Washington Journal: Trent Franks on Wiretapping
By Nicole Belle Wednesday Oct 10, 2007 6:29pm
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Heather)
I really believe that the Republican party should send out Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) to represent them as often as possible. It just makes my job that much easier. Remember this gem?
Rep. "I know how to memorize talking points" Franks appears on C-Span's Washington Journal, unintentionally proving the argument that there should be at least a minimum IQ requirement to be an elected representative, to discuss the FISA fix currently under discussion in Congress, and dismissing any concerns of this administration abusing citizens with illegal wiretapping with the challenge (the same one verbatim that I've heard from a whole bunch of Republican mouthpieces, curious that) to name anyone in the US who has been illegally wiretapped.
Ah, but this is what happens when you send the third-stringers out to represent you on a channel dedicated to political wonks like myself: the challenge is answered...remember the news reports of the Quakers being wiretapped?
Ooops!
Login or Register to post comments.
Stasi nostalgia meets daddy fetishism all in one Wolfowitzian saliva enhanced hairstyled package
I Know! He is such a paranoid idiot! I saw/heard(ouch) for the first time last week and I just thought to myself. If he can't spew the "Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid" horn I don't know who can.
OMFG! Exactly
:O
AAArrrggghhh! I'm so sick to death of hearing stupid morons spouting off about 9 11. How "we did nothing to deserve being attacked". The United States has meddled in the affairs of most of the countries around the world for over a century. How many coups? How much political interference? How about the fact that most of the corporations running roughshod over the earth are American based. It's truly amazing that more ill will isn't directed towards the States.
This is always as interesting: the total denial of the possibility that the US ever did anything to incite the people who flew the planes on 911. And as he said, "another major attack will transform the whole debate ".. Of course it will, for people who think they can invade a country like Iraq without any sound reason and kill hundreds of thousands of people and then think no one is mad about it.
And I tell you.. IF the jihadists dont manage to pull off an attack on US soil before the presidential election, the white house will. There is too much at stake for those running the country.
Trent Franks is proof that we in Arizona have a twisted sense of humor.
All this could be simply cleared up by bush supplying a list of all Americans who the gov. has wired tapped. I'm waiting.......
Ummmmmm.....if regular citizens are being spied on, which I'm sure we are, how would know it little more than prove it? Isn't that the idea? Isn't that why it's called 'spying'? Covert cloak and dagger crap? Is he denying that the quakers were spied on? It was all over the news for flippin' H. Christ.
As for not being attacked again since 9/11....(this is going to get me deleted, but oh well) It was an inside job.
ah-yup that boy ain't quite right in the head.
Lookie here - I googled it and found it at the Washington Post. Is that good enough for this tool?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/29/AR200601...
what a moron. seriously.
In other words - liberals - Dems are retarded - that is of course, over half the country that Trent is trashing.
If only Trent remember his conservative voters and that those same voters usually like strict constructionist for judges. But Bushism is different, it represents a congressional body that makes shit up, and would say conservatives should willing throwing the US Constitution in the toilet.
Real stupidity is a congressman by the name of Trent, who must think the old framers of the US Constitution didn't get terrorism in their age of war. What happened to the conservatives - they use to believe in family and country and had some ethics - now they're noting but cowards, who torture, wiretap and don't deserve freedom. It isn't the home of the brave, it's the home of the police state.
Trent doesn't like freedom - he wants a police state, a right to violate laws, spit on his oath of office, a right to scare people into submission. Trent is just another general Betray us. There is NO WAY MoveOn.org should back down from calling these cowards what they are. Trent peddles fear in hopes of control.
Trent is betraying the US Constitution and with intent to do so. That is true treason, to willing ask Americans to violate their Constitution with baseless fear mongering.
Stop listening after "worst threat than the Nazis".
Fetal alcohol syndrome goes to washington
Oh....it's the whole human family?
Except who? Muslims?, Catholics?,Jews?,.....
Fear,Fear,Fear......
Tom Sawyer @ 11:
Islamo Facist Nazi Marxists God Damnit!
If we could throw all of the republican congress in Gitmo, I'm for keeping it open.
Ohio Proud @ 13:
Lions and Tigers Al Kida Oh No!
Lions and Tigers Al Kida Oh No!
You don't give up the rights men have died for just because you are a little scared. What could be less patriotic. He might as well spit on the graves of Arlington cemetery. Never give up rights out of fear. It's unmanly, unseemly and un-American.
This guy is a fear salesman.
Fear mongering is off the hook, we are truly in an age of hysteria and disproportioned bullshit.
And tell me I'm wrong, but didn't it seem like he wanted another attack, like he could almost taste it, and the satisfaction that would come from being right.
