Cavuto: "[C]ollecting our phone records" is better than "collecting our remains"
May 12, 2006 2:18 pm ET
Previewing his analysis of the National Security Agency's just-exposed program to collect the phone call records of millions of Americans, host Neil Cavuto declared during the May 11 edition of Fox News' Your World: "Yes, it is not great to necessarily hear they're collecting our phone records, but it's a heck of a lot better than collecting our remains."
From the May 11 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
CAVUTO: Yes, it is not great to necessarily hear they're collecting our phone records, but it's a heck of a lot better than collecting our remains. The other side of this tapping issue after this.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Demagogy: a strategy of obtaining power by appealing to the popular prejudices, fears, and expectations of the public, usually through an impassioned use of rhetoric and propaganda.
I'm no expert, but isn't this an example of a fallacial argument?
You respond by pointing to the most extreme consequence possible.
If we don't do this, we're dead! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
I'm sure there's a name for it (other than stupidity of course).
Known as a false dichotomy. As if these were the two only possible consequences. It is a type of a strawman argument and all Fox has at this point to defend the apparantly illegal actions of President Gump
I should have paid attention in Philosophy 101.
An conclusion that does not follow from the premise, like a bad if/then statement.
"Rain tomorrow means sun on tuesday." It might sound neat, but it just isn't necessarilly so.
The problem with such an argument is that no amount of special pleading can make the illegal legal or the harmful harmless. It is, of course, perfectly legitimate to point out the severity of a problem as part of the justification for adopting a proposed solution. The fallacy comes in when other aspects of the "solution" (such as whether it is legal, what other harm might be caused by adopting the policy) are ignored or responded to only with more impassioned pleas.
This is the familiar fallacy of thinking that because two things occur simultaneously, one must be a cause of the other. In other words, we are alive because the NSA is tracking our phone calls. If they did not track our phone calls, we would be dead.
* i could not insert a "u" between c and m because the MMFA software interprets it as profanity.
Cavuto also said this latest NSA revelation does not mean we live in a police state but a safer state, as if these are mutually exclusive conditions. And according to Cavuto, people who have concerns about civil liberties or possible illegal activities are "whiners" and "moaners" (not only name-calling, but an ad hominem criticism, I believe).
Yet if you go to his FOX website, you will not find a transcript for any of Cavuto's video-linked "Common Sense" commentaries. Is this because they are so brief, or is it possibly because he does not want his words recorded in print, where they might become harder to stand by when subjected to critical scrutiny?
Are there really people out there who are STUPID enough to fal for this garbage? I mean, really...?
Most of America?
[link to www.cnn.com]
"Yes, it is not great to necessarily hear they're collecting our phone records, but it's a heck of a lot better than collecting our remains."
You lefty's don't have a problem with this statement, do you?
that's basically it in a nutshell. and thankfully most of the american people realize this too. sadly, it may take another attack against us to wake many of the liberals up to the fact that we are on the terrorist's hit list STILL.
If you believe this crap, there's no hope for you. Again, the oldest trick in the book... 'collecting our remains?' Cavuto's a jackass.
What progress have we made?? I want to know?? You're living a lie while these neocon creeps rob us all blind. That's winning the war on terror? There are just too many ridiculous gaffs and outright crimes perpetrated at the hands of this insanely criminal and inept administration for anyone with a brain NOT to get it... But, ah, you keep on cheering.
Another attack? You'd like that wouldn't you? Just so you can teach those darned "liberals" a lesson.
If you are willing to throw our civil liberties at the first passing government body the promises to make us safer by invading our privacy, than you are not only disrespecting the troops who are currently getting maimed and killed in Iraq to supposedly bring them freedom, but you are also greatly disrespecting the people who fought and died in our revelutionary war to bring us those freedoms in the first place. (that was the longest sentence ever)
I think that our revolution was too long ago, many of us don't realize what our forefathers had to go through to promise us those liberties in the Constitution. We don't realize how bad it could be if we allow them to be taken away.
Beautiful.
And exactly, irrefutably correct.
High five!
