Do republicans really have a chance at the white house this time?

[Soul_Patch]

I am by no means a political junky, and i dont really follow current issues all that much. I do know that i think the last 8 years have been the worst 8 years for this country that i can recall myself, and looking in recent history, may be the worst in quite a while for our country.

Do you really think this country is ready to try another republican in office? I just cant see it happening. Im not really leaning to either side, i REALLY like John Edwards and the message he brings, and i really like the "your voice can make a difference" message obama brings, so id say im swayed pretty far left in this election...but a lot of that has to do with what i have seen take place during the current administration, i couldnt imagine even wanting to take a slightest chance someone may come in and keep things status quo...that would be a tragedy i think.


so anyway, to those of you who seem a bit less ignorant than i on these matters...do republicans have a shot at winning this? Or is it pretty much in the bag for the Dems?

[Extra Stout]

The Republicans are the underdogs, but a lot can happen in 10 months.

[101A]

I am by no means a political junky, and i dont really follow current issues all that much. I do know that i think the last 8 years have been the worst 8 years for this country that i can recall myself, and looking in recent history, may be the worst in quite a while for our country.

Do you really think this country is ready to try another republican in office? I just cant see it happening. Im not really leaning to either side, i REALLY like John Edwards and the message he brings, and i really like the "your voice can make a difference" message obama brings, so id say im swayed pretty far left in this election...but a lot of that has to do with what i have seen take place during the current administration, i couldnt imagine even wanting to take a slightest chance someone may come in and keep things status quo...that would be a tragedy i think.


so anyway, to those of you who seem a bit less ignorant than i on these matters...do republicans have a shot at winning this? Or is it pretty much in the bag for the Dems?Ultimately, the race will boil down to a 1 on 1 match between the two candidates; with the Republican holding some extra baggage. Unfortunately for the Dems, they grabbed Congress for this past two years, so that gives the Republican maybe a little wiggle room; along with their ability (or inability) to distance themselves from the current administration. Also, Iraq has been the BIG issue for this being perceived as a HORRIBLE 8 years; if it continues to improve, and that becomes less of a negative for the Republicans, all bets are off. Of course, if the economy goes further South, the Dems benefit.

As Stout said, with 10 months to go, and as of yet no clear nominees, A LOT can happen.

[101A]

... i think the last 8 years have been the worst 8 years for this country that i can recall myself, and looking in recent history, may be the worst in quite a while for our country.

Just curious: Why?

[boutons_]

dubya's Iraq fiasco drags on, no political reconciliation, is overwhelmingly unpopular outside of the Repug kool-aid drinkers and the MIC. Iraq has slipped from public's primary concern very probably because the concern expressed in the 2006 election has led to no change in Iraq, no drawn down, no withdrawal. ie, dubya has failed to heed democratic will, so people have lost faith in their ability to influence Iraq. aka, beating your head against a wall.

Unemployment is up. Will it keep going up?

The sub-prime bubble popping crisis is far from over, and its ripples are hitting way beyond the finance industry.

The lower/middle class income has stagnated/declined during dubya's Reign of Error.

There's very little available that can salvage lame-brain/lame-duck dubya's legacy as one of the worst US presidencies. Only 3 or 4 are clearly worse. Notice how dubya is NEVER mentioned by Repug candidates.

The election is the Dem's to lose, but they did it in 2000, so maybe they will repeat. iow, the Repugs will win only if the Dems botch it again. The Repugs clearly won't win on the merits of the candidates, who are even worse than the Dems.

[Spurminator]

Never underestimate the power of the "I will vote for anyone the Libruls hate" bloc.

[101A]

dubya's Iraq fiasco drags on, no political reconciliation, is overwhelmingly unpopular outside of the Repug kool-aid drinkers and the MIC. Iraq has slipped from public's primary concern very probably because the concern expressed in the 2006 election has led to no change in Iraq, no drawn down, no withdrawal. ie, dubya has failed to heed democratic will, so people have lost faith in their ability to influence Iraq. aka, beating your head against a wall.

Unemployment is up. Will it keep going up?

The sub-prime bubble popping crisis is far from over, and its ripples are hitting way beyond the finance industry.

The lower/middle class income has stagnated/declined during dubya's Reign of Error.

There's very little available that can salvage lame-brain/lame-duck dubya's legacy as one of the worst US presidencies. Only 3 or 4 are clearly worse. Notice how dubya is NEVER mentioned by Repug candidates.

The election is the Dem's to lose, but they did it in 2000, so maybe they will repeat. iow, the Repugs will win only if the Dems botch it again. The Repugs clearly won't win on the merits of the candidates, who are even worse than the Dems.I'll grant you all your points. The U.S. is in a tail-spin; economy a mess; the rich are running rough-shod over everybody else! The World HATES us - we're stuck in TWO countries while those around them explode in turmoil - healthcare out of control, the dollar collapsing - heaven forbid another terror attack!

SO...elect a 40 something first term senator to solve ALL the problems!

THAT'S one way the Dems can screw this up.

[Bunz]

Would you rather elect a Baptist preacher who can't read, two old men so tired they won't live through their first term, a slimy flip flopper, or Muslim hating nuke crazed home grown fascist?

[AFBlue]

The election is the Dem's to lose, but they did it in 2000, so maybe they will repeat. iow, the Repugs will win only if the Dems botch it again. The Repugs clearly won't win on the merits of the candidates, who are even worse than the Dems.

Don't forget 2004. That was easily one of the most winnable elections for the democrats and AGAIN they screwed the pooch.

[Soul_Patch]

Just curious: Why?

1. The absolute mishandling of the entire "war on terror". I really cant see one good thing that has come out of it anywhere. The country has been made to live in a state of fear thinking anyone with a beard has a bomb, and the rest of the world cementing their views of us being an imperialist country. Im tired of being bombared with constant messages of terrorism and grab your gun! I kind of like the idea of world peace...not the opposite.

2. Gas 8 years ago was a bit over 1 dollar a gallon...it is around 3 dollars a gallon now...whether that is bush related or not, i dont really care...i tend to think it has a lot to do with all of the percieved conflict we have around the world...this whole "never trust anyone, cause they could be a terrorist!!" mentality has sent everyone running around in a panic...gas prices suck, and bush has the reigns when it all changed.

3. The housing market fiasco...Once again, may or may not be his problem, but everything sure went to shit with him in office.

4. I have never seen so many accusations, retirements, indictments, arrests..etc of politicians...it seems like anyone who is remotely related to the bush administration has been dirty in some form or fashion...It really makes you wonder what the hell is going on, when half the people in power have some sort of wierd criminal background, or are arrested for trying to get hand jobs in bathrooms. At least Clinton got a bj from a halfway decent looking female.

Im sure there is more, but i gotta run to lunch...i just am really disgusted with politics after the past 8 years...it has given me a really bad taste in my mouth and made me really disrespect the presidency in general which i think is horrible...My grandpa even said, who by the way is a very devout republican, in his day, the president was like a movie star, or a saint..or similar...you never said anything bad about him, it was a HIGHLY honorable position...he gets disgusted at how bad this administration has tainted that image...that has all changed dramatically with W.

[AFBlue]

I'll echo what others have said...

While it looks like a democrat is primed to take back the White House, there is alot of time left.

And in a general election, all bets are off because the political machines for each candidate have the full backing of their party and the American public is easily swayed.

I do think the Republican disadvantage can be minimized, however.

IMO, if McCain is the Republican nominee and Clinton is the Democratic nominee, the Republicans have the best chance to keep the White House.

[Soul_Patch]

I really hope Clinton is not the nominee...i think that would pretty much make this whole election a wash...


i want to vote for change, not the same ol shit...I like the message that obama and edwards are bringing to the table...whether they can execute it or not is to be seen, but at least they seem to be pretty strong in their convictions to try.

[johnsmith]

I'm writing in my vote for Boutons.

He whines, complains, bitches, and moans about everything. He trusts no one, and assumes the worst in everyone. Best of all, he does nothing about any of it.

He's the perfect candidate.

[O-Factor]

Obama is the dem's best chance. This nation wont or is not ready to vote in a woman.

[SouthernFried]

I don't think a Democrat has a chance of winning. And I'm serious.

Nobody trusts them on Terrorism. The "ignore it, it will go away if we just talk to them nicely" approach is pretty much ludicrous. They voted to go into IRAQ (and nobody lied to them, no matter how much they try to convince themselves)...then have done everything to undermine the troops and because of this...have given support and morale boosters to those fighting them.

That alone will prolly do the democrats in.

Economy hasn't been bad. Low inflation, low unemployment. The sub-prime thing is a banking/borrower issue that bankers and borrowers created on their own. No govt bailout for the borrowers who got in over their heads, or didn't plan correctly when they signed those ARM's. And no bailout for the bankers who gave these unqualified borrowers money in the first place. They created the situation, they each need to deal with it. That's taking responsibility for your own actions. None of this has to do with current administration.

Gas prices are what they are. That's the market and the oil producing cartels doing their thing. They are, in essence, cutting their own throats doing this...as increasing costs create opportunities for alternatives. That's how markets work, if left to actually do their job. Again, not the fault or responsibility of govt, or any one administration.

The falling dollar is attributed to many things. Mostly, it's due to the fact that we make very little here anymore, and buy HUGE amounts of imports. Gazillions of dollars floating around overseas because of this. When that happens, the dollar loses value. Interest rates can only have very limited affect on movement in or out of any currency. Debt and Defecits do have affect on the dollar. We've been running defecits long before BUSH, and the national debt is growing every year. Mostly because of the huge amount of govt spending on Social programs (they account for 65% of the budget, and MANDATED BY LAW to INCREASE every year. It's against the law to cut any social program. You have to change the law to even think about cutting them.) If this issue is not dealt with, our huge debt will continue to demand countries like China to support it.

No one is actually talking about this much. Republican or Democrat. And the issue is too complex for a soundbite media to pay much attention. So, to blame the current administration, or Bush in particular for a problem that both sides have ignored forever...is just being blindly partisan. They are all responsible...as are WE for not DEMANDING this be dealt with. Everyone looks to blame someone else for political points, pretty much the only thing both sides do with the issue...blame.

This is not even close to being an atypical bad bad period for the country. The debt rises, spending increases, conflicts overseas...sounds like a pretty typical period actually. 9-11 is really the only thing that has happened to make it unusual.

I remember the Carter Years of close to 20% inflation. The Nixon years of Nam and Lines miles long to get a "ration" of gas on your day. There are those that remember Soup lines during the depression.

No, this has been pretty typical. Mebbe the rhetoric from the left has been unusually coarse. But, the world is always coming to an end for them...you get used to it.

[101A]

I don't think a Democrat has a chance of winning. And I'm serious.

Nobody trusts them on Terrorism. The "ignore it, it will go away if we just talk to them nicely" approach is pretty much ludicrous. They voted to go into IRAQ (and nobody lied to them, no matter how much they try to convince themselves)...then have done everything to undermine the troops and because of this...have given support and morale boosters to those fighting them.

That alone will prolly do the democrats in.

Economy hasn't been bad. Low inflation, low unemployment. The sub-prime thing is a banking/borrower issue that bankers and borrowers created on their own. No govt bailout for the borrowers who got in over their heads, or didn't plan correctly when they signed those ARM's. And no bailout for the bankers who gave these unqualified borrowers money in the first place. They created the situation, they each need to deal with it. That's taking responsibility for your own actions. None of this has to do with current administration.