TheConstitution @ 17:
Throw in the fact that this joker works for the same people who brought you MTV video star they call Bin Laden, it all makes sense.
Instill fear, provide blanket
Seems to me Mr Franks is almost HOPING for another attack... because according to him THEN we will ralley to his side of aggression. This guy is totally FUCKED UP.
Wanna know whats scary....Someone in his state voted for him in the "majority"...now that is foulking frightening....screw what this twisted guy is saying, but who the hell actually voted for this guy ?
Sometimes I think ballots just get punched and then sent into some black hole....the rest of the story is just like the Truman Show where the people live in this giant bubble and robots like this guy are just part of a big joke being played on the great unwashed,
Another in a long line of self inflicted wounds . . . anyone else read about the USS Liberty in last week's Chicago Tribune . . .
New revelations in attack on American spy ship
Andy @ 20:
The elections are rigged and then they get us arguing about hanging chads and then offer us electronic rigged machines to solve the problems.
Is we stupid or what?
Wood eye! Wood eye!
And tell me I'm wrong, but didn't it seem like he wanted another attack, like he could almost taste it, and the satisfaction that would come from being right.
Sure sounded that way to me. Another 9/11 would be the best thing that ever happened to these fearmongers.
And BTW, I thought Christians (I'm assuming this guy's one) had Christ to assuage their fears. Are these folks truly of little faith?
JudyLou @ 24:
Sure sounded that way to me. Another 9/11 would be the best thing that ever happened to these fearmongers.
And BTW, I thought Christians (I'm assuming this guy's one) had Christ to assuage their fears. Are these folks truly of little faith?
They don't need to hope for another 9/11, they just need to pick up the phone . . .
I've long thought that ALL politicians are scum. Some are just a little more scummy than others.
If brains were water he wouldn't have enought to wash a hair on a fleas' left nut. Why didn't some of these politicians parents keep the after birth instead?
E Ryno @ 21:
Check out the movie Terrorstorm by Alex Jones for more info on the Liberty and other false flag operations.
9/11 9/11 9/11!!!!!!!!!!!!! Islamist!
I watched that man and thought, "Oh my Gawd who left the door of the Asylum open".
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/10/11/12187/#more-12187
JudyLou @ 24:
Sure sounded that way to me. Another 9/11 would be the best thing that ever happened to these fearmongers.
And BTW, I thought Christians (I'm assuming this guy's one) had Christ to assuage their fears. Are these folks truly of little faith?
Exactly, what you're seeing there is he's all anxious and giddy at the thought of Christ coming down and rapturing him and his loved ones while plopping the rest of us down in some lava flow or something. Unfortunately, Christ never said he would come back in the form of some Promise Keeper's personal a-bomb. In fact I'm pretty sure for what Christ was put through that he would know a hater if he saw one.
Look, don't let these people make you afraid, you are more likely to fall down your basement stairs and die than encounter any of this made up trash.
Dave @ 28:
Good points. I think my post was deleted?!
...
Arrgh! He says that George W Bush has ensured that there hasn't been another attack on US soil since 9/11.
I keep hearing this from the right. It's f%^&#ing false. WILFULLY false.
There has been another terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11, a freakin' fully-fledged biological weapons attack, ferchrissakes: ANTHRAX sent through the US postal service to congresscritters.
For all the fulminating about terrorism that the right carries on with, why do they never mention that one? That first, most spectacular post-9/11 antiterrorism failure, the one that snuck through EVEN THOUGH illegal wiretapping was happening, and EVEN THOUGH the USA-PATRIOT ACT was in force? Why do they never mention that?
RW @ 19:
The Bishists are hoping for another attack. There have been a few who have gone so far as to come straight out and say that we need another one just to prove how right they are and to reinforce their need to turn the public into a bunch of bedwetters like themselves.
I'll have to ask, but i think one of my co-workers still has a creepy audio CD of weird religious/political ramblings by this idiot. I can tell you that his district is only outpaced in general wingnuttiness by one predominantly rural district that includes the southeast corner of the Phoenix metro area (Mesa, Apache Junction, etc...)
Our state House would appall most people with more than two IQ points to rub together
did soomeone leave a strike tag open?
Just love the invitation to produce anyone who has been needlessly surveilled....where to begin? It's okay we won't hurt you...
How about this: invite the public to produce anyone who thinks they haven't been surveilled.
(cue crickets)
sad sack...........
How did this fucking moron get elected?
We need mandatory drug tests and venereal disease tests for all elected officials as so many act like they are either on drugs or are suffering from dementia brought on by untreated syphilis.