The powers that be keep telling us, and their lackeys at Fox keep drilling it into our heads, that because 3000 people we're killed we have to relinquish the freedom that so many paid the ultimate price for. We are told to ignore the hundreds of thousands who've died prior to 9/11 and focus only on the 3000 who lost their lives that day. How many of those who died would be willing to have their deaths paraded before the people whenever someone attempts to take away more of our freedom?
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security, will deserve neither and lose both"
-Benjamin Franklin
for the incredible loss of freedom.
Do you want checks at airports lifted. My god, they go through wallets, purses, luggage!! OMG what a loss of freedom! We need to stop this police state now!!
How about at borders. Do you know they STOP people when they cross!! They check their (gasp) papers!! OMG, we are becoming Soviet Russia!!
This has to stop!!
In jail for three years the administration says they will never charge him or bring him to trial just hold him indefinitlhy, remember the sixth amendment? What about wiretapping US persons without a warrant remember our fourth amendment? I guess until YOU personally are rounded up and put in a camp nothing done to anyone else signifies a loss of freedom. As usual leatherhelmet with his head deep, deep in the sand
A country must give up some rights to protect itself.
We have police, we have FBI, we have a legal system, all which take away our rights.
To say that using common sense systems to try to track terrorists which are infiltrated our society and saying that disrepects our soldiers is baloney.
As usual, the whiney left and its history of appeasement to enemies tries to destroy us from within.
No one is talking about anarchy. As long as the courts respect the rights given us in the beggining by the Bill of Rights, I am happy. We are only talking about the deal the founding fathers gave us, THAT balance between freedom and security is the one I want maintained. YOU and BUSH dont get to decide unilaterally that we need to give up those freedoms because YOU are so afraid YOU want more security. As Benjamin Franklin said YOU deserve neither
Thank you for proving to everyone here that all this conservative rhetoric has nothing to do with national security or patriotism. It's just "sticking it to the libs" with i-told-you-so politics.
Unfortunately for you, reality has a liberal bias.
There used to be a guy on our hit list named Osama Bin laden, now since we're bogged down in Iraq, GWB doesn't think of him much.
The constitution was forged from the blood of thousands of people and it has survived for over two hundred years through countless wars and threats.
But now people like you are so afraid, so quaking with fear, from the scary "terrists" that you are ready to throw away a pound of freedom to get an ounce of temporary security.
I can't imagine anything more cowardly than taking away this hard fought freedom not just from yourself, but also from your children and grandchildren, because you are so desperate and scared.
You are a sad, pathetic, frightened little child. If you want to curl up in the fetal position, give up your freedoms, and sob quietly in the hopes that King George will protect you--then maybe America isn't the right country for you. Sounds like you'd be a better fit for 18th century England, or maybe 1930s Germany.
But those of us that are real Americans are willing to fight for both freedom and safety, and we aren't willing to compromise on either.
Man you conservatives are KINGS of both the art of the obvious statement and ignoring the obvious conclusions at the same time. Unless TWO things happen another terrorist event would NOT be relevant to this discussion at all. ONE, that this sort of intrusion into our privacy COULD have prevented it and B, that the overall loss of freedom was WORTH the cost in fighting terrorism. Good luck demonstrating EITHER
Wow.. If you really believe Cavuto's argument then, if you send me $500 I will guarantee that you wont be attacked by terrorists in the next year.
How do you know my agreement is good?
Have you been attacked in the last year? No? Then just send me $500 (a one-time good deal) and I will make sure next year is just as safe.
:)
Mushroom clouds...yellowcake...anthrax...brown people!!!! Run Righty run!!!
whines and cries about the right "fearmongering" and then starts engaging the most extreme examples of what the NSA call monitoring does.
---what stops them from listening in on political foes ---they can listen in to grandma's calls ---it is illegal without warrants (as if a billion warrants a week could be issues). ---we are in a police state
Cavuto's line is brilliant. Since the left has offered zero, zip, nada, nothing in the way of protection against Al Quaeda, the line just rips their guts out.
Intelligent people (aka "lefty's" [sic]) have a problem with that statement because it creates a false dichotomy, in which there are only two options are (1) having your phone records collected by the government or (2) dying.