Gas prices are what they are. That's the market and the oil producing cartels doing their thing. They are, in essence, cutting their own throats doing this...as increasing costs create opportunities for alternatives. That's how markets work, if left to actually do their job. Again, not the fault or responsibility of govt, or any one administration.

The falling dollar is attributed to many things. Mostly, it's due to the fact that we make very little here anymore, and buy HUGE amounts of imports. Gazillions of dollars floating around overseas because of this. When that happens, the dollar loses value. Interest rates can only have very limited affect on movement in or out of any currency. Debt and Defecits do have affect on the dollar. We've been running defecits long before BUSH, and the national debt is growing every year. Mostly because of the huge amount of govt spending on Social programs (they account for 65% of the budget, and MANDATED BY LAW to INCREASE every year. It's against the law to cut any social program. You have to change the law to even think about cutting them.) If this issue is not dealt with, our huge debt will continue to demand countries like China to support it.

No one is actually talking about this much. Republican or Democrat. And the issue is too complex for a soundbite media to pay much attention. So, to blame the current administration, or Bush in particular for a problem that both sides have ignored forever...is just being blindly partisan. They are all responsible...as are WE for not DEMANDING this be dealt with. Everyone looks to blame someone else for political points, pretty much the only thing both sides do with the issue...blame.

This is not even close to being an atypical bad bad period for the country. The debt rises, spending increases, conflicts overseas...sounds like a pretty typical period actually. 9-11 is really the only thing that has happened to make it unusual.

I remember the Carter Years of close to 20% inflation. The Nixon years of Nam and Lines miles long to get a "ration" of gas on your day. There are those that remember Soup lines during the depression.

No, this has been pretty typical. Mebbe the rhetoric from the left has been unusually coarse. But, the world is always coming to an end for them...you get used to it.Good Lord, I don't know if there are enough 4-letter words for Boutons to reply to this one. You're going to get flamed.

Good take, though.

[Extra Stout]

SouthernFried would have a valid argument about voter preferences in a United States where most people were libertarians.

[Soul_Patch]

I don't think a Democrat has a chance of winning. And I'm serious.

Nobody trusts them on Terrorism. The "ignore it, it will go away if we just talk to them nicely" approach is pretty much ludicrous. They voted to go into IRAQ (and nobody lied to them, no matter how much they try to convince themselves)...then have done everything to undermine the troops and because of this...have given support and morale boosters to those fighting them.

That alone will prolly do the democrats in.



I really get tired of all of the people trying to scare us into voting in war mongers because of this buzz word "terrorism". Everyone is running around with their hands waving in the air shouting the MUSLIMS OMG GET EM! SAVE THE CHILDREN! C'mon...Yes Terrorism is bad, but i personally dont see there being any more terrorism today than there was 25 years ago...Difference is today we are constantly being force fed this shit on the news...I dont think Terrorists were invented on 911, im pretty sure they have been around a while, and will always be around...if i was listening to what fox news tells me every few minutes, id sware there were bomb carrying jihadi's running down my street this very moment...and there isn't...Stay vigilant on it yes, as would anyone with half a brain in power, but you can only use 911 so many times as your rally cry before people think...move the fuck on, lets get on with our lives.

[Twisted_Dawg]

I think if the Republican is Huckabee and the Democrat is Obama....then I think Huckabee and the Republicans have a very good chance. Sadly, I think race is a factor. Now if the Republican is some loser like Rudy, old geeezer Thompson, or loose with facts Romney, then I think Obama might win.

[xrayzebra]

I think if the Republican is Huckabee and the Democrat is Obama....then I think Huckabee and the Republicans have a very good chance. Sadly, I think race is a factor. Now if the Republican is some loser like Rudy, old geeezer Thompson, or loose with facts Romney, then I think Obama might win.

Obviously age is a factor in your mind and you wont vote
for an older man. And speaking of facts, Hucabee has a lot
of facts of his governorship he needs to explain.

[braeden0613]

I think if the Republican is Huckabee and the Democrat is Obama....then I think Huckabee and the Republicans have a very good chance. Sadly, I think race is a factor. Now if the Republican is some loser like Rudy, old geeezer Thompson, or loose with facts Romney, then I think Obama might win.
If Huck goes up against Obama, he will get crushed. Obama might even win Texas in that scenario. :lol

[Spurminator]

I just can't wait till we get to hear about what these guys did back in college! Man oh man, that's good stuff.

[AFBlue]

I think if the Republican is Huckabee and the Democrat is Obama....then I think Huckabee and the Republicans have a very good chance. Sadly, I think race is a factor. Now if the Republican is some loser like Rudy, old geeezer Thompson, or loose with facts Romney, then I think Obama might win.

Reality check....

96% of Iowans are white.

Nuff said.

[xrayzebra]

Reality check....

96% of Iowans are white.

Nuff said.


And Liberal. Nuff said

[AFBlue]

And Liberal. Nuff said

Rural white farmers are liberal?

[Holt's Cat]

I just can't wait till we get to hear about what these guys did back in college! Man oh man, that's good stuff.

Obama did the wise thing and laid out all of his baggage early.

[xrayzebra]

Obama did the wise thing and laid out all of his baggage early.

I just have to wonder if more shady deals are going to come
out about him and Illinois days.

[Holt's Cat]

I just have to wonder if more shady deals are going to come
out about him and Illinois days.


Yeah, I can't wait until the GOP fixates on a shady real estate deal or some such and counts on that sinking their opponent.

They could rehash his drug days but that will have less of an impact than breaking something new.

Maybe they could try ideas but the current administration has pretty much eviscerated their fiscal conservatism card.

[braeden0613]

Rural white farmers are liberal?
They do enjoy those government checks.

[Mr. Peabody]

I thought this was interesting --


Percentage of total Iowa vote
24.5% Obama
20.5% Edwards
19.8% Clinton
11.4% Huckabee (R)

GOP comes in fourth in Iowa.

[T Park]

Yeah, I can't wait until the GOP fixates on a shady real estate deal or some such and counts on that sinking their opponent

You mean you can't wait till Hillary does this.

[Kori Ellis]

I think that the chance the Republicans have to win is is the Democrats nominate Hillary.

If she is the democrat, then I think people will come out to vote that would not normally even vote just to vote against her.

[T Park]

Agreed.

I think if Obama wins though, there will be disgusting people who will vote against him just cause hes black.

Sad but true.

[SouthernFried]

Just as disgusting as people voting for him only cause he's black.

Sad but true.

[Mr. Peabody]

Just as disgusting as people voting for him only cause he's black.

Sad but true.

I am willing to bet that there will be more people in TPark's scenario than yours.

[SouthernFried]

I am willing to bet that there will be more people in TPark's scenario than yours.

You'd lose.

[Mr. Peabody]

You'd lose.

Hell, he can't even lock up the "Black" vote. He's running 50%-50% with Clinton in a demographic that is more likely to vote for him because of race. And within the Democratic party there are still people who won't vote for him because they still don't believe a Black man can win a presidential election.

[SouthernFried]

Hell, he can't even lock up the "Black" vote. He's running 50%-50% with Clinton in a demographic that is more likely to vote for him because of race. And within the Democratic party there are still people who won't vote for him because they still don't believe a Black man can win a presidential election.

There is truth to that. Clinton being the first black president, his wife will get some of it. Still, if Obama gets the nod, guaranteed 95% of black vote. Tho, again, since the black vote tends to vote in a block, and always democratic...it might not be as race dependent on the candidate.
Still, we both know there will be a pretty large majority voting for him because he is black. A large number easy to rely upon.

Large block of Liberals will vote for him because of race as well. Hillary will get a large voting block because she is female (tho, I've heard it's older females, which sorta surprised me.)

And, there will be those voting against those 2 for the same reasons others will vote for them. It's just the nature of humans... as San Antonio elections can sometimes attest to.

Oh, well...gives us something else to whine about..."there voting for/against him/her just because of his/her race/gender/deodorant.

sig

[Wild Cobra]

Rural white farmers are liberal?
Probably. They so enjoy the benefits of farm subsidies don't they? Most conservatives are too ethical to live on subsidies.

[Wild Cobra]

Obama did the wise thing and laid out all of his baggage early.
Agreed. I dislike his liberal viewpoints, but he gained allot of respect from people for his honesty, That goes far with people. Nobody trusts the other democrats, or republicans for that matter.

[Wild Cobra]

I think that the chance the Republicans have to win is is the Democrats nominate Hillary.

If she is the democrat, then I think people will come out to vote that would not normally even vote just to vote against her.
I'm sure that would be a factor. There is a level of absolute hatred for the bitch that would be compelling enough to make people vote!

[remingtonbo2001]

If Giuliani wins the nomination, then I firmly believe he will win the presidency.
He is fairly moderate in terms of domestic policy. However, his foreign policy is fairly conservative. This seems to be the global trend.

[JoeChalupa]

Go Barack Go!!!

[xrayzebra]

Agreed. I dislike his liberal viewpoints, but he gained allot of respect from people for his honesty, That goes far with people. Nobody trusts the other democrats, or republicans for that matter.

Another thing to remember, a lot of folks his age have used
drugs and they really don't consider it any big deal. You
witness this fact here on this board in the club postings.
Drug use will only be held against him if it is found out that
he is still using.

Clinton was accused of using coke to the extent it
messed up his nose. It is said that is one reason he
wouldn't and wont release his medical records. And it
certainly didn't stop people voting for him. Of course
the second time he ran he didn't have much competition.

[SouthernFried]

Who was that guy caught smoking crack. Jailed for it...then re-elected?

I heard that the Hillary camp has more on Obama.

I don't think Obama came clean with what he did come clean with...until someone in the Hillary camp (conveniently fired "after" releasing info) brought it to light.

[whottt]

The question is do the Democrats have a chance...and the answer is no.

You guys put too much emphasis on these polls...IIRC, just about every poll had Kerry beating W in 04.


Fact of the matter is, no one really liked W, he was uncharismatic, he got us into a war and he still pulled in 51 milllion votes and increased his overall number of votes from 00.


Just about anyone else would have done even better against Kerry...I mean that was amazing that Bush actually became more popular...and it wasn't because he was liked, or even because we were at war...it's that Kerry was a horrible candidate.



I like Hilary and Obama both better than Kerry, since they aren't traitors...always a plus.


But neither of them have a chance in hell of beating the Republican nominee(who isn't going to be Ron Paul)...you guys can convince yourself otherwise by talking with other political activists...but it's just not going to happen.


I said it in 04...Guilianni will be the next President of the Unites States...providing he gets the nomination...if not him then whoever the Republican nominee is will win...


And no Paul will not pare off voters to the degree to alter this.




So keep up the chatter but I've predicted the winner of the popular vote in every election since I was 12 years old and the only time I've been wrong in my life was Carter/Ford(hey I was 8 gimme a break).


It may seem like there is a ton of outrage...but there's really not.

[Soul_Patch]

The question is do the Democrats have a chance...and the answer is no.

You guys put too much emphasis on these polls...IIRC, just about every poll had Kerry beating W in 04.


Fact of the matter is, no one really liked W, he was uncharismatic, he got us into a war and he still pulled in 51 milllion votes and increased his overall number of votes from 00.