OK.. I'm searching for some middle-ground here. I agree that our civil liberties must be protected. Technologies that allow us to communicate in so many ways keep improving and we have to find a way to act quickly to gather the intelligence necessary to stop these threats.
I don't think just stating that in every case, we should just spend the time to get a warrant is an acceptable answer. That is, I think the problem is more complex then that.
How about some alternatives being put forth here, or describe what you think Democrats will do differently.
Thank you.
Jimsy @ 27:
They did.
wow the nazis killed 6 million people in concentration camps and they aren't worse than just about *anybody*?
serious?
"War war war warwar war. War war money money. Terrorism, war money war war money. 9/11 money money war. Money money, money '9/11' war."
I think i just smelled a mushroom cloud rise of ohio.
We are given no perspective as to the motives of the terrorists who conducted 911. They are just "people worse than Nazis who don't want to live and we never did nothin' wrong ever..." We are told that Bush has kept us safe, but all we need is another 911-like attack to see what is at stake here. You just can't argue with that "logic." I mean, we are safe because of Bush but if we end up not safe it won't be proof that Bush can't really keep us safe but will be proof that the world really is scary and we need Bush (and his illegal acts) to keep us safe.
Head.Spinning.Now.
THAT, BigKAD, is the least of what I hope "The Democrats" will do differently.
BigKAD @ 41:
You sound smart, but you got this all mixed up. You don't give up your rights. Elite groups (like in the case of the failed Soviet oligarchy), and kings, lords, emperors, high priests, you name it, from the dawn of civilization have tried to get the peasants to shit their pants just hard as possible and give up all their rights.
And so you shouldn't. You never get even the slightest bit safer for the loss of a right.
Governments don't keep you safe, you keep you safe. If someone breaks into your house I'm afraid it will be all up to you to defend yourself and if your plane gets taken over odds are good it'll be down to the moral courage of you and your fellow passengers to do something about it.
Your safety has always been your responsibility and you've done a fine job of it, so don't let yourself be deceived that someone else has been looking out for you. The only thing that truly protects you are the laws of the land that are built on your Constitutional Rights. That's it. Without them, some skeazy cop who likes your girlfriend could lock you up or tap your phone, rummage through your house and screw with your life. Nope, you have rights, rights that if violated will get people fired and sued and all of that stuff. And these are all good things that men died for on battlefields and everything -- just so you could have some breathing room.
It is an illusion that giving up freedom will make you safer and it is one the founding fathers talked about over and over again. Always remember it is a cowardly thing to surrender a civil liberty and all it ever results in is more power going into the hands of the people who told you how scared you should be... and I hate to break it to you, but the reason these scum bag politicians, with rare exception, are into politics, is for power. And more is better when it comes to people who want political power. So, when you hand over your rights don't be surprised that it makes perfect sense to them.
So, our founding fathers warned us to be very suspicious of those who would tell us to be afraid or hard sell us on how inconvenient our rights are. We are as Americans supposed to JEALOUSLY guard our rights and spurn people who would talk us out of them.
So, even if it seems like things are less efficient if we keep our rights, it is still far far far better to preserve those rights and not live in a hyper steroidal surveillance police state.
Wire tapping always gets abused always, already WAS getting abused. They should get a warrant from a thoughtful judge so that police don't get used by corrupt politicians to demolish their enemies with wanton wiretapping and dirt collecting. The laws they are trying to undermine are all about circumventing oversight... without oversight in a Constitutional Republic you get tyranny guaranteed.
So, the most honorable patriotic thing you can do is resist the destruction of your rights.
This guy's campaign slogan: "He ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer."
The poor young thing on the phone, on the other hand, deserves a Nobel Prize!
rickygee @ 46:
Rickygee..of course we can't say we never did anything wrong. The difference between you and I is that I don't think anything we were perceived to do wrong warranted the type of attack we received on 9/11.
Regardless of what the folks on this blog think, we still live in a free and open society, there is no way we can protect ourselves completely so another attack is likely, and I don't think it would be Bush's or the Democrat's fault. It's just the nature of the beast.
So with that said, I don't give Bush all the credit for keeping us safe. I think it's a combination of alot of things but one aspect of it might be that terrorist leadership and institutions that fund them may have been thrown off guard by our offensive strategies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Other then that, they may very well be planning another hit, but this time at least we are somewhat paying attention so it's a little harder for them.
Trent Franks stars in "What the Fuck am I still talking about?". The new hit show where Trent Franks rehashes the 6x boiled vegatable talking points handed him by the neocon king retard and his war-pig henchmen.. America deserves another 9/11 simply because idiots like this are managing our country. Have I said it enough? 9/11? 9/11? 9.1.1?, am I dialing emergency or talking about 9/11? 9/11? 911? Nein 11? Is he special needs or what? What is wrong with his face/eyes? Am I aweful or is he just one step more stupid beyond GWB?
