I was pleasantly surprised by what I saw of it; he seemed to be paying attention to what the public has to say for once. He even seemed to drop the Southern accent for a while.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I did hear a bunch of untruths, though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I strongly dislike Bush, but I respect him all the same. He did, after all, become President...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, duh! People would rather vote for a politician than a trained dog who's only trick is to bark at the other dog. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regardless of who the politician is, you are always going to hear BS. Clinton was in many ways more guilty of it. The 2008 election is going to be interesting...we have not even heard who is going to run for the GOP and the Democrats are already forming rifts between who is going to support Kerry or Hilary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

True story...I almost slapped this liberal girl today because she said "Bush is only saying that to get re-elected." There are times I worry about people who claim to be liberal...if only they got thier views from research and belief instead of what the Telly tells them...:(

 

 

 

(I in no way hate liberals...just the people who pretend to be liberal. I feel the same way about 'fellow' conservatives who speak without thinking as well)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm just still in disbelief about the request for the line-item veto. It's not really too much power...many states have been using it for years. We've had it in Texas for more than a hundred years now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Benefit of line-item veto? LESS if not ANY pork spending! No more wasting the Taxpayer's money on a Statue of Bubba Gump for the Senator's district! This way, the government can still issue bills without having to have it completely rejected by the President because of the rediculous spending.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: I'm proud of all of you guys. I'm glad we can finally have a political discussion in an orderly fashion! Keep it up!

Regardless of who the politician is, you are always going to hear BS. Clinton was in many ways more guilty of it. The 2008 election is going to be interesting...we have not even heard who is going to run for the GOP and the Democrats are already forming rifts between who is going to support Kerry or Hilary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I thought I heard Kerry wouldn't run again...but you never know, many

 

 

 

'facts' are heard every day...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And no one would vote Hilary. If they want a chance at getting a woman as president they should choose someone who is...Hmmm...Everything Hilary isn't.

Simply, its just the principle behind the matter. One may say to themselves, hey why should I be against this, I mean im not a terrorist in anyway, and its not like it really effects me. Sure it will only be used against terrorists, but as I noted earlier, the patroit act's definition of a terrorist is fairly murky. Im also found trying to justify to myself various cases where the government has grown too far. I tell myself oh it's okay if the government does this.. its for our protection. But theres a point where the destruction of civil liberties far outways the pros that may result from that particular course of action.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's the PATRIOT Act's definition of terrorism. As I noted before I said that I don't necessarily support the PATRIOT Act and am not going to discuss it. Therefore, I don't see the validity of this point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for the fact that calls will only be monitered between citizens and known al queda members, that doesn't say much to me. Both I and the Bush administration knows that terrorism will not be stopped with the destruction of al queda. There are simply far too many terrorist organisations out there for the destruction of one to bring about the downfall of all. With this in mind, do you really think Bush wants to limit it to al queda only? I think not. I think that eventually (if not already), that this survallence act shall apply towards all "terrorist" organisations and all "terrorist linked" groups. But now lets bring up the no fly list. Im sure you have heard about some of the more rediculous stories such as the one where a woman could not fly on her airplane, because her 2 year old baby was on the no fly list. The government has made mistakes in identifying individuals in the past, as the no fly list shows. As for the survallence act, I feel that it will only echo some of the mistakes we have made in the past.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right now it only applies towards known al-Queda members. I could use your same logic and say, "I don't support policies on illegal immigrants because eventually the government might extend the policies towards immigrants here legally." Frankly, your case is based on "in the future its possible that..." which has nothing to do with the act; it deals with what you imagine the act turning into. You brought up several points about other things which I have not given my point of view on so they are irrelevant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My next point is something I know that you won't agree with me, nor can I change your mind. In the dangerous times we are in - after seeing the terror we did on 9/11, right now I'd rather be safe than sorry. Its purely my ideology and I know you'll disagree but that's how I feel. I do, however, don't think you've given any valid reasons to not support the surveillance bill. You've given plenty to not support other things, or not support a future not yet made surveillance bill, but not the current one being used.