Just about anyone else would have done even better against Kerry...I mean that was amazing that Bush actually became more popular...and it wasn't because he was liked, or even because we were at war...it's that Kerry was a horrible candidate.



I like Hilary and Obama both better than Kerry, since they aren't traitors...always a plus.


But neither of them have a chance in hell of beating the Republican nominee(who isn't going to be Ron Paul)...you guys can convince yourself otherwise by talking with other political activists...but it's just not going to happen.


I said it in 04...Guilianni will be the next President of the Unites States...providing he gets the nomination...if not him then whoever the Republican nominee is will win...


And no Paul will not pare off voters to the degree to alter this.




So keep up the chatter but I've predicted the winner of the popular vote in every election since I was 12 years old and the only time I've been wrong in my life was Carter/Ford(hey I was 8 gimme a break).










It may seem like there is a ton of outrage...but there's really not.


God i really hope you are wrong. I will be utterly disapointed in this country if another george bush gets elected.

[whottt]

I think I've pretty much figured out why polls etc. are always liberallly slanted...because liberals are more willing to participate in the polls...just like they tend to be more vocal about their political opinions in general...


This forum is a prime example of that....it's always had about 3-4 more liberals on it than conservatives or moderates...but that didn't win the last election.

[whottt]

God i really hope you are wrong. I will be utterly disapointed in this country if another george bush gets elected.


Rudy's better than Bush...

#1. He's much smarter.
#2. He doesn't reek of silver spoon richboy.
#3. He's the face of 9/11.
#4. He's the best known candidate in this election outside of Hilary.
#5. He'll win every Rebublican stronghold plus a few formerly Democratic strongholds.


You guys can talk about everything else but those are going to be the deciding factors.


I know, I know, he's a corrupt mafioso/firefighter knifing in the back/fascist spawn of Satan...

As you were.



Edit: The only guy I see that might present a challenge to Rudy is Edwards...but Edwards reeks of silver spoon richboy just like W does...

[LaMarcus Bryant]

I'll never forget talking to my ex-boss about Rudy and how he's riding on 9/11 and only focusing on that. His retort was, "Don't take that away from him, bub, you can't take that away from him."

lolol

[whottt]

You talking about 06? rofl crofl

No...going all the way to 03.

IF you are talking about the 06 Congressional election...it's a no brainer that the country was going to swing back to the middle...

But if polls are of that much merit to you...the last poll I saw showed congress with a lower approval rating than Bush.





nah there's liberals on this forum because young people are more likely to be liberal, and young people are more likely to use the internet

It's more than just this forum...it's in all forms of political activism, you never see righties holding mass protests to the degree that lefties do it...

I'll say that young politically active people are more likely to be liberal...but not across the board do they slant liberal.



betcher life for every xrayzebra here there are 10 of his checker-playing buddies sitting outside the convenience store talking about how much they hate communists

Probably...


But the fact is that liberals are much more freer with their own opinions than they are tolerant of those with different ones...


Conservatives and moderates just don't talk about it as much...becaause if they do, the'll get a dozen hate fill libs calling them a fucked up redneck war mongering inbreeding hillbilly...just like on this forum.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

one big thing is if the third douche bag from New York, michael bloomberg, decides to run as an independent and splits the Democratic vote.

then the GOP may have this in the bag

I don't think average voters outside of that shit state knows or cares who michael bloomberg is
his name hasn't been flying around long enough in relation to this election

[LaMarcus Bryant]

yeah but he's a mega-billionaire who can finance his own campaign entirely
he'll be on tv and people who think he's handsome will vote for him

I dont see him sapping the liberal voting base though, liberals stupid enough to consciously vote for a self-financed candidate because he's good looking are just as likely to be stupid enough to hear "mayor of NEW YORK" and shy away because they hate guiliani and don't give a shit about new york

[whottt]

but edwards this time around comes off as more of a reformed silver spoon rich boy who has discovered the joys of populism

plus, to the average voter, all the candidates are identically rich, so that doesn't matter


Who are you trying to convince?

He might...



It's like this:

Hilary = Woman. Ugly woman at that.
Obama = He's black, and his middle name is Hussein.
Edwards = Just doesn't come off as being a strong leader. Plus he's a lawyer, and people hate lawyers(with good reason). I know Rudy is a lawyer...but he's seen as more of the hardworking DA type lawyer.


A woman is not going to get elected President right now...don't kill the messenger, I am just telling you what will happen.

A black guy isn't going to get elected President right now...especially one who was born a muslim and whose middle name is Hussein...not only that, but no one had even heard of him before 4 years ago.

It aint happening.


Edwards...he's got that same whiney ADD vibe that every Democratic criminal defense attorney I have ever met has(and I've met a lot of them). My personal experience with the Edwards type is extensive as I worked as bailbondsman/bountry hunter for one for 4 years...who also had political aspirations...

He's the most corrupt motherfucker in this election...and he'll be the last one I vote for.



My voting preference is like this:

Guiliani
McCain
Hilary
Obama

After that it comes down to the pull out of Iraq and leave an extremely powerful, rich and militant Islamic Theocracy in it's place, rendering the deaths of every American and Iraqi that has died in the last 4 years completely and totally meaningless...not to mention all the money spent as well. Not to mention we'll be 10 times less respected and more hated than we are now...


...so I'll probably just not vote if it comes down to that.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

Meh, I don't think bloomberg is that good looking

[xrayzebra]

everytime a liberal speaks up, a conservative is waiting in the wings to label him or her a traitor, communist, pinko fag, whatever

and the nature of conservative is that they want to keep the status quo, so naturally liberals would be the ones holding rallies

in 2002 the reps fared well because the election was after 911 and before iraq
in 2004 the country was split 50/50, and bush only won because his campaign was much, much better than kerrys
kerry was a terrible candidate, and bush's people had no scruples about being as dirty as possible and slandering a war hero


You have referred to Kerry as a war hero in two of your
postings. He was no war hero. He was a traitor to his
country and those who served with him in SHORT time
in the military. Hero my foot. He was also a liar to
the Nth degree.

[whottt]

and, like it or not, the biggest influence on whether a relatively uninformed person (a huge portion of american voters) will vote for one candidate or another is which one they think is better looking



I actually agree with this....but if they are too good looking it works against them as they are percieved as shallow and wimpy.


But yeah...generally the better looking candidate wins...but there are some exceptions.

Rudy is butt ugly but again, he's the best known name in this election outside of Hilary...and quite honestly...

While Rudy is ugly as sin...Hilary trumps him there.

[xrayzebra]

Kerry was a war hero.

and the idiots who besmirched his good name deserve to be spit on

You Talk pretty tough for such a wimp!

[whottt]

everytime a liberal speaks up, a conservative is waiting in the wings to label him or her a traitor, communist, pinko fag, whatever

And every time a conservative speaks up there are 15 liberals waiting to do likewise....



and the nature of conservative is that they want to keep the status quo, so naturally liberals would be the ones holding rallies

Liberals do it even when they control the Presidency and Congress...see, Vietnam War for examples of this.


:lmao they do it even when their leaders start the wars...which is 90% of the time.


Kinda like they make fun of the conservatives using the word commies when they invented the crusade against it.


Kinda like they throw the racist tag aroung towards conservatives when, they fought against emancipating the slaves, the founder of the KKK was one of their number...

And some of their most prominent leaders, like Al Gore's dady for instance, voted substantially against the 1964 civil rights amendment.




in 2002 the reps fared well because the election was after 911 and before iraq

Probably...




in 2004 the country was split 50/50, and bush only won because his campaign was much, much better than kerrys

No...it's because Kerry was just as much of a silverspoon douchebag only he wanted America to kiss the ass of the UN and France and Germany...who's leaders are not even in power anymore.





kerry was a terrible candidate, and bush's people had no scruples about being as dirty as possible and slandering a war hero


Kerry's no war hero...he negotiated with communist leaders concerning the possiblity of ending the war, unsanctioned, as a member of the US military...




That's treason in every sense of the word, and the only reason he was not charged and convicted of treason is because it was an unpopular war and he was a silverspoon richboy.



Kerry was the son of an US Ambassador...he was on record as coveting political office, and the Presidency while in his teens, and his Vietnam stint was

A. Against his will...he joined the reserves too you know.
B. For political gain, and entirely that.


And the guys that came out against him were some of the most decorated War heroes in US history...

Like Bud Day...


None of the guys I know that qualify as Vietnam War heroes, and I know a few of them, voted for Kerry...in fact they despised him.



Kinda like Kerry is a member of the Skull and Bones society just like Bush the Satan is...never hear that mentioned.


Kerry was exactly like Bush except without any of Bush's positives...like actually loving America. That's why he lost...

The worst Presidential candidate in history. Especially for wartime...


If he hadn't been going up against Bush, he'd have been the most lopsided loser in history...

[whottt]

it's a common fallacy to think that you should stick to a losing cause because of the losses you've already invested

It's a worse fallacy to think you can fix a wrong by commiting another wrong. It's also the height of irresponsibility, and will only enhance the image of Americans being soft, weak and concerned only with themselves and not what they to do other countries.





i think that the people who wouldn't vote for a woman or a black man are already voting republican anyway


Because they're all racist right? The irony...


I personally think that anyone that would vote for a woman or a black man because they are a woman or a black man...is stupid. And an even worse bigot...just the politically correct kind.


That's the kind of voting that has fucked up 75% of the countries in the Souther hemishphere...racial and ethnic based voting...it's flat out the stupidest kind of voting that there is. And it leads to the worst corruption.


My vote is based entirely on the Iraq war...and I am voting for the guy I think is the most likely to finish this war, and win it.








plus, i think the poll bias would be offset by new young voters coming in and voting specifically to vote for a woman or black man


Polls don't mean crap...especially phone polls.



and Obama was never a muslim. don't be retarded.

Ok whatever...he went to an Islamic school as child...make of that what you will.

[whottt]

Kerry was a war hero.

and the idiots who besmirched his good name deserve to be spit on

The reason they "besmirched" his good name...is because he was spitting on htem when they were coming back from Vietnam.


This is a war hero with a good name:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bud_Day



He's one of the staunchest advocates of veteran's rights, and he's come down on the Bush admin as hard as anyone...that said, he'd have rather stayed in a POW camp than vote for Kerry.


That's one of the guys besmirching Kerry's good name...

[Ocotillo]

Corruption thy name is Rudy.

And his foreign policy is batshit insane. Bush is at 25% approval for his clusterfuck foreign policy and Rudy is "I'll see that and raise you"?!?!?!

That is why more than twice the number of people caucased on the D side, they are sick to death of the GOP Bomb somebody, anybody approach to foreign relations.

and as far as Rudy is Mr. 9/11, say what, the main thing he accomplished in the aftermath was get his bad comb over on TV as much as possible. He didn't do shit.

[whottt]

rofl

no way. the evangelicals will stay home when Rudy is the GOP nominee and he will get trounced

If the evangelicals were that big of a deal Reagan and Bush 1 would have never gotten the nomination. And a Democrat would never get elected President...

It's funny that you give so much credence to the one vocal/activists segment of conservatives...they are the minority.


You might be right though...there's certainly no guarantees the Republicans won't outstupid the Democrats...wasn't that long ago that they were doing it(see the 90's).






and if by some force of terrorist attack Giuliani Does get to be president...kiss your civil liberties goodbye my friends!


Ehhh...as long as he wins the Iraq war...which he will. Then I'll vote differently in 12.