TheConstitution @ 47:
Thanks for the comments "TheConstitution", very well thought out. I agree with much of what you say. However, I do find it interesting that many on the left only equate expansion of executive power as a front to our freedoms and civil liberties and not things like: The confiscation of wealth, out of control political correctness, larger and larger bureaucracies imposing massive regulations on the people...
I know that the government can't fully protect me, but I think that it's there number one job to try.
Again, your comments are very thoughtful and worth a debate. It might be that we have to consider the threats we face today different then any of the past. If that's the case, then we the people have to be engaged in the process to come up with a way of fighting without giving up our inherent rights.
Thanks...
He's missing a chromosome. An important one.
BigKAD sez-
The confiscation of wealth, out of control political correctness, larger and larger bureaucracies imposing massive regulations on the people… -bad
Government intrusion on constitutional rights and privacy to give us questionable security, without meaningful oversight or transparency... -good?
Question: How much are you willing to give up to be "protected" which you admit is something that government cannot entirely do? Do you know how low your odds really are of dying in a terrorist attack? Do you understand the concept of perspective or balance? What would you consider "controlled" political correctness?
And don't make broad assumptions and call me "on the left." You want common ground? Talk straight.
i think he's saying that they are keeping us safe from quakers.
Tom Sawyer @ 11:
Franks was kidding right? He thinks Islamic terrorists are a greater threat to us than the Nazi's were? Um ... didn't Nazi Germany develop V1 and V2 rocket technology that became foundation knowledge for nuclear delivery systems? Didn't Nazi scientists develop heavy water (necessary for nuclear warheads)? Wasn't Hitler desperately trying to develop his own nuclear weapons? To say nothing of the millions he was indirectly and directly responsible for killing.
Does Franks think Stalin was less of a threat as well?
Okay ... time to play another round of "is he stupid or evil".
Op Ed news is saying another war game is being planned in Portland Oregan on the 15th. Dick Cheney will be in attendance. They are freaked. I think there is still a missing nuke out there from the missing bomb incident from Minot S.D. So Trent's probably all excited about that. Idiots think their popularity will go sky high.
Clark Barr @ 23:
-------------------------
you devil! i thought i was the only person left alive who knew that joke.
rickygee @ 54:
Ok... instead of saying those "on the left", I'll just say many Americans... give me a break pal, the broad assumptions fly around on this blog, but I guess it's okay if they are directed towards one ideology .
It doesn't matter what my odds are of dying in a terrorist attack are. That's pretty simplistic if you ask me. 3000 people died on 9/11, a minuscule portion of our total population but what did that event due to our financial systems, our travel sector... it's measured in billions.
I answer to your question, I'm not prepared to give up my freedoms and I don't see wide spread evidence that this is happening (except for your friends the Quakers). I'm just opening my mind to a debate on this matter because I think when the Democrats control the executive branch in 2008, they will do much of the same in my opinion.
y'all here gotta forgive me. It took me awhile to realize I was feeding a concern-troll. My bad.
Word to my homies the Quakers! And may we all be protected from damage to our financial and travel sectors, amen.
rickygee out.
rickygee @ 60:
Wow... as a worthless troll I feel so humble in your presence rickygee. Next time you want to debate, bring your A-Game.
The Constitution at #32 says: Look, don’t let these people make you afraid, you are more likely to fall down your basement stairs and die than encounter any of this made up trash.
these people are making me afraid but not of the islamic world; i'm afraid of them. what they are doing is every bit as damaging to our country as 911,911,911,911,911..........
All politicians should be required to pass a civics test each year before they're allowed to take their oath of office. I'm tired of hearing that they are protecting the country while they continue to chip away at our Constitution. These ignorant bastards don't realize that the Constitution is the fucking government. #54 - Actually, the question is how many of my civil liberties are the weak-kneed, peeing-in-their-pants conservatives willing to give up to protect their own cowardly asses?
newt @ 34:
------------------------
they don't mention it because it really was an inside job. you see how botched it was? yep they did it.
i'm hoping some how someone can dig this one up.
"Just remember" that should they (or us) attack again that it will transform the whole debate.
Sounds like a threat, should we not all align with the powers that be!
I read this comment at the C&L opening statement with interest:
Notice all the highlighted words have a common element: They are federal level interests, laws, and entities. Small problem: Congress has no power to pass a law, especially retroactively, that will prevent the states or the State Attorney Generals from enforcing state law.
