Probably what Clinton did wasn't right, but the GOP was more concerned
with his pecker.

Shrub was stupid enough to flaunt how he broke the law and said he will
continue to break the law. It is the equivalent of saying "bring it
on", except this time Shrub will get whacked.

MnMikew wrote:
"FDR" wrote in message
...

"MnMikew" wrote in message
...
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...2610-7772r.htm

"The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that
the
president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical
searches
for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has
done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy
Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the
House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Warrantless physical searches go on all the time. Police officer pulls
over
a car. Police officer says he smells alcohol, searches the car etc.

I do wonder however what physical searches were done without warrant
during
the Clinton administration. Shifting blame to Clinton doesn't make Bush
right though.

They were used during the Aldrich Ames spy investigation. How can it be
right when Clinton did it but not Bush?

wrote:

Probably what Clinton did wasn't right, but the GOP was more concerned
with his pecker.

Shrub was stupid enough to flaunt how he broke the law and said he will
continue to break the law.

When did he say that, 'tard boy?

Seems as though you might wish to pay closer attention to what people say.

I realize that will be tough for you to accomplish, but you might drop those DNC
talking points and give it a try.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

wrote in message
oups.com...
Probably what Clinton did wasn't right, but the GOP was more concerned
with his pecker.

And just where was the outrage? Not a peep from anyone. Why? A Dem was in
office. Typical liberal double standard.

It's hard to have an outcry when you didn't know the event happened.I'm
not happy about JFK buying all those Cuban cigars prior to the embargo
(insider trading), but there isn't much I can do after the fact.

We will go kind on Shrub and the veep, making the sentances run
concurrently rather than sequentially. However, both Shrub and Crooked
Mouth will have to eat Fruit Loops in the pokey. Oh, and broccoli too!


MnMikew wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Probably what Clinton did wasn't right, but the GOP was more concerned
with his pecker.

And just where was the outrage? Not a peep from anyone. Why? A Dem was in
office. Typical liberal double standard.

"MnMikew" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
Probably what Clinton did wasn't right, but the GOP was more concerned
with his pecker.

And just where was the outrage? Not a peep from anyone. Why? A Dem was in
office. Typical liberal double standard.

The only outrage was from Republicans worried about Clinton's sex life. Why
didn't Republicans speak up about it then?

FDR wrote:
"MnMikew" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
Probably what Clinton did wasn't right, but the GOP was more concerned
with his pecker.

And just where was the outrage? Not a peep from anyone. Why? A Dem was in
office. Typical liberal double standard.

The only outrage was from Republicans worried about Clinton's sex life. Why
didn't Republicans speak up about it then?

why would republicains who thinks bushss earches are ok have been
outraged by clintons search based on the same thing If the GoP had been
outraged then, a swipe now woul dbe in line

the truth is that the dems did not care then but do care now,

the word for that is HYPOCRITE

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 16:26:07 -0600, "MnMikew"
wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...
Probably what Clinton did wasn't right, but the GOP was more concerned
with his pecker.

And just where was the outrage? Not a peep from anyone. Why? A Dem was in
office. Typical liberal double standard.




This is not an argument about:
a) spying on terrorists being ok or not ok
b) those who want to fight terrorism and those who don't

This is an argument about the president refusing to follow the law
that would not slow him down at all. The law simply requires him to go
to a secret court and get a f*cking warrant. They've turned down 5 out
of 30,000 requests in the last 20 years. And they even allow the
president to get a warrant *after* the spying has begun in emergency
cases, so there's not even the "ticking time bomb" scenario you repugs
who think you're so clever were all ready to toss out. There's no good
possible reason this thug president can't just go get a damn warrant.
Why do Republicans hate the rule of law, and love Dictatorship?

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
ups.com...

FDR wrote:
"MnMikew" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
Probably what Clinton did wasn't right, but the GOP was more concerned
with his pecker.

And just where was the outrage? Not a peep from anyone. Why? A Dem was
in
office. Typical liberal double standard.

The only outrage was from Republicans worried about Clinton's sex life.
Why
didn't Republicans speak up about it then?

why would republicains who thinks bushss earches are ok have been
outraged by clintons search based on the same thing If the GoP had been
outraged then, a swipe now woul dbe in line

the truth is that the dems did not care then but do care now,

the word for that is HYPOCRITE

Actually, there are Republicans that care now. Many who want an
investigation. I'd call them hypocrites.

"toTaLhAt" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 16:26:07 -0600, "MnMikew"
wrote:


wrote in message
groups.com...
Probably what Clinton did wasn't right, but the GOP was more concerned
with his pecker.

And just where was the outrage? Not a peep from anyone. Why? A Dem was in
office. Typical liberal double standard.




This is not an argument about:
a) spying on terrorists being ok or not ok
b) those who want to fight terrorism and those who don't

This is an argument about the president refusing to follow the law
that would not slow him down at all. The law simply requires him to go
to a secret court and get a f*cking warrant. They've turned down 5 out
of 30,000 requests in the last 20 years. And they even allow the
president to get a warrant *after* the spying has begun in emergency
cases, so there's not even the "ticking time bomb" scenario you repugs
who think you're so clever were all ready to toss out. There's no good
possible reason this thug president can't just go get a damn warrant.
Why do Republicans hate the rule of law, and love Dictatorship?

I think that the reason why this is a big deal is because no one feels that
Bush is being honest, that he has any integrity, and is probably up to no
good with these wiretaps.