See I don't think that anyway is always the right way...that's why moderation rules.


Sincerely,

Whottt, who voted for Gore in 2000, and Clinton in 92 and 96

[Kori Ellis]

Any diehard Hillary-haters that do go out to the polls simply to vote against her will easily be offset by the numbers of women (and feminist men) who will go out to vote for her because they want a woman president

look for a big year at the polls from female candidates all they way across the ballot

I seriously doubt it. I think you underestimate how many people hate her. I big percentage of those are even women.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

Women are threatened by her power and her credentials.

[Wild Cobra]

I think I've pretty much figured out why polls etc. are always liberallly slanted...because liberals are more willing to participate in the polls...just like they tend to be more vocal about their political opinions in general...


This forum is a prime example of that....it's always had about 3-4 more liberals on it than conservatives or moderates...but that didn't win the last election.
I have always felt that way. Glad to see another voice on the issue.

[SouthernFried]

Conservatives look to govt as a necessary evil, libs look to govt as salvation. Libs are more interested, because that's where their hopes and dreams lie, in governmental action.

You will always find more libs in political rooms/debates, etc...and for much longer periods because of this.

[AFBlue]

Libs are more interested, because that's where their hopes and dreams lie.

Conservatives look to govt as a necessary evil, libs look to govt as salvation.

You will always find more libs in political rooms/debates, etc...and for much longer periods because of this.

Too bad you don't find them in the voting booths....especially the young ones.

[SouthernFried]

Too bad you don't find them in the voting booths....especially the young ones.

I don't think that's bad at all ;)

[AFBlue]

I don't think that's bad at all ;)

:lol Point taken.

[Wild Cobra]

everytime a liberal speaks up, a conservative is waiting in the wings to label him or her a traitor, communist, pinko fag, whatever
No, we just choose the proper labels.

Kerry is no hero. There is ample evidence to show he was dishonorable discharged. He still hasn't allowed about 100 pages of his military record to be released. His over-the-top actions after the war has branded him a traitor to the uniform, by probably 90%+ of all veterans who have reenlisted at least once.

Hillary is not a true American. She wants to steal from the rich and give to the poor. Worse yet, she want to micro manage it all. If she could, she would be the Dictator of America.

Obama is the only one who I save from the hateful words of the leading demonrats. I believe he is sincere in his beliefs, I just don't like his liberal views.


and the nature of conservative is that they want to keep the status quo, so naturally liberals would be the ones holding rallies
If keeping America free from excessive regulations and taxation is keeping the status quo, then yes.

We have too damn many social programs. All the demonrats want to raise taxes and spend more money on social programs.

Let me rephrase that. They are trying to buy your vote with my money! I pay more than my fair share of taxes. I'm just glad I don't get as much government as I pay for!


in 2002 the reps fared well because the election was after 911 and before iraq
This is probably true. Too bad they forgot how the conservative views gave them the majority, just to abandon it.


in 2004 the country was split 50/50, and bush only won because his campaign was much, much better than kerrys
He is also a much better man the ms. Heinz's lap dog.


kerry was a terrible candidate, and bush's people had no scruples about being as dirty as possible and slandering a war hero
Since when is the truth dirty?

I cannot think of one thing that was slanderous against Kerry. There were several slanderous things against president Bush however.

[Wild Cobra]

Kerry was a war hero.

and the idiots who besmirched his good name deserve to be spit on
You are a idiot.

First of all, you are just wrong about Kerry.

As for advocating being spit on? In this day in age with deseases, it is considered assault. If you advocate such a thing, you have no ethics.

Shithead. Spit on me, and I will hurt you bad...

[Wild Cobra]

you're far too stupid to be taken seriously
You must be looking in a mirror since you provide no direction as to whom the remark is targeted to.

[inconvertible]

....@ $4.00 a gallon probably not.

....@ $2.60 a gallon maybe...

watch as the election gets closer the the gas prices fall.........

[Wild Cobra]

i was talking to you, stupid
I figured so, but I couldn't help but point out you directed the words to thin air... then you call me stupid...

LOL...

I'm going to die laughing...

[whottt]

please this stupid lie has already been debunked
the school was a religious school -- but that doesn't mean all the students were muslim


Obama himself said he spent two years in a Muslim school.....oops.



In Indonesia, I’d spent 2 years at a Muslim school, 2 years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies. In the Catholic school, when it came time to pray, I’d pretend to close my eyes, then peek around the room. Nothing happened. No angels descended.

That from his book Dreams of My Father, page 142.





Ooops...

Not only that but his religion was listed as Muslim.



The fact that it's now being spun as to act like this guy who had a muslim father and a muslim stepfather and at least a partially Arabic name is now being spun as as someone who's never even sniffed Islam..

Is a bunch of horseshit.

That makes me more suspicious than anything else...why hide it, if it's not worth hiding?


Want to know why?


Because it hurts his case for the Presidency. Plain and simple...


Which was my point.


Whether it's accurate or not....the association is enough to keep him from ever being elected President...that's the point I was making.

You took it to be some personal judgement of Obama...but it's not, it's a reason why he's not going to be elected President.


Apology accepted for your throwing the stupid label around and spewing liberal propaganda...


What's next, you going to argue that most journalists don't have a liberal bias?



See...I can already see you have an extremist stance...you've already demonized Guiliani, and transferred your Bush hate to him, as if he was the one that took us into Iraq...


You are the extremist of the two of us...


I don't hate any of thse candidates...I disliked Bush...but I disliked John Kerry much more...because he is a traitor in my eyes...


He commited treason, and he fought for a movement that resulted in the deaths of several million people and the loss of all property and land for several million more...not to mention condemned them to virtual slavery.


The fact that's he's proud of it makes me want to puke.







As for Obama...I wasn't personally judging him, but since I've been accused of doing so...


I might as well give my opinion on why he wouldn't top my list.


Number one...he's not commited to finishing this war, although he has made some comments I like concerning the Iraq war...


Keep in mind, he's not a commie pinko traitor like Kerry...so I'd vote for him before Kerry, as I would Hilary and just about every othe political candidate in history.


Kerry is a traitor....and there was nothing honorable about his actions.



But as for Obama...why should I vote for him?


What exactly has he done?


I'm sorry, but being Black and having a muslim/arabic sounding surname aren't enough to get my vote....


I think he just wants to be President...but I don't think he has any particular love of this country...and he doesn't deserve the honor...


I'm sorry...but generally speaking I don't want a citizen of the world as the President of the Unites States of America.....I want a guy who puts America first, and nothing I have read or seen from Obama paints him as one of those guys to me.

He's just another douchebag that wants to be President...only without the Patriotism.




http://www.greatdreams.com/2008/obama-refuses-to-pledge.jpg





And BTW, I'm not soley against the idea of having a muslim President...as long as he says what I want to hear...and considers himself an American first. But it's not something I just have to see happen....

[whottt]

and come one whott, i can't believe you're trying to drag up stuff from the civil war to make a point about present-day liberals...doesn't make any sense


Let's see...what are the phrases liberals aim at conservatives:

Crazed greedy war mongering racist apocalyptists

Let's see WWI who was President?

Woodrow Wilson - Democrat


WWII who was President?


Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman - Democrats


Korean War who was President?

Harry S. Truman - Democrat


Vietnam War who as President?

LBJ - Democrat




So by my reckoning....every major war of the 20th century a Democrat was sitting President...


Who dropped a nuke on Japan?


Truman - Democrat


Whose interventionist foreign policy doctrine lead to America's involvement in all of those wars?


Harry S Truman - Democrat




Who founded the KKK


Nathan Bedford Forest - Democrat




Conversely, who kicked the living shit out of the KKK and forced them underground?

US Grant - Rebpublican
William Holden - Rebpublican



Who ended the Vietnam War ?


Gerald Ford - Republican.


Who waged the most successsful and least costly(in terms of lives) covert wars, and police actions in American history:

Ronald Reagan - Rebpublican
Bush 1 - Rebpublican






Racism:

Which President introduced the first major civil rights legislation of the 20th century?


Dwight D. Eisenhower - Republican


Who was the sitting President when the major desegregation legislation begane to be enforced?


Richard M. Nixon.


Who emancipated the slaves?


Lincoln - Republican


More importantly...which President veoted legislation that would have made any bills proposing emancipation illegal?


John Quincy Adams - Republican, arguably the only rival to Bush on the unpopular Presidents list...also the son of a President who was elected sans the popular vote.





So tell me...





Why can't I bring that stuff up?



You don't think it's relevant?


I think it's all extremely relevant.


Even McCarthy, started out as a Democrat...plus he was right...especially about Hollywood...it was being invaded by communists...hence modern Hollywood.

[whottt]

The funny thing is...


I get a bunch of shit for being Pro-War...


Dude, I am a life long Texas Rangers Fan...

I was very well aquainted with W and I was dead set against him being President.

I knew he'd represent big business.
I knew he'd get us into a war.
I knew he'd be about turning a profit.
I knew he was going to be a completely shitty dimplomat.

This was all easily gleaned from his time as owner of the Texas Rangers.



The night he won in 2000...the rant I went on made boutons seem like Newt Gingrich...I literally melted down.




That said?

Bush was still the best owner the Rangers have had...and he was the better of the two candidates in 04.


I want a better candidate...you guys aren't giving them to me.






What has happened here is a case of a man catches his woman cheating with another man...


Yeap, she's a bitch who did him wrong and everyone knows it..


That's W.



In reponse, the man goes completely apeshit and beats her half to death.


That's the Democratic Parties response to W.




You don't get rid of a wrong by commiting a greater wrong.


And the fact remains...we are in Iraq, it can be a positive, for that region of the world, for us.

Give me a better candidate and I'll vote for him...




I am not a conservative so Ron Paul being a conservative on everything but the Iraq war...well, that just doesn't do it for me.


I'd rather him be commited to finishing the war and be a liberal everywhere else...in fact, that'd qualify him as close to my ideal candidate.

[clambake]

what do you get when you mix a skull drop, with multiple acid hits and plant that individual inches away from a toxic urine field?

just kidding whottt.....sort of.....i said it was for posterity!!!!!

[whottt]

Notice how I was doing nothing more than posting facts and the piece of shit, and I do mean he's a piece of total shit in every sense of the word, named clambake, comes in with the personal attacks..

I rest my case.


Now that the piece of shit has entered the thread...I'll take my leave.


Try not to let the piece of shit get in the way of the facts.


I know pieces of shit tend to do that...but you can try...you know, to not let the total and complete piece of shit, get in the way.


Anyway...as you were convincing yourselves that Ron Paul, Hilary Clinton and Barrack Obama have a chance in hell of being the next President...


LOL, and the piece of shit thinks I'm the one on Acid...

[JoeChalupa]

Obama is not a Muslim and that is a very weak attack. It has been debunked but I'm surprised how many conservatives buy into that. Just the other day somebody called into the Chris Duel show and said "Obama is a Musltim" and even after he was corrected he said it again.
Ridiculous statements.

[JoeChalupa]

If you really think that Hillary and Obama have no chance of winning you are fooling yourself. Now Ron Paul on the other hand.....that is a no brainer.

[Soul_Patch]

MUSLIMS MUSLIMS EVERYWHERE!!! OH NO!!! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!


Go out and fill your Suburbans with assault rifles and camo, because them there muslims are on the attack!

