thinkprogress.org — Bush is implying that Americans who oppose telecom immunity are unpatriotic. But the American people don’t owe the telecoms any gratitude. These corporations chose to break the law and profited greatly from doing so.
Mar 4, 2008 View in Crawl 4
closedcaptionMar 4, 2008
Let the courts decide...PS. If this was about keeping us safe why did the telecoms stop "helping to keep us safe" when the bill was past due? Do we really have to pay for Protection? Tony Soprano thinks so but thats the mob..wait..
pedestrian101Mar 5, 2008
The only people that are actually affected by this are people who AREN'T innocent (of course there can be rare screwups). The government has no use spying on innocent citizens.
sharkdMar 5, 2008
The courts have refused to take up the issue on the grounds of national security and that no one actually knows if they've been wiretapped -- so there isn't anyone who's legally able to file a case. Welcome to "Brazil."
trekkieMar 5, 2008
don't forget to say f**k you to the supreme court that appointed him, and f**k you to every democrat that has not made his life a living hell since they got elected by fighting everything he wants to doCongress is just as corrupt, if not more so in that they've created districts that support keeping them elected and there is no term limits. Since all we do is get a choice between two professional politicians that want to ride the gravy train this nation will continue to spectacularly fail in the most dystopia sci-fi fashion.
origamironinMar 5, 2008
Well, I thought that "not innocent" meant guilty. It just seems to me that you are saying that anyone the government says is guilty must be guilty. I guess I'm a little more skeptical.I don't buy into the "oh yeah, this person will be worse" argument either. If you are going to defend this administration's actions, defend them on their own merits. Don't try to deflect the subject to someone else.
phillesh69Mar 6, 2008
Cheney isn't running the country.CFR, the Council on foreign relations runs the country.Presidents just preside over our supposed democracy.Google "cfr and..." with any president, candidate or advisor.They are all subjects of the cfr. Whoever we elect, the cfr gets their candidate in office. We can vote our asses off, but the cfr always wins.
phillesh69Mar 7, 2008
I can think of many wars we have won against formidable opponents. We defeated Japan and Germany. Even if Iraq wasn't a "formidable" opponent, we did, in fact win that war. We just made the mistake (or maybe this was the plan all along, seeing how much money it is making certain people) of staying there after we defeated Saddam and his army. Even Vietnam, we won every battle, we just made the mistake of entering into a war that could not be won, or you could look at it as more of being in the middle of a civil war, and we picked the weaker side only because they called themselves a democracy.keit65 you are right about the fact that there are people who are motivated by profit and will push for unwinnable wars just to see the profits roll in. But we've never lost a war. At least not in the purest sense of the word. Like I said above, in Vietnam, we won every battle, but winning every battle didn't change the course of the civil war. In Korea, we did quite well after the initial setback of the meager forces in Korea being pushed all the way to the tip of the peninsula. After reinforcing, we pushed the Chinese and North Koreans all the way to the Yalu River. Had we chased them into China, there wouldn't be a DMZ today, but we didn't and we continued to trade punches until both sides realized that neither side was ever going to give up, and they agreed to a cease fire.Even Iraq, we won that war. The problem is, we decided to occupy, and that was an enormous mistake.
phillesh69Mar 7, 2008
and what you call someone makes them that way.There are Democratic libertarians, and there are Republican libertarians. Most are pretty conservative, because if you look up the definition of conservative, what a conservative stands for is preserving the way of life and the rule of law. People who want to change laws because of threats, or for national security are not conservatives. You can't conserve by liberally changing the laws. Neocons, and all the so-called "conservatives" who believe in preemptive wars, the patriot act and telecom immunity are liberals, they just don't know it because the people they get their information from won't tell them.
Closed AccountMar 12, 2008
"time to get civilized" DERKADERRRRRR !!!!!!!!!! Im not so impressed by Bush but i HATE bitches like you. WE ARE NOT IN THE PITS OF HELL RTARD.
democraseeMar 15, 2008
If you want to do something more than complain on digg about this, come join the revolution at The Kick Them All Out Project <a class="user" href="http://www.KickThemAllOut.com">http://www.KickThemAllOut.com</a> The only plan out there that gives us all a powerful way to fight back!