For background, you may wish to review Judge Vaughn R. Walker's comments about the ongoing FISA-related litigation in re the telecoms. Walker has said that States are not obliged to follow the Federal government's decision to not enforce the law; rather, he appers to take the view that the State AGs -- when the US government will not enforce the law -- cannot be prohibited from taking legal actions against the telecoms. Granted, Congress/Senate/GOP-DNC at the federal level is discussing immunity. But Congress has yet to explain how it will bar the ongoing litigation against the States at the state level.
- Where is the discussion on the State AG ongoing civil litigation?
- Does the Congress/Senate propose to grant immunity and prevent the States/State AG's from enforcing also State laws?
- What does the telecom industry propose to do about Judge Vaughn Walker's assessment that the states are not obligated to follow the lead of the Federal Government when it comes to the GOP-DOJ-Congressional decision to not enforce state law?
We've seen nothing to suggest that Congress can make any rule which would, in the case of Judge Vaughn Walker, prohibit the courts from continuing to adjudicate these legal issues raised by the states in federal court. I see nothing before me to suggest that Congress, especially a federal entity, has any power to pre-judge litigation; or prevent the states from enforcing State law. If that is what this Congress proposes, and the President signs, then we're back to what we saw in 1860: An illegal decision of the Federal government to block state-level decisions and law enforcement. This has to do with states' rights and state-level officers who have a duty to enforce the law, defend state citizens' rights, and -- in this case -- assert their oath when US government officials at the Federal level refuse to enforce the law against themselves and the telecoms.
Congress needs to be challenged: Is it proposing that the ongoing litigation in Federal Court by the States and State AGs against the telecoms in re privacy violations will also be prohibited? FISA is a federal Statute; however, state-level officials have a separate interest: Privacy. Changing FISA, or making changes to FISA by way of immunity says nothing of the state privacy issues. Congress has not power to pass new rules related to non-Federal issues: Privacy of State citizens rights. Any decision by Congress to grant immunity, change FISA, or prevent enforcement of FISA says nothing of the state level privacy question.
- Where do the telecom lobbyists stand at the state level; and have any of the States been approached to pass laws restricticting/prohibiting State AGs from enforcing privacy statutes against the telecoms?
So, the most honorable patriotic thing you can do is resist the destruction of your rights.
However, I do find it interesting that many on the left only equate expansion of executive power as a front to our freedoms and civil liberties and not things like: The confiscation of wealth, out of control political correctness, larger and larger bureaucracies imposing massive regulations on the people...
I know that the government can't fully protect me, but I think that it's there number one job to try.
.
Sorry, but I could not let this quote go without some clarification. The 'left' are very much concerned with the confiscation of wealth. See the massive theft of tax dollars going to this administrations friends and families. The massive transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class into the hands of the very wealthy who have government contracts and connections bought with lobbiest money.
The 'left' is very concerned about larger and larger bureaucracies...especialy the NSA, the Homeland Security Agency, the layers of bureaucracies involved in privatising this war in the ME and prisons. All this is costing the taxpayers many billions of dollars more than running government in an efficient way instead of shoveling cash out the door by way of crony capitalism and corporate welfare.
And the weakening of bureaucracies that actually work for the public good, like the FDA (totally corrupt now by big pharma and big agriculture). Our food supply is getting more and more unhealthy and contaminated. And the offices that control oil and gas leases on public land are now engaged in a massive give away to big oil.
The government should try to protect this country, but what they are actually doing is a con game, a huge transfer of wealth and power.
HereWeGo @ 66:
Notice all the highlighted words have a common element: They are federal level interests, laws, and entities. Small problem: Congress has no power to pass a law, especially retroactively, that will prevent the states or the State Attorney Generals from enforcing state law.
For background, you may wish to review Judge Vaughn R. Walker's comments about the ongoing FISA-related litigation in re the telecoms. Walker has said that States are not obliged to follow the Federal government's decision to not enforce the law; rather, he appers to take the view that the State AGs -- when the US government will not enforce the law -- cannot be prohibited from taking legal actions against the telecoms. Granted, Congress/Senate/GOP-DNC at the federal level is discussing immunity. But Congress has yet to explain how it will bar the ongoing litigation against the States at the state level.
- Where is the discussion on the State AG ongoing civil litigation?
- Does the Congress/Senate propose to grant immunity and prevent the States/State AG's from enforcing also State laws?
- What does the telecom industry propose to do about Judge Vaughn Walker's assessment that the states are not obligated to follow the lead of the Federal Government when it comes to the GOP-DOJ-Congressional decision to not enforce state law?