Im outfitting my house with gun turrets and razor wire because there are some black people that live next door, and we all know they are probably muslims, and most likely a sleeper cell or something...hell they just had a baby, and he probably is already learning how to be a suicide bomber!

[possessed]

seriously. read political science literature. people simply are not motivated enough by hatred of one candidate to go to the polls to vote against them. it just doesn't happen.
What, and scenarios like this do?


Any diehard Hillary-haters that do go out to the polls simply to vote against her will easily be offset by the numbers of women (and feminist men) who will go out to vote for her because they want a woman president

look for a big year at the polls from female candidates all they way across the ballot
Talk about something completely far-fetched and totally unprecedented.

Your liberalisms blinds you. :cooldevil

And Kerry is as much a war hero as Alec Baldwin is a Canadian.

[possessed]

Let's see...what are the phrases liberals aim at conservatives:

Crazed greedy war mongering racist apocalyptists

You called it, whottt...

MUSLIMS MUSLIMS EVERYWHERE!!! OH NO!!! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!


Go out and fill your Suburbans with assault rifles and camo, because them there muslims are on the attack!

Im outfitting my house with gun turrets and razor wire because there are some black people that live next door, and we all know they are probably muslims, and most likely a sleeper cell or something...hell they just had a baby, and he probably is already learning how to be a suicide bomber!


:dramaquee

[clambake]

Notice how I was doing nothing more than posting facts and the piece of shit, and I do mean he's a piece of total shit in every sense of the word, named clambake, comes in with the personal attacks..

I rest my case.


Now that the piece of shit has entered the thread...I'll take my leave.


Try not to let the piece of shit get in the way of the facts.


I know pieces of shit tend to do that...but you can try...you know, to not let the total and complete piece of shit, get in the way.


Anyway...as you were convincing yourselves that Ron Paul, Hilary Clinton and Barrack Obama have a chance in hell of being the next President...


LOL, and the piece of shit thinks I'm the one on Acid...
i said i was kidding. :lol

but since you brought it up, we could just study your head case history to see what directions you've taken.

at one point you follow your owners every move and claim anyone that questions them is a traitor that sucks OBL's dick. on and on about how the war is about terrorism.

then, just like minions do, you say you don't care that it's about oil. i don't need to know your position when i can get it by watching the adminstrations actions.

thanks for the recap of what we already know. you say Kerry should have been on trial for treason. Bush senior said anyone that reveals the identity of covert CIA agents should be tried for treason.

you stand firmly to the right, so all of your opinons are weighted.

[leemajors]

the christian right turns out in droves to vote, most "liberals" don't.

[whottt]

Obama is not a Muslim and that is a very weak attack. It has been debunked but I'm surprised how many conservatives buy into that. Just the other day somebody called into the Chris Duel show and said "Obama is a Musltim" and even after he was corrected he said it again.
Ridiculous statements.


I didn't say he was a muslim...I said he was born one and went to a muslim school...both are facts.

His name is Arabic...and with Muslims the son takes the Father's religion, and that he went to a Muslim shool is information taken from his own biography.


Fact. Fact. Fact.


And both are enough to keep him from being elected President of this country.

Also a fact...that's all it takes.


What do you want to bet he is not the next President of this country?


I wouldn't vote for the guy because I never heard of his ass prior to 3 years ago and all I have heard about him since is that he's black and his Father was a muslim...and he pretty much wants to pull us out of Iraq.


Not enough to get my vote unless the circumstances are completely dire.


Why are you voting for him?




I have a clear line of logic on my candidates...I want one commited to finishing the Iraq war.

That's the first, second and third priority...


Since there are a multitude of anti-war candidates...I wonder what leads you to Obama?






What's your voting criteria? I hope it's not just because he's black...because that's a stupid reason to elect a guy President.

[whottt]

i said i was kidding. :lol

but since you brought it up, we could just study your head case history to see what directions you've taken.


Study my head case history all you want...I can tell that you're a dumbass with the total knowledge of a CNN newsblurb...







at one point you follow your owners every move and claim anyone that questions them is a traitor that sucks OBL's dick. on and on about how the war is about terrorism.

False...that's not what leads me to say people are sucking Usama's dick...I say that to people who say the exact same things he does.


If you guys were half as worried about providing a decent political candidate as you are about hating Bush...Bush wouldn't be the President.


And still you bitch...





then, just like minions do, you say you don't care that it's about oil. i don't need to know your position when i can get it by watching the adminstrations actions.


No...you're just stupid.





thanks for the recap of what we already know. you say Kerry should have been on trial for treason. Bush senior said anyone that reveals the identity of covert CIA agents should be tried for treason.

Bush senior can have that opinion...

The fact that it is legally defined as treason to negotiate with foreign powers the United States is at war with, while serving in the US military, without government sanction...is beyond opinion, and that is what John Kerry did.


See...you say stupid stuff that are just media hyped opinion issues and you drag moral equivalancies with them, and you try to use them as facts, and they aren't...you're just fucking stupid. Hopelessly stupid IMO. And then more you type...the more convinced I am of it.

Whereas I actually do have a factual basis for just about every stance I have.


You say where are the WMD...illegal war for oil blah blah blah.

I say we had legal recourse to go into Iraq based on Saddam's repeated violations of the cease fire agreement with us...I am stating a fact.

You are stating media bullshit.





you stand firmly to the right, so all of your opinons are weighted.


No...you're just stupid. I stand to the right on the Iraq War...and with good reason.

On just about every other issue I am moderate...to tell you the truth, I think my stance on the war is moderate.


I think cutting and running is a radical stance...it's an extremist stance, whether you are on the right, or the left.




The fact that I am nuke happy is the Democrat in me...they are the ones that nuke people.


Besides...death is death, it's not like nuclear death is worse than any other kind...it's still death.

[clambake]

i never said cut and run.

if death is death then why care who has a nuke?

You think the best way to address world problems is to alienate the world. thats stupid.

[whottt]

i never said cut and run.

You didn't?


Who'd you vote for in 04? There was only one non cut and run candidate...


And I know you are going to say Kerry wasn't a guy who was going to cut and run...which is going to make you look awfully foolish.







if death is death then why care who has a nuke?

Because if it's not death...it really sucks.





You think the best way to address world problems is to alienate the world. thats stupid.


No...we haven't alienated the world, we've alienated the stupid half of it...if we pull out, then we'll have alienated everyone.


How can you not see it?



Show me anywhere quitters are respected or liked...in any field of human endeavor.

[clambake]

you keep insisting that i advocate a pullout. i only wish for a progressive direction.


belfast was no cakewalk, but we managed to co-exist. no relationship has to be 50-50. an appearance of such is all that needs to be established. this is not germany or japan. why do you compare it?

[whottt]

you keep insisting that i advocate a pullout. i only wish for a progressive direction.

Frankly that's a crock of shit.


Who did you vote for? It matters.

Johyn Kerry would have done exactly what he did in Vietnam...push like hell to say let's get the fuck out of here, and let the bodies fall where they may....only this time he would have been President.

He was unelectable...it's like you guys were determined to come up with a shittier candidate than Bush...and you succeeded.



As for Iraq...what really were you people expecting this to be like?


Note: I am not saying you should have endorsed this war in any way shape or form...I'm just saying...were you expecting it to be easy?

You thought all those Shias and Sunnis were going to have a love in? I didn't.


It's the freaking Middle East. We are not getting our ass kicked in that country...the terrorists are.



belfast was no cakewalk, but we managed to co-exist. no relationship has to be 50-50. an appearance of such is all that needs to be established. this is not germany or japan. why do you compare it?


Actually I think it is pretty similar to Japan...only the Islamic Fundamentalists aren't as tough an opponent as the Japanese were.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

i feel like the general IQ for this thread is hovering around a 55

[Ignignokt]

i feel like the general IQ for this thread is hovering around a 55


it coincided with your appearance.

[remingtonbo2001]

i feel like the general IQ for this thread is hovering around a 55

That's a little high...don't you think.

Some of the post made here make Mike Tyson look like Albert Einstein.

The sad thing...There is a sect of the population which believes that the War on Terrorism is biggotry towards the muslim religion...They believe Bush is as ignorant as your common shrub, yet intellegent enough to mastermind a war purely for the finicial gain of a few.

They use quantitive contridictions as there mode of attack. It works to an extent. You get so tired of arguing that you simply just let them live in their fantasty land and hope they don't get in the way of the those who actually wish to contribute something positive and productive to this nation.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well we can thank whott and bush because Iraq will NEVER attack us again..I don't want to cut and run I think I am ready to sacrifice another 3,000 or 4,000 deaths for an islamic based govt.. wahoo..war is fun!!!

[boutons_]

"war is fun"

... and extremely profitable

All the right-wingers here all all pro-bogus-war-for-oil, just long as:

1) they and their families don't have to go fight/die/be-maimed in it

2) they don't have to pay for it in $1000s/year of additional taxes, for decades.

Le't have dubya and dickhead start conscription and raise taxes to pay for Iraq, and let's see how many red-state Macho Men start squealing like pussies.

[Harry Callahan]

everytime a liberal speaks up, a conservative is waiting in the wings to label him or her a traitor, communist, pinko fag, whatever

and the nature of conservative is that they want to keep the status quo, so naturally liberals would be the ones holding rallies

in 2002 the reps fared well because the election was after 911 and before iraq
in 2004 the country was split 50/50, and bush only won because his campaign was much, much better than kerrys
kerry was a terrible candidate, and bush's people had no scruples about being as dirty as possible and slandering a war hero

:nope

When you refer to John Kerry as a "slandered war hero", please take the time to google and read his congressional testimony from 1972 (I think that is the correct year). He essentially threw his fellow servicemen as a group completely under the bus with blanket statements saying they behaved similarly to Ghengis Khan's hordes, murdering women and children, cutting off heads, arms, legs etc. Atrocities by Americans did occur in Vietnam; however, Kerry generalized the situation way way too much and accused the military of conducting a policy of terror against the general population. Kerry's activities and behavior in the early seventies will never be forgiven by many soldiers, airmen, and sailors. I doubt Kerry would be very popular in San Antonio in particular with all of the retired military there.

[JoeChalupa]

Well.......there you go again.

[remingtonbo2001]

"war is fun"

... and extremely profitable

All the right-wingers here all all pro-bogus-war-for-oil, just long as:

1) they and their families don't have to go fight/die/be-maimed in it

2) they don't have to pay for it in $1000s/year of additional taxes, for decades.

Le't have dubya and dickhead start conscription and raise taxes to pay for Iraq, and let's see how many red-state Macho Men start squealing like pussies.


I signed up Feburary of 2003. Unfortunately I could not get in due my health record ( I contracted Mono on 4 seperate occassions within a 3yr span).

I wouldn't mind our taxes being raised if I knew our money would be spent on an offensive statagey combating terrorist, thus ensuring the safety of our nation and our freedom.

[BonnerDynasty]

Reps have no chance.

[ElNono]

...thus ensuring the safety of our nation and our freedom

I don't know about you, but I like my freedom:

- Without illegal government wiretaps
- With respect for justice and due process
- Without the presumption of being a terrorist before I show otherwise
- Without the fear mongering and plain FUD campaign.

[DarkReign]

I signed up Feburary of 2003. Unfortunately I could not get in due my health record ( I contracted Mono on 4 seperate occassions within a 3yr span).