Well, according to the Patriot Act, you only have to fear about being tapped if you go bragging about jaywalking to a guy overseas who has connections with Al Queda. The Act does not monitor domestic communications, only communications made from the US to known terrorists abroad.

excuse me if im not entirely correct, but that can be a major violation of privacy for some. my parents moved to the U.S. while in college from China, and how do we communicate by? phone of course. my parents would hate it if the gov't could tap our phone with no supporting evidence other than that we are making phone calls to a relatively poor part of china while we ourselves have a measurable amount of wealth. If for instance my family was Iranian or our relatives lived in the middle east, would it not be suspicious if we "happened" to be making phonecalls daily to relatives in a known terrorist hotspot? sure, we are only calling to catch up on teh daily news, but who wants teh gov't to be able to listen in on each and every one of those phone calls with no hard evidence. im not advocating that the gov't shouldnt be doing something about intercepting terrorist phone calls, but this just isnt the way to do it.

 

Well, according to the Patriot Act, you only have to fear about being tapped if you go bragging about jaywalking to a guy overseas who has connections with Al Queda. The Act does not monitor domestic communications, only communications made from the US to known terrorists abroad.

excuse me if im not entirely correct, but that can be a major violation of privacy for some. my parents moved to the U.S. while in college from China, and how do we communicate by? phone of course. my parents would hate it if the gov't could tap our phone with no supporting evidence other than that we are making phone calls to a relatively poor part of china while we ourselves have a measurable amount of wealth. If for instance my family was Iranian or our relatives lived in the middle east, would it not be suspicious if we "happened" to be making phonecalls daily to relatives in a known terrorist hotspot? sure, we are only calling to catch up on teh daily news, but who wants teh gov't to be able to listen in on each and every one of those phone calls with no hard evidence. im not advocating that the gov't shouldnt be doing something about intercepting terrorist phone calls, but this just isnt the way to do it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you read what he said, its if you communicate with members of al-Queda, not just anyone overseas. So unless your parents are members of al-Queda, they could live in Iran and the United States wouldn't care.

 

 

 

 

As for the fact that calls will only be monitered between citizens and known al queda members, that doesn't say much to me. Both I and the Bush administration knows that terrorism will not be stopped with the destruction of al queda. There are simply far too many terrorist organisations out there for the destruction of one to bring about the downfall of all. With this in mind, do you really think Bush wants to limit it to al queda only? I think not. I think that eventually (if not already), that this survallence act shall apply towards all "terrorist" organisations and all "terrorist linked" groups. But now lets bring up the no fly list. Im sure you have heard about some of the more rediculous stories such as the one where a woman could not fly on her airplane, because her 2 year old baby was on the no fly list. The government has made mistakes in identifying individuals in the past, as the no fly list shows. As for the survallence act, I feel that it will only echo some of the mistakes we have made in the past.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right now it only applies towards known al-Queda members. I could use your same logic and say, "I don't support policies on illegal immigrants because eventually the government might extend the policies towards immigrants here legally." Frankly, your case is based on "in the future its possible that..." which has nothing to do with the act; it deals with what you imagine the act turning into. You brought up several points about other things which I have not given my point of view on so they are irrelevant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm really? Let me quote Bush himself for you on this one:

 

 

 

"I have re-authorized this program more than 30 times," he said. "I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can find that quote here. Can you provide me with a link that contradicts that statement?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Btw, these wiretaps are not new, they just have simply been recently brought to light by mass media. Underground media has know about them for at least 2 years now.

 

 

 

 

 

As for the fact that calls will only be monitered between citizens and known al queda members, that doesn't say much to me. Both I and the Bush administration knows that terrorism will not be stopped with the destruction of al queda. There are simply far too many terrorist organisations out there for the destruction of one to bring about the downfall of all. With this in mind, do you really think Bush wants to limit it to al queda only? I think not. I think that eventually (if not already), that this survallence act shall apply towards all "terrorist" organisations and all "terrorist linked" groups. But now lets bring up the no fly list. Im sure you have heard about some of the more rediculous stories such as the one where a woman could not fly on her airplane, because her 2 year old baby was on the no fly list. The government has made mistakes in identifying individuals in the past, as the no fly list shows. As for the survallence act, I feel that it will only echo some of the mistakes we have made in the past.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right now it only applies towards known al-Queda members. I could use your same logic and say, "I don't support policies on illegal immigrants because eventually the government might extend the policies towards immigrants here legally." Frankly, your case is based on "in the future its possible that..." which has nothing to do with the act; it deals with what you imagine the act turning into. You brought up several points about other things which I have not given my point of view on so they are irrelevant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm really? Let me quote Bush himself for you on this one:

 

 

 

"I have re-authorized this program more than 30 times," he said. "I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can find that quote here. Can you provide me with a link that contradicts that statement?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Btw, these wiretaps are not new, they just have simply been recently brought to light by mass media. Underground media has know about them for at least 2 years now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're right about that...but I'm curious...how does that have anything to do with the PATRIOT Act. The defintion the PATRIOT Act has for terrorism is irrelevant to the wiretaps. And once agian, why should we not tap the lines of terrorist groups calling America? Would you rather 9/11 happen again?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And of course its not new. It has passed several times on the Federal bench as constitutional and Senators were informed about it as well. That furthers my trust in it.

For reference, I was using Al-Queda as an example. They would also tap you if you were affiliated with Hamas, Basque, etc. If you call someone that the CIA can positively ID as a terrorist agent, you have violated the Patriot Act.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm really? Let me quote Bush himself for you on this one:

 

 

 

"I have re-authorized this program more than 30 times," he said. "I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can find that quote here. Can you provide me with a link that contradicts that statement?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Btw, these wiretaps are not new, they just have simply been recently brought to light by mass media. Underground media has know about them for at least 2 years now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're right about that...but I'm curious...how does that have anything to do with the PATRIOT Act. The defintion the PATRIOT Act has for terrorism is irrelevant to the wiretaps. And once agian, why should we not tap the lines of terrorist groups calling America? Would you rather 9/11 happen again?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And of course its not new. It has passed several times on the Federal bench as constitutional and Senators were informed about it as well. That furthers my trust in it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A few post's ago you said the following:

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's the PATRIOT Act's definition of terrorism. As I noted before I said that I don't necessarily support the PATRIOT Act and am not going to discuss it. Therefore, I don't see the validity of this point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After you said that, I stopped talking about the patriot act, now your bringing it back again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Im not sure what exactly your asking me here, so refrase if you could.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One point that you did make though, was this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It has passed several times on the Federal bench as constitutional and Senators were informed about it as well. That furthers my trust in it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let me now quote you Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"He's trying to claim somehow that the authorization for the Afghanistan attack after 9/11 permitted this, and that's just absurd," Feingold said. "There's not a single senator or member of Congress who thought we were authorizing wiretaps."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can find that quote in the article I already linked you too. I noticed you also said this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Would you rather 9/11 happen again?

 

 

 

All that is is emotional appeal.

 

 

 

That is why it bothers me, not so much that they are tapping lines, but that they are circumventing the current laws.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They have been tapping phones for decades; I really don't know what the fuss is all about. It was originally for tapping into communist's conversations, now they do it for terrorists. In fact there is a group of countries that form a large spying network, Which countries like America and UK are apart of. What is stopping the UK from spying on America and America from spying on the UK and trading their information? This is perfectly legal and is one way they get around the ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâno spying on citizensÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ rule.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm really? Let me quote Bush himself for you on this one:

 

 

 

"I have re-authorized this program more than 30 times," he said. "I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Btw, these wiretaps are not new; they just have simply been recently brought to light by mass media. Underground media has know about them for at least 2 years now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know al Qaeda isn't the only terrorist group in the world, maybe the related groups he is talking about is *gasp* other terrorist organisations?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know what Underground media youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re talking about but they have known about this for well over two years, at least a decade. The name of NSA branch in the game Splinter Cell is a reference to the spy organization IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m talking about, and that game is 4 years old.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm really? Let me quote Bush himself for you on this one:

 

 

 

"I have re-authorized this program more than 30 times," he said. "I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can find that quote here. Can you provide me with a link that contradicts that statement?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Btw, these wiretaps are not new, they just have simply been recently brought to light by mass media. Underground media has know about them for at least 2 years now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're right about that...but I'm curious...how does that have anything to do with the PATRIOT Act. The defintion the PATRIOT Act has for terrorism is irrelevant to the wiretaps. And once agian, why should we not tap the lines of terrorist groups calling America? Would you rather 9/11 happen again?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And of course its not new. It has passed several times on the Federal bench as constitutional and Senators were informed about it as well. That furthers my trust in it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A few post's ago you said the following:

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's the PATRIOT Act's definition of terrorism. As I noted before I said that I don't necessarily support the PATRIOT Act and am not going to discuss it. Therefore, I don't see the validity of this point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After you said that, I stopped talking about the patriot act, now your bringing it back again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Im not sure what exactly your asking me here, so refrase if you could.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One point that you did make though, was this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It has passed several times on the Federal bench as constitutional and Senators were informed about it as well. That furthers my trust in it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let me now quote you Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"He's trying to claim somehow that the authorization for the Afghanistan attack after 9/11 permitted this, and that's just absurd," Feingold said. "There's not a single senator or member of Congress who thought we were authorizing wiretaps."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can find that quote in the article I already linked you too. I noticed you also said this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Would you rather 9/11 happen again?

 

 

 

All that is is emotional appeal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm...I'm not quite sure why I wrote that about the PATRIOT Act if I wasn't responding to it being said. My head hurts from trying to figure it out. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please provide me a quote from a Republican about the wiretap, I don't trust Democrats in this situation (just as I wouldn't trust Republicans in any Democrat scandal).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FYI - when I heard abuot this story when it broke, I wanted to impeach Bush. I rushed to see one of my old teachers screaming about how he broke the law. When I read more about it, I changed my mind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is all based on emotional appeal. Why are the wiretaps bad? They violate human rights. Why was 9/11 bad? It killed humans. Both are logically and emotionall wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't want to spam up Tip.it with more political talk though, I'd love to continue it in PMs.

 

 

 

 

That is why it bothers me, not so much that they are tapping lines, but that they are circumventing the current laws.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They have been tapping phones for decades; I really don't know what the fuss is all about. It was originally for tapping into communist's conversations, now they do it for terrorists. In fact there is a group of countries that form a large spying network, Which countries like America and UK are apart of. What is stopping the UK from spying on America and America from spying on the UK and trading their information? This is perfectly legal and is one way they get around the ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâno spying on citizensÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ rule.

 

 

 

Your confusing domestic spying (which is new) with 'regular' wiretapping. The domestic spying came in 2001 with the passing of the patroit act, and specifically this section of it. The surveillance act your refering to has been known of since 1978. The 1978 version can be found here

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm really? Let me quote Bush himself for you on this one:

 

 

 

"I have re-authorized this program more than 30 times," he said. "I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Btw, these wiretaps are not new; they just have simply been recently brought to light by mass media. Underground media has know about them for at least 2 years now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know al Qaeda isn't the only terrorist group in the world, maybe the related groups he is talking about is *gasp* other terrorist organisations?

 

 

 

Yes, that is what I was trying to indicate :idea: .

Last post I swear.. err hope :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please provide me a quote from a Republican about the wiretap, I don't trust Democrats in this situation (just as I wouldn't trust Republicans in any Democrat scandal).

 

 

 

I don't have one at this time lol. I am in no way a Democrat (im more of a hardcore rightwinger a la libertarian to an extent), but I wouldn't really say that democrat's arn't to be trusted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FYI - when I heard abuot this story when it broke, I wanted to impeach Bush. I rushed to see one of my old teachers screaming about how he broke the law. When I read more about it, I changed my mind.

 

 

 

As for me, I never really wanted to impeach him, but I was fairly disappointed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is all based on emotional appeal. Why are the wiretaps bad? They violate human rights. Why was 9/11 bad? It killed humans. Both are logically and emotionall wrong.

 

 

 

Fair enough

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't want to spam up Tip.it with more political talk though, I'd love to continue it in PMs.

 

 

 

I don't really see it as spam :oops: . Rather, we are just discussing (in depth mind you) one aspect of his speech. But im fine with carrying it to PM's.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And now, im tired :P :oops: .

You guys are welcome to keep it here in the topic if you wish. So far, nobody has been harming anyone else. Which is amazing. I think I threw off most of the trolls, since they are too young to know what the State of the Union is...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Patriot Act basically boils down to personal liberties and the extraneous circumstances of the day. We have to weigh it out...are certain political freedoms worth it at the expense of our national safety?