We've seen nothing to suggest that Congress can make any rule which would, in the case of Judge Vaughn Walker, prohibit the courts from continuing to adjudicate these legal issues raised by the states in federal court. I see nothing before me to suggest that Congress, especially a federal entity, has any power to pre-judge litigation; or prevent the states from enforcing State law. If that is what this Congress proposes, and the President signs, then we're back to what we saw in 1860: An illegal decision of the Federal government to block state-level decisions and law enforcement. This has to do with states' rights and state-level officers who have a duty to enforce the law, defend state citizens' rights, and -- in this case -- assert their oath when US government officials at the Federal level refuse to enforce the law against themselves and the telecoms.
Congress needs to be challenged: Is it proposing that the ongoing litigation in Federal Court by the States and State AGs against the telecoms in re privacy violations will also be prohibited? FISA is a federal Statute; however, state-level officials have a separate interest: Privacy. Changing FISA, or making changes to FISA by way of immunity says nothing of the state privacy issues. Congress has not power to pass new rules related to non-Federal issues: Privacy of State citizens rights. Any decision by Congress to grant immunity, change FISA, or prevent enforcement of FISA says nothing of the state level privacy question.
- Where do the telecom lobbyists stand at the state level; and have any of the States been approached to pass laws restricticting/prohibiting State AGs from enforcing privacy statutes against the telecoms?
Interesting post, HereWeGo.
I think the one case that may be similar is the Federal challenge to Medical Marijuana in California. Even though the State has sanctioned this practice by law, the Feds are still cracking down on people. But, of course, in this case the Fed can say the State is violating Federal Law. In the wiretapping cases, the Feds are violating their own laws....so? Very interesting to see this play out.
shano @ 67:
However, I do find it interesting that many on the left only equate expansion of executive power as a front to our freedoms and civil liberties and not things like: The confiscation of wealth, out of control political correctness, larger and larger bureaucracies imposing massive regulations on the people...
I know that the government can't fully protect me, but I think that it's there number one job to try.
.
Sorry, but I could not let this quote go without some clarification. The 'left' are very much concerned with the confiscation of wealth. See the massive theft of tax dollars going to this administrations friends and families. The massive transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class into the hands of the very wealthy who have government contracts and connections bought with lobbiest money.
The 'left' is very concerned about larger and larger bureaucracies...especialy the NSA, the Homeland Security Agency, the layers of bureaucracies involved in privatising this war in the ME and prisons. All this is costing the taxpayers many billions of dollars more than running government in an efficient way instead of shoveling cash out the door by way of crony capitalism and corporate welfare.
And the weakening of bureaucracies that actually work for the public good, like the FDA (totally corrupt now by big pharma and big agriculture). Our food supply is getting more and more unhealthy and contaminated. And the offices that control oil and gas leases on public land are now engaged in a massive give away to big oil.
The government should try to protect this country, but what they are actually doing is a con game, a huge transfer of wealth and power.
Shano... I don't share your cynicism of corporations but I think you are correct to be critical of some of these bureaucracies like the NSA and Homeland Security. The key word here is bureaucracy. You say that a bureaucracy like the FDA is for the public good but most of it's inherent flaws are owing to the fact that it is a bloated bureaucracy causing it to fail at what you want it to do. I think it's a trap to say that the FDA and the other so-called "do-good" bureaucracies are not funded enough.
In the end, I'm not for corporate welfare but if there are reforms in this area, I don't think the taxes on the middle class will go down. The problem with the elites in Washington is who they consider rich. Increased tax rates hurt people in the middle to upper middle class like me more then the so-called rich because my wealth, my money, is in my income where as the Rich have their money in investment holdings. So the Rich are able to hide their money, the poor and lower middle class become more and more exempt from income taxes and that leaves poor slobs like me to get nailed.
Excellent points shano but not enough to convince me to support higher taxes, more regulations and less money in my pocket.
shano @ 68:
Interesting post, HereWeGo.
I think the one case that may be similar is the Federal challenge to Medical Marijuana in California. Even though the State has sanctioned this practice by law, the Feds are still cracking down on people. But, of course, in this case the Fed can say the State is violating Federal Law. In the wiretapping cases, the Feds are violating their own laws....so? Very interesting to see this play out.
Here's a follow-up to the links, and the Court ruling saying the States are not obliged to follow the US government in refusing to enforce the law.
HereWeGo @ 70:
Ooops, correct link for the details. Sorry about that.
E Ryno @ 12:
Thanks I wondering if his head got stuck on the way out or something...
Blah blah blah. I don't buy 98% of his spin. The biggest threat to the human family, I see, is the Bush administration. How would I know who's being wiretapped? It's not like the send you a notice, is it? So I'll assume it's EVERYONE.