I wouldn't mind our taxes being raised if I knew our money would be spent on an offensive statagey combating terrorist, thus ensuring the safety of our nation and our freedom.

I am now dumber for having read this.

Thanks, asshole.

[remingtonbo2001]

I am now dumber for having read this.

Thanks, asshole.

Really...If your really concerned about your level of intellegence, then get off this board and read a book.


Your words of vulgarity have enlightened me. :rolleyes It's the vulgarity that I have recieved from those that identify themselves as liberal, which has contributed to my biased distain towards the democratic party. That's unfair to those democrats that actually want to work proactively for this nation. Unfortanety, the inconsideration of others, such as "Dark Reign", conitnue to hinder such progress.

[DarkReign]

Really...If your really concerned about your level of intellegence, then get off this board and read a book.


Your words of vulgarity have enlightened me. :rolleyes It's the vulgarity that I have recieved from those that identify themselves as liberal, which has contributed to my biased distain towards the democratic party. That's unfair to those democrats that actually want to work proactively for this nation. Unfortanety, the inconsideration of others, such as "Dark Reign", conitnue to hinder such progress.

You couldnt find "freedom" and "safety" with two hands and a flashlight on an island.

Newsflash, your "taxes" being raised wouldnt pay for this "offensive strategy" to combat a moving target of ambiguous nature we call "terrorism" with your paltry $14 an hour job.

[clambake]

"If it weren't for that damn mono" says dick cheney.

[O-Factor]

I don't know about you, but I like my freedom:

- Without illegal government wiretaps
- With respect for justice and due process
- Without the presumption of being a terrorist before I show otherwise
- Without the fear mongering and plain FUD campaign.

So what if we had the wire tapping before 9/11 and were able to stop it. Would you give 2 shits if the goverment listened in on a conversation between you and your boyfriend???

Besides now that the liberal media and ACLU got all up in arms about it, any potential terrorists living in the US have now has found an alternate means of communication. Thanks a lot.

[clambake]

So what if we had the wire tapping before 9/11 and were able to stop it.
they had the same information about the impending attack that they would have had with wiretaps.

what good is information if you don't act on it?

[O-Factor]

they had the same information about the impending attack that they would have had with wiretaps.

what good is information if you don't act on it?

Thats right I forgot, Its that heathen George W. Bush, who planned 9/11,(thank you Micheal Moore and Rosie O'Donell) so that we could eventually go to war with Iraq and take their oil. :rolleyes

Which accounts to 3.5% of all our imported oil.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Thats right I forgot, Its that heathen George W. Bush, who planned 9/11,(thank you Micheal Moore and Rosie O'Donell) so that we could eventually go to war with Iraq and take their oil. :rolleyes

Which accounts to 3.5% of all our imported oil.


it was the stockpiles of wmds dummy..

[ChumpDumper]

So what if we had the wire tapping before 9/11 and were able to stop it.They may have been able to discuss that had the administration had a cabinet level meeting about terra between 1/20 and 9/4.

[ElNono]

So what if we had the wire tapping before 9/11 and were able to stop it. Would you give 2 shits if the goverment listened in on a conversation between you and your boyfriend???

Besides now that the liberal media and ACLU got all up in arms about it, any potential terrorists living in the US have now has found an alternate means of communication. Thanks a lot.

You missed the point by a mile. It doesn't matter when it started or wether you think it's stupid or not. The point is that this administration ordered companies to do something illegal, behind the back of congress, and now they want congress to clean up the act for them.
Further, they could have done everything legally, by sending to congress a law to approve the taps, and with a republican congress they probably would have had it approved. The problem is that such a law would have been declared unconstitutional in a whim, and that's why it didn't happen that way.
Instead, in a display of the arrogance that has characterized these guys, they went the illegal route, and did it anyways. Now that they got caught red handed, not only they don't want to own up to it, they want congress to issue a get-out-of-jail-free card to their cohorts.

It's not that complicated: If you or I break the law, we will suffer the consequences. These guys want the pie and eat it too.

[Yonivore]

You missed the point by a mile. It doesn't matter when it started or wether you think it's stupid or not. The point is that this administration ordered companies to do something illegal, behind the back of congress, and now they want congress to clean up the act for them.
Exactly what law was broken?


Further, they could have done everything legally, by sending to congress a law to approve the taps, and with a republican congress they probably would have had it approved. The problem is that such a law would have been declared unconstitutional in a whim, and that's why it didn't happen that way.
There argument is they did everything legally...and, as far as I know, no court of competent jurisdiction has found otherwise and had their finding stand.


Instead, in a display of the arrogance that has characterized these guys, they went the illegal route, and did it anyways. Now that they got caught red handed, not only they don't want to own up to it, they want congress to issue a get-out-of-jail-free card to their cohorts.
Again, what were they caught doing?


It's not that complicated: If you or I break the law, we will suffer the consequences. These guys want the pie and eat it too.
If the phone companies want to share their data with you, there's no law against it.

[fyatuk]

so anyway, to those of you who seem a bit less ignorant than i on these matters...do republicans have a shot at winning this? Or is it pretty much in the bag for the Dems?

The have as good of a shot as they normally do. It all depends on who the Indy's go for. That won't be Clinton, and probably not Obama (at least not in force, purely due to his lack of experience). At the same time, some of the Rep candidates would have the same effect.

VP candidates could have a big effect as well.

If McCain gets the Republican nomination, he'll likely win unless he picks a real stinker of a VP candidate, since he's seen as a political middleman and few people have any real problem with him. Other than that, its probably which candidate gets the indy's to fall for their message.

AKA, there's no point in guessing what's going to happen in the election until we know who the candidates and running mates will be.

[fyatuk]

I don't know about you, but I like my freedom:

- Without illegal government wiretaps
- With respect for justice and due process
- Without the presumption of being a terrorist before I show otherwise
- Without the fear mongering and plain FUD campaign.

There were no illegal wiretaps. At least no more than any other president. There was a misguided law that allowed them that Bush acted other. He stopped when he got busted because it was ethically wrong, but it was legal (barely).

I'm hoping your referring to Gitmo, etc, about justice and due process. That I strongly dislike, but it really is quite true the place violates no treaties or laws, weirdly enough. If you aren't referring to that, I have no idea what you mean.

Dems are just as good at fear mongering btw.

[ElNono]

Exactly what law was broken?

The law they broke is US Code Title 50, Chapter 36. Since I'm willing to bet you're not familiar with it at all, yet you decided to comment on it, here's a link so you can educate yourself:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/ch36.html

Specifically the portion where a FISA judge needs to approve a tapping request from a law enforcement agency before the tap starts or up to 48 hours after it started.


There argument is they did everything legally...and, as far as I know, no court of competent jurisdiction has found otherwise and had their finding stand.


That's still being decided. Here are the case files:
https://www.eff.org/cases/att

The government attempted to throw out the case by calling on the 'State Secrets' doctrine, but the judge ruled it doesn't apply in this case (since Bush commented on it, thus it couldn't possibly be a secret).
Why do you think they're pushing so hard to give immunity to telecoms?



Again, what were they caught doing?


They were caught installing a tapping devices in the central nodes of the phone system. Basically, giving them the ability to tap on every and any call at will, not just foreign communications.

More here: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/04/70619



If the phone companies want to share their data with you, there's no law against it.

BZZZZZTTT... Wrong.

You need to do more reading: Electronic Communications Privacy Act

http://floridalawfirm.com/privacy.html

[ElNono]

There were no illegal wiretaps. At least no more than any other president. There was a misguided law that allowed them that Bush acted other. He stopped when he got busted because it was ethically wrong, but it was legal (barely).


See my reply to Yoni on the subject. You too need to read some more.



I'm hoping your referring to Gitmo, etc, about justice and due process. That I strongly dislike, but it really is quite true the place violates no treaties or laws, weirdly enough. If you aren't referring to that, I have no idea what you mean.


I am referring to Gitmo. And, it does violates the original treaty that leased the land to the US in the first place:

The ongoing detention of prisoners at the base is in itself said to constitute a violation of the original treaty, which explicitly states that the base is to be used for "coaling and naval purposes only, and for no other purpose." The treaty also explicitly prohibits the use of "commercial, industrial or other enterprise within said areas.", yet the base sports half a dozen fast-food concessions, including a McDonald's.

More here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitmo) and here (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/04/22/MNGSLPAVUL1.DTL&type=politics)

[Yonivore]

The law they broke is US Code Title 50, Chapter 36. Since I'm willing to bet you're not familiar with it at all, yet you decided to comment on it, here's a link so you can educate yourself:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/ch36.html

Specifically the portion where a FISA judge needs to approve a tapping request from a law enforcement agency before the tap starts or up to 48 hours after it started.



That's still being decided. Here are the case files:
https://www.eff.org/cases/att

The government attempted to throw out the case by calling on the 'State Secrets' doctrine, but the judge ruled it doesn't apply in this case (since Bush commented on it, thus it couldn't possibly be a secret).
Why do you think they're pushing so hard to give immunity to telecoms?



They were caught installing a tapping devices in the central nodes of the phone system. Basically, giving them the ability to tap on every and any call at will, not just foreign communications.

More here: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/04/70619



BZZZZZTTT... Wrong.

You need to do more reading: Electronic Communications Privacy Act

http://floridalawfirm.com/privacy.html
Uh, you've got your wires crossed...

The NSA Surveillance program (over which the question is whether or not FISA can supercede the president's constitutional authority vis a vis foreign policy and intelligence gathering) and the data mining agreements between the administration and the telecoms (which did not involve wiretaps and, therefore, don't violate the Electronic Communications Privacy Act) are two different issues...

Care for a do over?

[ElNono]

Uh, you've got your wires crossed...

The NSA Surveillance program (over which the question is whether or not FISA can supercede the president's constitutional authority vis a vis foreign policy and intelligence gathering) and the data mining agreements between the administration and the telecoms (which did not involve wiretaps and, therefore, don't violate the Electronic Communications Privacy Act) are two different issues...

Care for a do over?

I gather you didn't even bother to read any of the links I provided.
First of all, the president is not above the constitution or the laws.
There's no such thing as a 'presidential constitutional authority' codified in law or the constitution (if there is, please feel free to link to the relevant law or article of the constitution that grants such authority)

Now, the one that is confused about the wiretaps is you. Please go read both the eff.org site and the Wired article I referenced earlier.

And please, before you reply again, do some research and backup what you say with actual sources. We can all spew bullshit, but that doesn't make it right or true.

[Yonivore]

I gather you didn't even bother to read any of the links I provided.
First of all, the president is not above the constitution or the laws.
No one says he is. But, the legislature can't pass a law that subordinates the constitutional authority of the executive. That's the central question surrounding the FISA vs. NSA Surveillance program. Trust me, if a law had been broken, people would be dragged before Congress, a Special Prosecutor, or court...or all three.

The fact the question exists is the reason this has yet to be decided.


There's no such thing as a 'presidential constitutional authority' codified in law or the constitution (if there is, please feel free to link to the relevant law or article of the constitution that grants such authority)
Article II


Now, the one that is confused about the wiretaps is you. Please go read both the eff.org site and the Wired article I referenced earlier.
I don't think so, the telecoms are being accused of giving access to data, not actual conversations. They can sell that same data to you or me.