You got it.
A SECOND false dichotomy is that there is only ONE way to collect intelligence data domestically; WITHOUT A WARRANT.
Cavuto implies that our only choice is to be spied on illegally by our own government. God Forbid they could collect the necessary data, while remaining in compliance with THE LAW! And if they did THAT, we wouldn't have to die, now would we?
Nope, Cavuto says it's the way Bush says do it, or DEATH. No other options.
Because its implication is that if the NSA wasn't collecting our data, that we would all be killed by terrorists.
That is STUPID. To suggest anything otherwise is ALSO STUPID.
Given the choice between another 9-11 and having the administration violate the Constitution and lay the foundation for a dictatorial government I'll take the former, because the latter is going to be a far bigger problem in the long run.
Since I am not a moron. I can see that it isnt a choice between one or the other which is the implication.
Fear is the only thing the Republicans have left. The only way they can get elected is to make the public so afriad of an outside threat that we cease to stand up for our rights. The sad thing is that most Fox viewers are probably fooled by this fearmongering but are just too blind to see it.
You guys here do realize that there are HUNDREDS of data banks out there that give the government, and any of us willing to pay for it, a WHOLE LOT MORE than phone records.
Hell, Google your name-phone-address and see what comes up on the web FREE of charge. I can get a map showing me exactly where you live. Nice :-/
Not making excuses here, I WISH there weren't so much of our PERSONAL INFO was out there for ANYONE to get a hold of--BUT I've got NO problem with phone records being collected--IF it could help in tracking down terrorist activity. AND I think this "outrage" by Democrats is artificial, IMO. Just politics...Don't let your HATRED/DISAPPROVAL of Bush color your common sense
Democrats like Joe Scarborough and Newt Gingrich and Arlen Spector?
Well Arlen Specter is a RINO...BUT I haven't heard what Joe Scarborough and Newt Gingrich had to say on the subject. Thanks for the info...I'll make a point of checking it out...though I'm surprised that they would be against it.
Scarborough: [link to www.msnbc.msn.com] Gingrich: [link to thinkprogress.org]
Well I haven't watched Scarborough in quite awhile, and it's ACTUALLY a pleasant surprise to see he's not parroting the Administration on EVERY issue anymore. I've NEVER put much stock in his arguments-- BUT reading what he&Newt had to say actually made more sense than some other ARTICLE& OPINIONS I've read about this "program"--I may have to RE-THINK this...who knows I might have a change of heart here ;-)
I do apologize for "jumping" solely on the Democrats...THIS is obviously one of those Non-Partisan topics.
Oh, and Lindsey Graham. And some others.
Arlen Spector has been a Republican since he was the District Attorney of the City of Philadelphia back in the 1960's and 1970's. His politics haven't changed all that much since then. But the Republican party has turned itself into something else entirely. He was a Republican then and he is still a member of the party but it's the Republican's who are Republicans in Name Only today.
Specter is a "moderate" referred to as a RINO by a number of Republicans for his sometimes "liberal" views [pro-choice/gay rights]. BUT I will AGREE with you that the Republican Party has shifted in recent years--unfortunately to the Far Right.
I consider myself a "moderate", and sometimes confused about the party I still consider myself a part of. Perhaps I'm a RINO as well? Or maybe I'm a true Republican and it's the Party that's left me...something to think about I suppose.
You're a real Republican and one of the good guys. I think you're right it's the party that's left you.
Hey thanks :-) I consider YOU one of the good guys here too.
I think MOST of us posting here are NOT [left or right] extremists [whether Republican or Democrat] and are actually NOT that far apart on many issues.
That gives me some real hope for our country.
First, though, I am, and have been, opposed to ALL of that information that you referenced. I want direct mail, spam, telemarketing, etc. to be illegal.
But, for the sake of this discussion, my problem with the current situation is that it's GOVT. It bugs me that Citibank has my data, but it fills me with fear that dubya does.
