed to cut off the possibility of a filibuster..."

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-983...tag=nefd.pulse

you answered your own question

What is your criteria that he was a good guy? Please post your source as well.


Yes. Explain how it is tyranical to monitor phone calls where national defense is concerned.

Tyrants dont have to answer to their people. But the people voted for this "tyrant" twice. By definition, Bush is not a tyrant.


Um, no. That is not the purpose of the government.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

Glitch, you're a fool with that attitude, buddy.

That's what I've been trying to tell you, friend.

You're just being stupid assailing me with that "orthodoxy" crap.

I'm tellin' ya bud - listen very carefully now -

==> your model doesn't work.

Your "orthodox" model, is incorrect - invalid - non-operational.

If you're sittin' there tellin' me it's the "natural order of things", I'm gonna come right and tell you: "BS, and I can prove it".

So don't sit there and feed me any of that "orthodoxy' BS.

You come to the table with evidence, or don't bother coming at all.

And specifically, keep your stinkin' morality out of the world of science.

We don't like conjecture and arbitrariness.

We like evidence, and things that are real, and that work.

(*)(*)(*)(*) moralists..... they're gonna be the death of mankind.

Moralists are dangerous people.

And here, you have direct evidence.

Glitch is trying to tell me I'm supposed to be restricting my behavior on the basis of a LIE.

He's got no evidence - nothing to back it up - and he's gonna sit there and try to coerce my behavior over some idiotic moral standard.

Case in point? You bet!

Amoralists are more dangerous.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

Sure you can. Maybe not today and maybe not tomorrow, but someday.

I already have, Glitch.

But people like you, refuse to see it.

It's not that you "can't", 'cause you're decently smart.

It's that you "won't", and that, makes you stupid.

I mean, all the smarts in the world, aren't gonna help, if you refuse to use 'em, right?

See? I mean, I'm handing you a useful model on a silver platter, and yo'ure not even gonna look at it, 'cause you're "bored".

Well, then, fine. But in that case, don't sit there and try to tell me "you're right", 'cause I won't be listening to that kind of nonsense. When I get done laughing, I'm just gonna tell you, that you might as well shoot yourself in the head, or sit in the shower and tear up hundred dollar bills.

That's about how much good, "actively ignoring information", is going to do you.

What's an "a-moralist"? Someone "without" morals?

I don't even think I know anyone like that.

Do you?

You could use an English 101 class. The first thing they'll teach you is to know your audience and to write in their language. You don't make up your own definitions to words and insult anyone that doesn't use your definitions. No one is interested in learning your Klingon. A good writer is able to express themselves and get their point across using common english. It may make you feel good to have your own definitions to words but it shows terrible writing skills.

The second thing they'll teach you is how to be concise. You write pages and pages of rambling prose without saying anything. That is why most people (myself included) just give up and ignore your posts most of the time.

I will pay for the course for you if you're strapped for cash. Think about it.

You wouldn't even know if the government was wiretapping you unless:
a) you were doing something wrong and they grabbed you
b) someone leaked the fact that they were wiretapping you

In the first case, you are doing/planning something illegal. In the second case, someone else has done something illegal. So, you'd only know about it through illegal means anyways. So, I don't see why it even concerns you.

So what if the government is listening to your phone calls. They are doing it to stop terrorist attacks before they happen. If listening to my calls and everyone else's calls keeps people more safe than thats part of the government's job.

How would you feel if there was another terrorist attack on US soil and your son, daughter, mom, dad, husband, wife, or anyone else you knew was killed and you learned that they communicated using telephones for part of the planning of the attack. We could have stopped it but you didn't want the wiretapping. You didn't want the security and then you blame the government for not making you secure. Just like before 9/11. People were wondering how the government had let that happen but we had the intelligence community that we wanted. The budget for it had been shrinking and shrinking since the end of the Cold War because the American people didn't see it as being all that necessary anymore.

People who don't think the government should be wiretapping are making the same mistake as the people who think the government should not hold Jose Padilla because he hadn't done anything wrong yet. And this is a man affiliated with al Qaeda who knows how to make bombs and went to terrorist training camps. Apparently people only want to put people in jail after they blow something up and kill many people and they don't want the government to be able to find out who these people are through wiretapping.