And please, before you reply again, do some research and backup what you say with actual sources. We can all spew bullshit, but that doesn't make it right or true.
There's nothing new on either of these cases and, the fact that Congressional Democrats have failed to produce a case after millions of pages of documents delivered, countless hearings, and witch hunts, only proves it. The only thing that's happened is that the New York Times has destroyed a valuable intelligence asset.

[Wild Cobra]

The law they broke is US Code Title 50, Chapter 36. Since I'm willing to bet you're not familiar with it at all, yet you decided to comment on it, here's a link so you can educate yourself:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/ch36.html

How so? First paragraph from US Code Title 50, Chapter 36 section 1802 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html):


(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—



Specifically the portion where a FISA judge needs to approve a tapping request from a law enforcement agency before the tap starts or up to 48 hours after it started.

Where does that override the "notwithstanding" heading? Where is it? I didn't see it, but I'm not about to read everything. Is there something that requires section 1802 to comply with that?


That's still being decided. Here are the case files:
https://www.eff.org/cases/att

The case will be dismissed, or they will lose. Some judges are activists, and will allow cases to go on that shouldn't.



They were caught installing a tapping devices in the central nodes of the phone system. Basically, giving them the ability to tap on every and any call at will, not just foreign communications.

I would really like to understand this. I first worked on an AT&T DACS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_access_and_cross-connect_system) frame in 1992. The systems are built such that any call can be monitored, rerouted, etc., to and from any location. All it takes is a link to the computer of any node capable of the bandwidth you need. At the node, it's just keyboard commands. This means nothing more than having a circuit to the service channel of the system. This approach has been implemented in all newer equipment as well. No "tapping devises" are installed. Just wires. If the entire traffic is to be monitored, then only a tap into the 'baseband' is needed.

Have a valid non-propaganda source for this since all the switches already have this capability? Someone is just talking out their ass, and you believe it.

If you had the facts strait, I might believe there is something other than lies and propaganda at play here.

My God man... I was working on T3 circuits in the 80's. Our DACS frame would handle 120 full duplex DS1 circuits. Each DS1 was divided into several other circuits, from 1200 baud data to T1's. Even PCM30 and ISDN for digital telephone circuits.

Some old technology I found searching for the DACS I worked on:

AT&T Document, just less than 10 years old (http://www.corp.att.com/gov/docs/vol_1sec1a.pdf)

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/DACS.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

Wow... This gets sillier than I thought...

The alleged system that the "tapping devise" was added to is a 4ESS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4ESS_switch), right? Well now, that is of the same era of the AT&T DACS III I worked on. It used the same computer, we called it a microsequencer. Care to see the manuals for the computer that is used in a 4ESS:

AT&T 3B2 Minicomputer manuals (http://www.imsai8080.com/computers/3b2/)

Note, the newest ones are dated 1986.

Don't you think if there was some truth to it, that the government would tap into a system capable of more than a T3 baseband, and DS1 channels? Hell, mine was a military version. It may have been a 4ESS since it used the same computer!

I was surprised that this class of system is still in use. However, plenty of phone conversations can be monitored from just one DS1 channel, at least 64 at a time, depending on compression.

Still.... If there was some big secret tap being installed, wouldn't it be on a SONET (Synchronous optical networking) system that has access to UDWDM (Ultra Dense Wave Division Multiplexers,) or better?

[ElNono]

No one says he is. But, the legislature can't pass a law that subordinates the constitutional authority of the executive. That's the central question surrounding the FISA vs. NSA Surveillance program. Trust me, if a law had been broken, people would be dragged before Congress, a Special Prosecutor, or court...or all three.
The fact the question exists is the reason this has yet to be decided.


There's no question. The legislature can pass any law they deem necessary, and the president has the ability to either sign and enact the law, or veto it if he thinks it trumps his abilities. Furthermore, any new president vows to uphold the constitution, including abiding by any laws enacted at the time he takes office. If a president believes a law might not pass constitutional muster, then he has legal options at his disposal:
1) Ask Congress to change the law
2) Challenge the law in court to have it declared unconstitutional

Notice how there's no option '3) ignore there's a law'. As a matter of fact, only after this guy got caught by the NYT, he went for option 1, and obtained the Protect America Act of 2007.



Article II


Please go ahead and quote the part where it says the President has the authority to break the law. Don't look too hard. Even in the 'Hamilton and Madison' view, which is the theory that gives the Executive the greatest power under Article II, there's no such claim.

Here: Article II (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/)

It's even annotated.



I don't think so, the telecoms are being accused of giving access to data, not actual conversations. They can sell that same data to you or me.


When you tap into fiber, data and voice are the same thing. At least I see Wild Cobra understands that much. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act states that no personal information can be shared with anybody, for commercial purposes or otherwise.


There's nothing new on either of these cases and, the fact that Congressional Democrats have failed to produce a case after millions of pages of documents delivered, countless hearings, and witch hunts, only proves it. The only thing that's happened is that the New York Times has destroyed a valuable intelligence asset.

I can see you didn't even bother reading. Both articles talk about the same case. I wouldn't expect Democrats to produce anything, in light that they don't want to appear soft on Terror. Is there anything this Democrat Congress did right so far?

[ElNono]

How so? First paragraph from US Code Title 50, Chapter 36 section 1802 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html):

Where does that override the "notwithstanding" heading? Where is it? I didn't see it, but I'm not about to read everything. Is there something that requires section 1802 to comply with that?


...for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath

You must have missed that part. AG never sent any certification under oath to FISA about any massive wiretaps going from 2002 to 2007.



The case will be dismissed, or they will lose. Some judges are activists, and will allow cases to go on that shouldn't.


Well, thats your opinion. Certainly respectable, but backed up by no actual facts.



I would really like to understand this. I first worked on an AT&T DACS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_access_and_cross-connect_system) frame in 1992. The systems are built such that any call can be monitored, rerouted, etc., to and from any location. All it takes is a link to the computer of any node capable of the bandwidth you need. At the node, it's just keyboard commands. This means nothing more than having a circuit to the service channel of the system. This approach has been implemented in all newer equipment as well. No "tapping devises" are installed. Just wires. If the entire traffic is to be monitored, then only a tap into the 'baseband' is needed.

Have a valid non-propaganda source for this since all the switches already have this capability? Someone is just talking out their ass, and you believe it.

If you had the facts strait, I might believe there is something other than lies and propaganda at play here.

My God man... I was working on T3 circuits in the 80's. Our DACS frame would handle 120 full duplex DS1 circuits. Each DS1 was divided into several other circuits, from 1200 baud data to T1's. Even PCM30 and ISDN for digital telephone circuits.

Some old technology I found searching for the DACS I worked on:

AT&T Document, just less than 10 years old (http://www.corp.att.com/gov/docs/vol_1sec1a.pdf)

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/DACS.jpg


I'm actually glad you bring up the technical aspect, since I did a fairly good amount of work in the telecom business since the Dialogic era (AT&T DSP32 hardware) in the early 80's. It makes it easier to explain what was being done.
I'm actually going to clarify to you how the system was being tapped, so you can also take it as a response to the other (4ESS) post containing incorrect assumptions you made.

The NSA secure room in the SBC building in Folsom's street was next to the 4ESS switching room. That doesn't mean that the 4ESS were being tapped. In fact, they were not. What was tapped were the actual fiber optic lines, by means of splicing and connection to a splitter board (AT&T document "Study Group 3, LGX/Splitter Wiring, San Francisco" dated 12/10/02 ), that fed into the secure room which contained a bunch of Sun servers, Juniper M40e and M160 backbone routers, along with a Narus STA 6400 (STA stands for Semantic Traffic Analyzer, brochure here (http://www.narus.com/products/intercept.html) ), along with other switches and equipment (full list here (https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/Mark%20Klein%20Unredacted%20Decl-Including%20Exhibits.PDF), on Page 21)

The affected networks being actively tapped from that particular office include: ConXion, Verio, XO, Genuity, Qwest, PAIX, Allegiance, Abovenet, Global Crossing, C&W, UUNET, Level 3, Sprint, Telia, PSINet and MAE-West.
Notice that there might be more rooms like this on other AT&T offices, tapping additional networks.

Now, this guy (Mark Klein) didn't just write a blog with the story. He testified in front of a judge, under oath and under penalty of perjury. If it's so easy as you think to prove he's lying, why does AT&T calls on the government to throw the case away under 'State Secrets'? Why not let the case be judged on its merits and show the dude is a liar and have him locked up on perjury charges?
Further, their request of immunity from Congress make no sense. FISA already grants immunity to telecoms when they wiretap under the FISA act. If they didn't do anything illegal, then they don't need any immunity. They already have it.
The problem is, they didn't do this under FISA. So now they're liable for going around the law.

[Purple & Gold]

ElNono keeps shitting on Repubs. :clap :clap

[ElNono]

ElNono keeps shitting on Repubs. :clap :clap

You know, it might look like that because I mostly been arguing with Reps here, and I do have my own formed opinion of the current administration, but I'm not fond of Democrats either.
As a matter of fact, they're doing such a lousy job in Congress right now, with all the moaning and bickering without getting anything accomplished, and such bad presidential candidates, that I wouldn't be surprised to see people turning around and going for a Giuliani or McCain vote (which brings us back on topic, BTW)

[Purple & Gold]

You know, it might look like that because I mostly been arguing with Reps here, and I do have my own formed opinion of the current administration, but I'm not fond of Democrats either.
As a matter of fact, they're doing such a lousy job in Congress right now, with all the moaning and bickering without getting anything accomplished, and such bad presidential candidates, that I wouldn't be surprised to see people turning around and going for a Giuliani or McCain vote (which brings us back on topic, BTW)

Democrats have been doing a very poor job. Half of them won't scratch their ass because they're afraid of losing votes. But if you think the Democrat candidates are weak, the Republican ones are beyond weak. And most voters will blame the Executive branch more so than the Legislative branch when things are going wrong. Only way Republicans win is because Hilary is a woman and Obama is black. Which means that a Republican win is very possible.

[Wild Cobra]

...for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath

You must have missed that part. AG never sent any certification under oath to FISA about any massive wiretaps going from 2002 to 2007.

You missed the unwritten loophole. Pull the tap down for a day, just hours, or even seconds. Then start over.



I'm actually glad you bring up the technical aspect, since I did a fairly good amount of work in the telecom business since the Dialogic era (AT&T DSP32 hardware) in the early 80's. It makes it easier to explain what was being done.
I'm actually going to clarify to you how the system was being tapped, so you can also take it as a response to the other (4ESS) post containing incorrect assumptions you made.

Maybe my assumptions are in error. Still, the affidavit isn't specific enough in fact. Circumstantial facts, yes. Actual correlation to the assumptions, no.

You should know this is an old story, and the prior story I heard limited it to the 4ESS room, although I didn't know at the time that was a piece of equipment the same or similar to what I worked on in 1992.



The NSA secure room in the SBC building in Folsom's street was next to the 4ESS switching room. That doesn't mean that the 4ESS were being tapped. In fact, they were not. What was tapped were the actual fiber optic lines, by means of splicing and connection to a splitter board (AT&T document "Study Group 3, LGX/Splitter Wiring, San Francisco" dated 12/10/02 ), that fed into the secure room which contained a bunch of Sun servers, Juniper M40e and M160 backbone routers, along with a Narus STA 6400 (STA stands for Semantic Traffic Analyzer, brochure here (http://www.narus.com/products/intercept.html) ), along with other switches and equipment (full list here (https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/Mark%20Klein%20Unredacted%20Decl-Including%20Exhibits.PDF), on Page 21)

Ever hear of updates and redundancy?