We AGREE...It sickens me as well to know how much INFO there is out there about ALL of us. And how EASY it is to obtain by ANYONE. Government OR Private company. But I'm afraid it's probably too late to reverse it...you know that slippery slope everyone refers to? Well we've slid down it and reached ROCK BOTTOM.
It's not that I'm thrilled that they have been keeping records of our phone calls, it's just that considering that NOTHING much else is private anymore, THIS revelation seems a lot less INTRUSIVE than what other Data Banks are spitting out about us. And IF it actually helps in tracking down terrorist activity--then MAYBE we can call it a necessary evil?
I can go with that, but only if we strictly manage the use of the data. I can easily imagine that, after a few years of this, cops will get accesss to this info for use in their investigations. It will be justified with the whole "we're stopping murders" but then they will use it for drug busts, then speeding. See what I mean? It should only be used for terror investigations, no matter what other crimes it might stop.
You're right... the info is out there...and it's easy to get. What I object to is 'pundits' like Cavuto fear-mongering...without any clear connection to reality. This is propaganda that serves only the Bush regime.
And, then you have apologists like RIGHT ON who toe the line... "yep...sadly it'll take another attack for these liberals...blah, blah, blah"... Come on. This constant clouding of the issues with inane, false points is painful to me. I guess that's what politics really is... Still hurts though.
Cavuto is TRYING to play on people's fears--that I agree with you on 100%. THIS is the SAME tactic Bush apologists use whenever he gets backed into a corner.
Unfortunately, as I've pointed out in my other posts--private information about ALL of us is out there for ANYONE to find/buy. Thank the internet.
THIS in no way excuses the government from snooping into our phone records...BUT I just can't get too worked up about it, considering there's a lot more "sensitive" info out there being processed and poured over by Who Knows Who?
You're right. I made three clicks the other day and got my 'free' credit report -- told my every move for the past 10 years. Somewhat disconcerting. But, as a 'user' of the internet... not surprising. Oh well. The issue doesn't rile me... The FOX war drums bother me.
Friday's USA Today editorial pointed out the NSA can probably use its acccess to phone records to locate government whistleblowers who have leaked to a reporter. Still sound like no big deal?
"Friday's USA Today editorial pointed out the NSA can probably use its acccess to phone records to locate government whistleblowers who have leaked to a reporter."...by PJT
=====
"CAN PROBABLY" being the operative words HERE.
Of course the government CAN PROBABLY use the info for just about anything...just as they or ANYONE who OBTAINS info about you or I from any number of databases/databanks can USE private information. You [and the USA Today] are ASSUMING the government will USE the phone records for a nefarious purpose...AND you could be right. Then again, they could ALSO use these phone records to the greater good [as they claim], which means tracking Terrorist Activity.
Until there is some kind of PROOF that this administration OR any administration [past or future] have/is/or will use this program for ANYTHING other than National Security/Criminal Activity, I think we should NOT assume the worst.
It SHOULD be investigated thoroughly BEFORE such accusations are made.
--------------------------------------------------------------
** It was President Clinton who signed into law the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994, after it was passed in both the House and Senate by a voice vote. That law is an act "to make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes, and for other purposes." The act made clear that a court order isn't the only lawful way of obtaining call information, saying, "A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization."
The law that President Clinton signed into law and that was approved by voice votes in 1994 by a Democrat-majority House and a Democrat-majority Senate not only made clear the phone companies' "duty" to cooperate, it authorized $500 million in taxpayer funds to reimburse the phone companies for equipment "enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to access call-identifying information that is reasonably available to the carrier." Again, the law, by referring to "other lawful authorization," states clearly that a court order isn't the only form of lawful authorization possible.**....excerpt from the NY Sun Editorial
The issue isn't just what's available now and what isn't. To get this sort of information for just one person, the government needs a warrant. Otherwise, it's illegal. Now, for tens of millions of people, that obviously is illegal on a grand scale, whether it violates the fourth amendment or whether people care or not. Now if times have changed so much that the law and the requirement for a warrant is meaningless, then surely Bush and his fellow Republicans who control everything could easily remedy that situation, don't you think? This is the same basic principle that destroyed so many right-wing arguments regarding the original NSA scandal, talking about how restrictive FISA was and what a bad law it was. If it's that bad, then they should exercise the power they have instead of breaking the law
Just like the first NSA scandal, this is a matter of the law. Why is it political posturing to suggest we should hold our government within those boundaries?