 

 

 

Your confusing domestic spying (which is new) with 'regular' wiretapping. The domestic spying came in 2001 with the passing of the patroit act, and specifically this section of it. The surveillance act your refering to has been known of since 1978. The 1978 version can be found here

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, no I'm not. There have been allegations from (former/current) employers previous to the patriot act, where they describe signals being intercepted nationally and unlawfully. What is the difference between spying internationally and domestically, your enemies don't always live abroad. Like I said before there is nothing stopping you getting information about people in your country from spy stations in other countries.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://cryptome.org/echelon-baby.htm

 

 

 

Here is an interview with a former employee who recounts spying on a senator; this took place in 1977 a far cry from 2001.[/url]

 

I was pleasantly surprised by what I saw of it; he seemed to be paying attention to what the public has to say for once. He even seemed to drop the Southern accent for a while.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I did hear a bunch of untruths, though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I strongly dislike Bush, but I respect him all the same. He did, after all, become President...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, duh! People would rather vote for a politician than a trained dog who's only trick is to bark at the other dog. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regardless of who the politician is, you are always going to hear BS. Clinton was in many ways more guilty of it. The 2008 election is going to be interesting...we have not even heard who is going to run for the GOP and the Democrats are already forming rifts between who is going to support Kerry or Hilary.

 

 

 

Honesty is not the strong suit of the vast majority of politicians.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know the people I hate? Those who say that "bush iz s2pd greeen day sez so!!!!!!!!!!!!1lololololol"

 

 

 

Please, people. Grow a brain.

Administration backs off Bush's vow to reduce Mideast oil imports

 

 

 

BY KEVIN G. HALL

 

 

 

Knight Ridder Newspapers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WASHINGTON - One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally.

That is very interesting, maybe there is some dissension within administration. Maybe he said some things that people didn't want.

 

 

 

If he wasn't being literal about that , then was he being literal about making Americans more competitive, or finding more efficient energy? Makes you wonder what he was really saying.

Makes you wonder what he was really saying.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What we want him to say.

Death_By_Pod: I was talking about warrentless wiretaps mind you. Im sure wiretaps provided with a warrent have been around much, much longer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Necromagus: It appears his cabinet is divided :o .

Death_By_Pod: I was talking about warrentless wiretaps mind you. Im sure wiretaps provided with a warrent have been around much, much longer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Necromagus: It appears his cabinet is divided :o .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its because the Secretary of Veteren's Affairs was mad he couldn't attend.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously, one cabinet member is left behind for security reasons...so why not pick someone like Homeland Security or the Secretary of State? If the Captial were to be bombed...I don't want the Secretary of Veteran's affairs taking over as President! I don't even know who that is!

Death_By_Pod: I was talking about warrentless wiretaps mind you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They are warrant-less. They arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t always wiretaps, they also intercept wireless (Radio, Microwave etc) and digital communication. I never was talking about intercepting data with a warrant in the first place; these illegal actions have been going on for decades without the patriot act. The problem is that the actions of ECHELON are coded top-secret or higher and are never revealed to the general public; what you don't hear doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t hurt you.

I missed it because I had to go out to dinner. Blah, I'll watch it later.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Didn't miss much... :roll:

 

Death_By_Pod: I was talking about warrentless wiretaps mind you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They are warrant-less. They arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t always wiretaps, they also intercept wireless (Radio, Microwave etc) and digital communication. I never was talking about intercepting data with a warrant in the first place; these illegal actions have been going on for decades without the patriot act. The problem is that the actions of ECHELON are coded top-secret or higher and are never revealed to the general public; what you don't hear doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t hurt you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm didn't know that. Maybe because it's so hidden from the public as you say :oops: :? . My mistake.

I was quite surprised he used the phrase "evil empire." Now that's a loaded couple of words.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Iraq != New York Yankees

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the only problem i have with the NTA Wiretapping B.S. is the way hes going about it, illegally, he needs to obtain the warrent and go through it the legal way

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

has anyone noticed his approval rating is almost ~40%