Maybe, just maybe... this was an upgrade that included secure NSA equipment. That doesn't mean all circuits were being routed to it, but no unauthorized people would be allowed in such a room. At least not when the red and black signals are both available, or when the equipment is in a physical non-secure mode.

Now I agree, this is most likely a NSA upgrade to communications surveillance. Still, how is having the equipment in place to exercise legal wire taping illegal? As the affidavit describes the installation, my best guess is what I said before. The backbone(s) were tapped. They did it at such a level that they didn't need to borrow or steal any bandwidth from normal communications. That is just a few steps better than commanding the node controllers to monitor lines.

Still, how is it illegal, unless used illegally? There are legal procedure to be used, and this just helps expedite the ease of access. Also, in a real time monitoring way, this has other useful applications that are still legal.

It's not the capability that's wrong here, but weather or not the ability is used improperly.

Show me some illegal activity. I still don't see it. Only unsubstantiated allegations. Could be nothing more than slander.


The affected networks being actively tapped from that particular office include: ConXion, Verio, XO, Genuity, Qwest, PAIX, Allegiance, Abovenet, Global Crossing, C&W, UUNET, Level 3, Sprint, Telia, PSINet and MAE-West.
Notice that there might be more rooms like this on other AT&T offices, tapping additional networks.

What if AT&T planned to bulk encrypt everything? How would it be accomplished?:

1) Place splitters in the circuits.

2) Install encryption equipment at distant ends.

3) Test equipment functionality.

4) Switch the splitter paths at each end at the same time.

With modern hacking going on everywhere, this is also a likely scenario of what is happening. Encryption equipment was normally used in microwave LOS transmissions and satellite, otherwise anyone with knowledge of communications modulation techniques can listen in on any conversation. This was often skipped with fiber optics because you had to make a physical tap to 'listen in' if you didn't have access to one of the UNIX servers. You know what... Over the years there have been instances of people doing just that. Splicing in, often damaging the optic cables to listen in and directly access dedicated bank lines, etc. When these modern hackers find out their attempts are useless because everything is encrypted, they will stop damaging the expensive optic cables.

Food for thought. It is a possible scenario, Klein's assumption is not the only possibility.



Now, this guy (Mark Klein) didn't just write a blog with the story. He testified in front of a judge, under oath and under penalty of perjury. If it's so easy as you think to prove he's lying, why does AT&T calls on the government to throw the case away under 'State Secrets'? Why not let the case be judged on its merits and show the dude is a liar and have him locked up on perjury charges?

I didn't see anything compelling. His accounts lack useful facts to draw a proper conclusion.



Further, their request of immunity from Congress make no sense. FISA already grants immunity to telecoms when they wiretap under the FISA act. If they didn't do anything illegal, then they don't need any immunity. They already have it.
The problem is, they didn't do this under FISA. So now they're liable for going around the law.

Why doesn't it? If they have a compelling reason not to go to court, shouldn't they try? Maybe it is just secure upgrades, outside of FISA work. It could be leased NSA equipment that they will not allow AT&T employees to have internal access to. Any idea how many man-hours of work it would take to give documents to the opposing side, especially when many are classified and need to have parts blacked out?

It comes to money and principle. Those suing need to show more compelling evidence. Maybe we should just make up plausible allegations against you, and make you shell out a hundred thousand dollars to defend yourself. Would that be comparable to AT&T having to shell out several millions to defend themselves for allegations that are just plausible, with no compelling evidence?

[Holt's Cat]

The one thing the GOP has going for it is that Her Majesty's negatives are pretty high. A lot of people don't like her, and not just within the GOP.

[BonnerDynasty]

Ron Paul makes so much fucking sense when he talks about the economy yet none of these goon republicans even care b/c of his shitty foreign policy talk. No we shouldn't have to be world police but we cannot be isolationists either.

[Holt's Cat]

The problem is the horde of slack-jawed Southern inbreds who have infiltrated the party.

[possessed]

The problem is the horde of slack-jawed Southern inbreds who have infiltrated the party.
Who let Bill Clinton in?

[Holt's Cat]

Who let Bill Clinton in?


http://www.aetn.org/election2002/assets/images/mhuckabee1.jpg

He is, basically.

[possessed]

http://www.aetn.org/election2002/assets/images/mhuckabee1.jpg

He is, basically.
Okay, I'll give you that one.

[ElNono]

You missed the unwritten loophole. Pull the tap down for a day, just hours, or even seconds. Then start over.

There's no loophole. The one year period determines how long the tap can go on for by presidential order alone (ie: without the review of a judge). The requirement of the AG to send the written certification under oath needs to happen in order to start the tap.


Maybe my assumptions are in error. Still, the affidavit isn't specific enough in fact. Circumstantial facts, yes. Actual correlation to the assumptions, no.
You should know this is an old story, and the prior story I heard limited it to the 4ESS room, although I didn't know at the time that was a piece of equipment the same or similar to what I worked on in 1992.

Ever hear of updates and redundancy?

Maybe, just maybe... this was an upgrade that included secure NSA equipment. That doesn't mean all circuits were being routed to it, but no unauthorized people would be allowed in such a room. At least not when the red and black signals are both available, or when the equipment is in a physical non-secure mode.

Now I agree, this is most likely a NSA upgrade to communications surveillance. Still, how is having the equipment in place to exercise legal wire taping illegal? As the affidavit describes the installation, my best guess is what I said before. The backbone(s) were tapped. They did it at such a level that they didn't need to borrow or steal any bandwidth from normal communications. That is just a few steps better than commanding the node controllers to monitor lines.

Still, how is it illegal, unless used illegally? There are legal procedure to be used, and this just helps expedite the ease of access. Also, in a real time monitoring way, this has other useful applications that are still legal.

It's not the capability that's wrong here, but weather or not the ability is used improperly.

Show me some illegal activity. I still don't see it. Only unsubstantiated allegations. Could be nothing more than slander.


The illegal activity stems from the fact that the AG conceded that they were doing massive unwarranted wiretaps outside of FISA (here (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20060117gonzales_Letter.pdf)) under the secret 'Terrorist Surveillance Program', when FISA clearly states:

"2511(2)(f)...the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in 50 U.S.C. § 1801(f)... and the intercept of domestic [communications] may be conducted."

which makes the entire TSP program illegal.


What if AT&T planned to bulk encrypt everything? How would it be accomplished?:

1) Place splitters in the circuits.

2) Install encryption equipment at distant ends.

3) Test equipment functionality.

4) Switch the splitter paths at each end at the same time.

With modern hacking going on everywhere, this is also a likely scenario of what is happening. Encryption equipment was normally used in microwave LOS transmissions and satellite, otherwise anyone with knowledge of communications modulation techniques can listen in on any conversation. This was often skipped with fiber optics because you had to make a physical tap to 'listen in' if you didn't have access to one of the UNIX servers. You know what... Over the years there have been instances of people doing just that. Splicing in, often damaging the optic cables to listen in and directly access dedicated bank lines, etc. When these modern hackers find out their attempts are useless because everything is encrypted, they will stop damaging the expensive optic cables.

Food for thought. It is a possible scenario, Klein's assumption is not the only possibility.

I didn't see anything compelling. His accounts lack useful facts to draw a proper conclusion.


What encryption has to do with this? I'm pretty sure the Narus is not there to encrypt/decrypt traffic.


Why doesn't it? If they have a compelling reason not to go to court, shouldn't they try? Maybe it is just secure upgrades, outside of FISA work. It could be leased NSA equipment that they will not allow AT&T employees to have internal access to. Any idea how many man-hours of work it would take to give documents to the opposing side, especially when many are classified and need to have parts blacked out?

It comes to money and principle. Those suing need to show more compelling evidence. Maybe we should just make up plausible allegations against you, and make you shell out a hundred thousand dollars to defend yourself. Would that be comparable to AT&T having to shell out several millions to defend themselves for allegations that are just plausible, with no compelling evidence?

You conveniently missed to comment on the immunity issue. Why do they need immunity if FISA already grants them to them?
Must be because the Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell confirmed that the private sector assisted with the illegal warrantless surveillance program: "Now if you play out the suits at the value they're claimed, it would bankrupt these companies," McConnell said, arguing that they deserve immunity for their help. (here (http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_6685679))

So the phone companies broke the law, the administration concedes that they broke the law, and now they want to bail them out.
There's no two ways to look at this, this is straight from administration officials.
And BTW, what bothers me the most about those NSA tapping stations, is that they're left to the discretion of the operators to flip the switch and start tapping on whatever they want. Here's a good case that happens to show how easily you can find a corrupt federal official, and ties in nicely with this conversation: here (http://apnews.myway.com//article/20080110/D8U35C500.html)

[Wild Cobra]

There's no loophole. The one year period determines how long the tap can go on for by presidential order alone (ie: without the review of a judge). The requirement of the AG to send the written certification under oath needs to happen in order to start the tap.

Agreed. But once it is taken down, the law does not say it cannot be restated under the same terms. Hence, no review required.



The illegal activity stems from the fact that the AG conceded that they were doing massive unwarranted wiretaps outside of FISA (here (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20060117gonzales_Letter.pdf)) under the secret 'Terrorist Surveillance Program', when FISA clearly states:

Except there is also the argument that under executive privilege in time of war, the president, acting as Commander in Chief, does not have to abide by the laws that lower offices must. Laws do not override a presidents constitutional ability to protect this nation.



"2511(2)(f)...the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in 50 U.S.C. § 1801(f)... and the intercept of domestic [communications] may be conducted."

which makes the entire TSP program illegal.

Except it is specifying domestic. These are overseas calls being tapped.



What encryption has to do with this? I'm pretty sure the Narus is not there to encrypt/decrypt traffic.

Narus is a telecommunications company. Sure, they also make an advanced surveillance computer, but is that factually known to be used? That is not their only equipment you know.

I explained the reason for encryption already. As I think about it, it makes even more sense, to have the other modems ready to just be cut in. If all they want is to intercept traffic, then the taps should be at the wire levels, not the optic levels.


You conveniently missed to comment on the immunity issue. Why do they need immunity if FISA already grants them to them?

To avoid the costs of going to court.



Must be because the Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell confirmed that the private sector assisted with the illegal warrantless surveillance program: "Now if you play out the suits at the value they're claimed, it would bankrupt these companies," McConnell said, arguing that they deserve immunity for their help. (here (http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_6685679))

That doesn't mean he says they are valid suits. Did he say that?



So the phone companies broke the law, the administration concedes that they broke the law, and now they want to bail them out.
There's no two ways to look at this, this is straight from administration officials.

Show me they concede they broke the law. Take me strait to the quite, not an outsiders opinion. I'm tired of wasting time on this subject that has become more propaganda than fact.



And BTW, what bothers me the most about those NSA tapping stations, is that they're left to the discretion of the operators to flip the switch and start tapping on whatever they want. Here's a good case that happens to show how easily you can find a corrupt federal official, and ties in nicely with this conversation: here (http://apnews.myway.com//article/20080110/D8U35C500.html)

That is my concern too. People who abuse their positions. That happens anyway, legal or not. Police and politicians do it on a regular basis.