Explain why "just politics" is ARTIFICIAL.
You equate the two, saying that if something is POLITICAL, it cannot be SERIOUS. This is very odd, since ALL the actions of this Administration -- starting a WAR on false pretenses, keeping information SECRET from the American people, outing a CIA operation, etc, etc. -- is all POLITICS. It's all done by Republicans, for the BUSH Administration, and within the power of government which is decided through POLITICS.
So, WHY do you think it a sufficient argument to say something is "just politics", and can thus be disregarded? The POLITICS of every issue is deadly, deadly serious business!
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." - The old buy on the $100 bill
i wonder how franklin would react to al queda and the terrorist threat that was as much a part of our country over 200 years ago as the internet was? chances are he would be in favor of fighting the war with all the available resources we have at our disposal.
Or just take him at his word.
Back in those primitive days, the US would do really strange things, like punish the Barbary pirates by attacking the Barbary Coast!
Had "The Decider" been around back then he probably would've attacked Barbados to prevent them from deploying their non-existent limbo sticks of death while claiming that their nutmeg crop would pay for the war.
If you think Ben Franklin would somehow approve of this type of quasi-dictatorial bulls***, then you have definitely drunk too much of the kool-aid.
Let me throw the words of another of the Founders at you to drive the point home:
"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy"
James Madison
At the time our nation won the American Revolution we were a new, tiny country huddled on the shore of a hostile world. Bitter enemies were in the forests and mountains along three of our four borders - and the open Atlantic Ocean was the fourth. We had just defeated the mightest military on the face of the earth - and they weren't happy about it.
Against such impossible odds we wrote the Constitution and established our principals for the world to see.
Now we are that mighty military nation - our borders stretch from the Atlantic to the Pacific and our armed forces can land in any country on earth within a day. We can wipe out all life on the planet. Yet now we live in fear and apparently lack the heart and soul to keep committed to those same principals from 225 years ago ...
Huh?
Ben took his liberty very seriously. His fight for this countries liberty came between him and his son. The Crown appointed Franklin's son as the Governor of New Jersey and the son stayed loyal to the British throughout the war. I don't think Franklin ever forgave his son for betraying his country.
I have to take him at his word, since his words were so important to him. During the revolution there was no AlQaeda, but there was terror from the British and the British sympathizers. They were dangerous times, but the founding fathers loved liberty above all else.
Is a bigger threat to the US than Britian, then the worlds greatest military power was then ???? You're kidding right? Is it a bigger threat than the USSR and all their nukes were in the 60's and 70's? We cared about our civil liberties then. Nixon was on his way to IMPEACHMENT and one of those articles of impeachment was illegal wiretapping. WHICH he said was on National Security grounds. A desperate argument but a weak one at best
Franklin would call Tom Paine and Paine would use his second amendment on your ass.
Why is everyone taking the assertion at face value that the phone records are being collected for the purposes of finding terrorists? There's plenty of things they're willing to do in the name of fighting terrorism that has nothing to do with it. Like invading Iraq, for starters.
How on earth -- at this point -- should we (the people) take ANYTHING this administration does or will do on faith? How many times must we get burned with rhetorical, nonsensical BS while our treasury is robbed blind, we sell off our country to the highest bidder (UAE, China)...and, oh yeah, attempt to satisfy some neocon folly (fallacy) of one day ruling the middle east?? My god. This is what it boils down to... trying to reason with morons.
... swore that everything he did was under the umbrella of NATIONAL SECURITY. Opposition research by burglary? Necessary to preserve his leadership of America, which he considered vital for America's wellbeing. Those damn voters ... they just don't know what's BEST for America. Right, Dick? Right, Dubya?
"Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal"...