Jerry: I saw and think I agree. ;)
TheConstitution @ 47:
The Constitution @47: I loved reading your "piece". I read it twice. So simple and so true. I'm going to save it, and send it to people (credit given) Thanks. (It's not often I am this captivated by comments, but you are exactly right.)
yogi-one @ 71:
I'm sorry, I know it's not cool to get personal about appearances, but I just can't take someone seriously when both sides of his face are collapsing. Who IS this guy, the incredible melting man? Talk about FACE time. Jeebus dude, it's called RADIO. It's not just what you're saying that's scary. Think Oswald Cobblepot. Who elected this guy? The Helen Keller institute?
And get a vasectomy. For multiple reasons.
This man has NO business being a Congressman and the people of his state mad a grave mistake by electing a man that does not understand the Constitution. Refuses to uphold his oath of office to defend the constitution.
His lack of knowledge of history is obvious and he neglects the fact that America was the Victor in WWII.
That the Japanese had Kamakazzees that he might be able to relate to suicide bombers.
And if this is such a "Great devistating Battle" why do we fight it with so little.
Was there any caller that asked , " if we are in an occupation and using our military for a police force against individual criminals. Isn't that misuse of the American Military?
Why can't Bush simply contract out to Blackwater who has no laws or morals to live by, go out and hunt them down. We don't need our military involved with our heroic Blackwater, triple canopy et al.
Why doesn't Arizona recall this loon?
"I'm not sure Google's going to be my most reliable source."
What utter bullsh*t. The guy doesn't even understand what Google is.
Google is not a source, it's a tool for FINDING SOURCES, you god damned fool!.
And of course no one has come forward to complain about being wiretapped illegally. How in the hell is one supposed to know such a thing? The mechanism for wiretapping is built in to our telecom infrastructure! Perhaps I'm being tapped, but who will come forward and inform me, the media or anyone else?
Oh how I wish I could have seen the program and called in...
Doesn't this guy look like he's been used as a tackling dummy for the NFL?
I don't understand this line of thinking that says, "We have quicker and more sophisticated means of communicating so me must have a quicker way of intercepting the communication." The logic doesn't seem correct to me.
Granted, if you have already identified a possible suspect, then having technologically matched means of intercepting their communication is needed.
However, don't you need to identify the suspects first? Doesn't that take time and energy in the field? Why the obsession with scanning everyone's emails and cell phones? It would be just as effective for an unnoticed terrorist to send a letter or package bomb (Theodore Kazinski anyone?) as it would be to text message. Revelation of information is just as instant with snail mail as with email.
If the point of this surveillance is to focus on known terrorists, then law enforcement should already have a ready (not standing) warrant to tap their communications. It the point of this surveillance is to cast a wider net, then they are violating privacy without probable cause.
The entire Patriot Act argument seems to be illogical (fear-based reactionarianism) at its core.
BigKAD @ 68:
Sorry, but I could not let this quote go without some clarification. The 'left' are very much concerned with the confiscation of wealth. See the massive theft of tax dollars going to this administrations friends and families. The massive transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class into the hands of the very wealthy who have government contracts and connections bought with lobbiest money.
The 'left' is very concerned about larger and larger bureaucracies...especialy the NSA, the Homeland Security Agency, the layers of bureaucracies involved in privatising this war in the ME and prisons. All this is costing the taxpayers many billions of dollars more than running government in an efficient way instead of shoveling cash out the door by way of crony capitalism and corporate welfare.
And the weakening of bureaucracies that actually work for the public good, like the FDA (totally corrupt now by big pharma and big agriculture). Our food supply is getting more and more unhealthy and contaminated. And the offices that control oil and gas leases on public land are now engaged in a massive give away to big oil.
The government should try to protect this country, but what they are actually doing is a con game, a huge transfer of wealth and power.
Shano... I don't share your cynicism of corporations but I think you are correct to be critical of some of these bureaucracies like the NSA and Homeland Security. The key word here is bureaucracy. You say that a bureaucracy like the FDA is for the public good but most of it's inherent flaws are owing to the fact that it is a bloated bureaucracy causing it to fail at what you want it to do. I think it's a trap to say that the FDA and the other so-called "do-good" bureaucracies are not funded enough.
In the end, I'm not for corporate welfare but if there are reforms in this area, I don't think the taxes on the middle class will go down. The problem with the elites in Washington is who they consider rich. Increased tax rates hurt people in the middle to upper middle class like me more then the so-called rich because my wealth, my money, is in my income where as the Rich have their money in investment holdings. So the Rich are able to hide their money, the poor and lower middle class become more and more exempt from income taxes and that leaves poor slobs like me to get nailed.
Excellent points shano but not enough to convince me to support higher taxes, more regulations and less money in my pocket.
