Tweety: "People would want a little 'tapping' if the alternative

[Sparkly]

was planes exploding." (Near to the quote, if not perfect.)

First of all, it's not about "a little tapping," nor is it about "a lot of tapping." It's about WARRANTLESS tapping without any oversight or accountability as to WHO is being tapped and WHY!!

WHY is that sooooooo hard for people to understand?!?!???

It's like being back at the point of "Invading Iraq is NOT about 9/11 or fighting back at terrorists!!!"

Second, he adds the layer of false dichotomy the GOP looooves to play up on this: "Either we use 'this program,' or we all DIE!!! The terrorists WIN!!! We can't 'weaken' the tools needed by law enforcement!! The Constitution isn't a suicide pact!!"

He *just* seems like he's getting it, then he says something like this.

:mad:

[TheFarseer]

1. the republicans love their false choices

also see: either we give tax cuts to the rich, or the economy is in the tank and no one has a job

[chelsea0011]

2. Shoot me! Just don't kill me and I won't mind.

[pooja]

3. I don't understand how they can twist it so well, but on the other

hand, if they don't spin this, Bush is committing a crime. That wouldn't be good for his monkey crew.

[Sherman A1]

4. I would refer him to the Ben Franklin

quote on security and liberty.

[Sapere aude]

5. The tapping is not about security, it's about the junta remaining in power

The biggest lie out there is that Bush is protecting us. Now I ask you, if your butt was on the line, is Bush the kind of person you would call to protect you? He's the world's biggest fuck up!

[Sparkly]

7. Are you *implying* they might be tapping political opponents??

Trust them! It's a program that's constantly reviewed, and very carefully implemented! They could show you, but it's secret and they can't reveal state secrets!

And they can't answer questions about how or what they're doing, because that gets into "operational" details they can't discuss... Gonzales couldn't even say whether they were intercepting first class mail between US citizens, but we don't really need to know, do we? They're protecting us!!

We must trust them at their word. I mean, they've proven just EXACTLY how trustworthy they are.... :sarcasm:

[hatrack]

6. Nice strawman, Tweety! Does it also frighten woodchucks?

:eyes:

[Xipe Totec]

8. Only pinko commies chose security over freedom n/t

[Sparkly]

9. True, and still that's not even the issue.

We have to drill it into their heads:

It's NOT about the surveillance, it's about the OVERSIGHT!
It's NOT about compromising security, it's about following the LAW!
It's NOT about weakening law enforcement, it's about doing it right to maintain our RIGHTS!
It's NOT about "not listening in on Al Qaeda," it's about getting a WARRANT from the FISA court, as required, to prevent abuses!!!

There is NOTHING in the law that does ANYthing to weaken or compromise the ability to spy on suspected terrorists. It's not an either/or. There's NO reason for them not to follow the law, and they're making a fake argument out of this.

Wonder WHY they're so afraid of oversight of what they're doing, if it's all so terrorist-related and above-board and in the interest of national security?? They've never given a single reason for it.

[leesa]

10. He knows exactly what the issue is. His job is to make YOU think its

something else.

[ginnyinWI]

11. well, Tweety: the Dems want "a little tapping" too, but:

If it's important, make it legal!
If it's important, make it legal!
If it's important, make it legal!
If it's important, make it legal!
If it's important, make it legal!
If it's important, make it legal!


What's * got to hide, if all he's trying to do is keep us safe?

[mmonk]

12. The only reason not to go through the FISA court

is to spy on people who have no connection to terrorism. There is no other plausable reason or explanation. FISA will let you spy on terrorism suspects. They are there to make sure that is what you are doing instead of abusing surveillance by using it on someone else.

[rocktivity]

13. Even if he's right, it STILL wouldn't explain why the spying can't be done

without a warrant.

:headbang:
rocknation