[link to www.landmarkcases.org]
"I'd rather die on our feet than live on our knees." - The Godfather of Soul
"They may take our freedom, but they'll never take away our lives"
Poor, naive little Neil
...I'm so tired of this argument. I wish this dipsh*t would stop and extend his logical statement ("It is better to sacrifice freedom and principles than to die") to every other moral crisis this nation has faced and see where that leaves him.
So many right-wingers like Cavuto are sniveling cowards. They will give up any liberty you can name just for a possible miniscule reduction in an already miniscule threat. (Yes, righties - the actual probability that you or any other individual will die at the hands of terrorists is miniscule.)
Indeed.
Drunk driving. Cigarettes. Accidental Tylenol overdoses! (I am not making this up.)
All of those things (among others) kill far more people per year than all terrorist activity combined.
Where's the War on Tylenol?!
I demand that the NSA collect and monitor all of our purchases to see just who exactly is buying Tylenol, and when, and where. They could implant an electronic tracking device in us, and put cameras in all of the stores and in our homes, to protect us from the Tylenol.
We have to round up all of the ladders in the country.
The odds of dying by falling off a ladder are 1 in 10,000.
The odds of dying by terrorism are 1 in 88,000.
It's time we did something about ladders.
Ladders! Even when it was the Tylenol, I knew it was them.
He's going to calculate the odds of dying while on a ladder and under the influence of tylenol. I'm cleaning out both my garage and my medicine cabinet just to be safe.
The victims of 911 didn't need an actuary. They got a first hand look at what CAN happen. Some of them had a while to think about it while they fell to their death after they had to jump 90 stories to keep from being burned alive. Your BS statistics make it sound like you don't give a sh_t about what happened to them. Is it likely to happen again? I think so. After reading some of the tasteless comments regarding the percentages of chance I can only hope that you'll be included in the carnage next time.
Have a nice weekend!
Fine. You give up YOUR liberty, and live like a frightened little bunny rabbit. I'll take my chances as a free man.
I'm with you!
If the stats are B.S., then why aren't you debunking them?
It's not that the stats aren't correct. They probably are. The problem is, that SOME people have died at the hands of terrorist. For people like you to joke about ladders and Tylenol causing more deaths than the terrorist says to me, that in your mind, it's just one of those things. Too bad. Better luck next time. No need to take any further precautions. Your comments insult the memory of those who DID die. That's the problem. After what happened on 911, comparing the chance of ANYONE being killed at the hands of terrorist is never appropriate comedy material.
We weren't talking about 9/11. You brought that up. Cavuto is talking about FUTURE attacks. We were talking about the probability of dying in a FUTURE terrorist attack vs. the probability of dying in a much more mundane way, and pointing out that proportionality is lacking between the actual tiny risk and the hysteria that is constantly whipped up about it by Cavuto and his ilk. NOBODY WAS TALKING ABOUT 9/11.
you believe that when discussing the possiblity of future terrorist attacks we should not consider that 9/11 happened? It did happen and a lot of inocent people died. Comparing their deaths to falling off a ladder or overdosing on Tylenol is disrespecful to those who have died and to those who may die in the future as the war on terror continues. I stick with what I said before…this subject is inapproprite comedy material. If it was left up to all you SMART people I guess we’de all just have to take our chances, while we’re living free of course.
And if you'll read my prior posts you'll see that I stated that we should also care that before 9/11, hundreds of thousands of people died in our military defending the freedoms that the administration is whittling down each day. We have a duty to them and to the founding fathers to protect every liberty we have at all cost. If you took my later remarks as flippant, fine. It was a response to a ridiculous choice brought up by Cavuto, saying that the choice is to let the federal government take away liberty or die. That is ridiculous. I would say that it was the most ridiculous thing I've heard in some time, but I spent all day yesterday in another thread defending Vietnam Veterans against some right wing slug, and I've had it with those types.
If you want to fight with someone, go down to the enlistment office we could use people like you on the front lines.
9/11, 9/11, 9/11....Bush is a GOD he can wiretap anyone he wants....9/11, 9/11 9/11....Civil liberties are for people who love terrorists, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11....Your schtick is old. It doesnt automatically end discussion, it isnt a trump card that means if you say it often enough or loud enough you somehow win or even make sense. Perhaps you are so scared you would gladly give up YOUR freedoms in order to feel safer. I wouldnt , I would just as soon keep mine if you dont mind, or even if you do.