So you would rather have high government spending, record deficits, job out sourcing (if there are no jobs, then you dont have money to pay taxes), theft of taxpayers money by the ultra-wealthy, lower standards for corporate responsibility (lead painted toys for your kids, contaminated beef, drugs approved that kill people instead of cure them), anti-competitive laws for American business that must support the Insurance and Health bureaucracies (even if they are private, these huge bureaucracies are ripping off the public to the detriment of competitive trade in America).
The rich in this country are the only ones doing well in the Bush economy. I would not mind paying a bit higher taxes if it was paying for policies that would actually benefit me and the country. As it is, all our tax dollars are being wasted on a futile effort to control ME oil supplies for corporate interests, instead of developing alternative energy that would provide a whole new sector of jobs and make our country more secure altogether. The rich are destroying the public commons, with neocon blessings, at the great expense to our future and common good.
That is how they get rich, on the backs of all of us, with free trade and free market political nonsense as justification. The rich now are not true free market advocates, it is something they hide behind while on the government dole. To say nothinig of off shore tax havens, calling job out-sourcing "trade" (it is not), hanging on with a death grip to the old oil economy....etc.
Rather have America return to democracy instead of this descent into facism.
Who in the Hell votes these absolute idiot Reslugs in that just keep repeating total lies that have been proven wrong.
Now this ignorant, brainwashed ass-hole belongs in a pink Gay bathroom too.
Mr. Franks is the reason my wife and I are registered Republicans in AZ. We regisitered so we could vote against him in the Republican primary when he was trying to get elected to the state senate in AZ several years ago. He only lost by about 40 votes so we really helped make a difference in crazy AZ politics.
Mr. Franks has one platform on which he runs. ALWAYS deny a woman the right to chose is his matra. He is an esteemed member of the North Phoenix Baptist church. A small 6,000 seat church in central Phoenix and everyone of them vote for this idiot.
He "represents" western AZ and replaced another reich wing idiot, Bob (dumb as a) Stump, who never lived in his district but chose to live in Phoenix but was elected several times by people who live in western AZ. He is mentored by the reichwing, brownshirt, goosestepping, Sen. Jon Kyl (one of the most unAmerica senators ever to "serve").
All I can say is, please don't blame the state for the idiots the RepubliCONs elect. The big rich ranchers and the Sun City money grabbers are the ones that elect this nut to the House. They love his no taxes for the rich and the denial of a woman's right to chose. The rest of us find him an emptyheaded reich wing, goose stepping, fascist.
Guess he's never heard of Kamikaze pilots. Tool.
zugzug @ 43:
George Bush's grandfather was doing business with the Nazis. He was making a bundle. Of course they are going to downplay the Nazis. Gosh, and I thought peace would be around the corner when the communist countries fell. Interesting, though, during the communist scare, Russia only had double digit war heads but the United States had over 400. This fear mongering inorder to keep the defense contractors in business has to stop!!! I have a question for Trent Franks. Where is Bin Laden???????? Why hasn't he been caught???? Aren't we spending trillions in defense and national security putting our boys and girls in arms way and the 100 of thousands of Iraqi's families destroyed, killed, tortured. ??? Wow, these guys sure talk tough, but they should be fired and then let the taxpayers decide what should be done with them.
Che's Lounge @ 75:
Shame. It's one thing to make fun of Vitter's wife becasue she dresses like one of his hookers, or the shrill Melanie Botox Moragn, for obvious reasons. They did it by choice.
One of our Canadian Prime Ministers suffered insults for his appearnace, at times. His crime was having a stroke which partially paralyzed one side of his face.
Trent Frank is dumb as a friggin' post.
I have run against Trent Frank's for his CONgressional seat twice now. I do not go along with the claim he is dumb. I found him to be feckless. A yes-man willing to go along with whatever the Party or Whitehouse desires when they desire it...he gave us the $2 trillion dollar prescription drug benefits fiasco when he switched his vote, after swearing his life, fortune and sacred honor kind of thing with some 18 other "fiscally conservative" Republican CONgresscritters to oppose the bill...but I digress.
This would stun him, but I am also of the opinion that he lacks a moral center, a strong enough belief in right and wrong that he will oppose the wrong, or indeed, the downright evil, when confronted with it despite the cost. He is in fact an apologist for evil, and actively votes and supports it.
He is also in a safe district. And now that he is in the minority party, his voting to spend around $2 trillion annually has been curtailed. So he will be able to better claim the title "fiscal conservative," though his voting record shows different.
He is in fact the opposite of the very thing he sold himself to his friends and supporters a few years back when he first ran for CONgress. And once in, he has a permanent, well paying position. Ain't democracy and voting swell?
Login or Register to post comments.