I did not once insult the victims. If you're offended by the comparisons, take it up with the people who actually made those remarks.
I did not make light of 9-11. I was scared to death that day, especially since I had family members living in Manhattan. I don't want that to happen again. I'm perfectly fine with taking precautions.
However, I have a definite problem when the "precautions" taken involve violating the Constitution and civil liberties. That's a very dangerous sign.
Any inbred monkey can call someone names (as evidenced by your last post), but I've grown tired of it.
We're smarter than you, faster than you, and tougher than you. We've got more friends than you, and we get laid more often and by hotter people.
You don't scare anybody. Go back to the trailer and work on your war face, you punk.
Spoken like a true "Clinton" democrat.
Do you mean spoken like someone whom is correct? You are getting smarter.
The most tasteless comment was the one made by Cavuto!
It IS likely to happen again, probably right before the election in November, just in time to scare the crap out of all you sheeple who are bing manipulated by the insane clown posse running this government. If they're so concerned about your security, why haven't they done anything YET about port security, besides trying to hand it off to an arab government. HUH? Democrats have trieed REPEATEDLY over the past five years to introduce legislation to increse port security, and every time it is defeated by the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS. Wake up and smell the coffee, this administration has done nothing to protect you, they're too busy starting a war with the wrong country in order to protect their oil-based financial interests.
After reading some of the tasteless comments regarding the percentages of chance I can only hope that you'll be included in the carnage next time. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Of course you do. Black hearted fascists such as yourself exhult in the thought of liberals dying horribly, its what seperates YOU, and say Coulter from you know, HUMANITY
You move to Texas with the rest of your inbred kind, build a big wall and worship you boy king all you want traitor. We will stay here and keep our Constitution, our liberties and our sanity.
See, our troops are fighting and dying every day in Iraq. And it's taking a toll on Bush. His poll numbers are in the toilet. So he has to get OUT, but also save FACE.
He can't declare VICTORY and bug out. That would be too retro-Nixon.
Here's the deal: Our troops fight for AMERICAN FREEDOM and LIBERTY. If Bush can just ELIMINATE our freedom and liberty, and ashcan the constitution, then there will no longer be any reason for our troops to keep fighting. They can come HOME.
And best yet, they will never again have to go to battle for our Constitution, because Americans will have voluntarily given up any claim to rights or freedoms, and so why bother fighting? For WHAT?
Brilliant.
You asked the question, "You lefty's don't have a problem with this statement, do you?"
You're ABSOLUTELY . . . RIGHT.
As Neil suggests, collecting our phone records IS better than collecting our remains.
I agree that phone records should be collected from EVERY HOUSE in the land as part of this war on terrorism.
And when I say every house, I mean EVERY HOUSE . . . and yes, that includes the WHITE HOUSE.
This is just a guess, but I can't help but think that since the Bushes, pere et fils, have been longtime business associates of the bin Ladens {and George H. W. was with ObL's brother ON 9/11}, there's likely to be more phone conversations between the bin Ladens and the Bushes than there are between the bin Ladens and the other 290 million or so people in the U.S.
Wasn't it King George himself who said, "if someone is talking on the phone to Al Qaeda, we want to know about it"?
Hey, if nothing else, it'd make it a lot easier for the NSA narrow its focus . . . so they wouldn't have to waste valuable time and resources on spying on the Quakers, PETA, some nuns, etc . . .
W hat is the matter with the news media.?They should be digging for all the nonsense this maladiministration is up to! The republicans have given us Teapot Dome, Watergate , I ran-Contra and Credit Mobilier.Now they give us this law -breaking crew! Go Conyers ,go!
Or has he just given up on that pretense once and for all?
Cavuto says that he would rather sell out the Constitution rather than die.
Cavuto should just chop off his genitalia, videotape the evidence and announce publically "Hey, al Qaeda! You won, I'm terrified"