If you say so, I dont watch him very often. They certainly all deserve to be dragged thru the mud.
Another loss for America?
- Thread starter Tim
- Start date
Eat the rich!
Certainly, I'll never challenge that one bit. But I see good things too...I don't think you do. Except the Geico thing.
I do see good things. I just have problems mainly with the government, foreign policy and some aspects of American culture.
Thank you for the transcript Pudding Time. 
I have a question about these warrentless wiretaps. Wasn't a bill passed in the 1970s to allow just this in cases of parties within the US communicating with known or suspected terrorists or then soviet spies who are outside the US?
What exactly did bush do to change that?
I have a question about these warrentless wiretaps. Wasn't a bill passed in the 1970s to allow just this in cases of parties within the US communicating with known or suspected terrorists or then soviet spies who are outside the US?
What exactly did bush do to change that?
The fact that he openly hates bush makes everything he reports about the man biased.
No, it really doesn't..
Thank you for the transcript Pudding Time.
I have a question about these warrentless wiretaps. Wasn't a bill passed in the 1970s to allow just this in cases of parties within the US communicating with known or suspected terrorists or then soviet spies who are outside the US?
What exactly did bush do to change that?
You can find a lot of the answers from this older thread...
http://www.offtopicz.net/21036-warrantless-wiretapping-place-before-9-11-a.html
You can also pickup some good info here NSA warrantless surveillance controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yes it does. His blind hatred prevents him from making an objective report.
Just because you happen to agree with him does not mean he isn't biased. lol
Cool thanks for the links.
Yes, it was. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed in 1978. Here's the exact text of US Code Title 50, section 1802.
Now, you may be wondering "What is the definition of a foreign power?" Well, section 1801 should answer that quite nicely.
Prior to Bush, nothing beyond section (3) existed. So, essentially, Bush expanded the ALREADY EXISTING WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING PROGRAM to include terrorists.
This is my understanding, based on the crash course I just gave myself.
So, in summation, when a Democrat (Carter) authorizes warrantless wiretapping, it's ok. When a Republican (Bush) includes terrorists in the program, it's wrong.
Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that This is the part that was taken out for President Bush. They can listeen to anyone for any reason and without and justification for it.
That's my understanding from what I read. To be honest, I had never read up on any of it. But that's my conclusion from about half an hour of reading about the history of it.
Like it's already been said. Olbermann doesn't hold back on the democrats. He doesn't hold back on anyone if they do something wrong. He's not bias against Bush at all.
Also, what's with the "lol" after every single post?
I guess that means my mom doesn't have to worry about the NSA listening in when she is gossiping on the phone with her friends. lol
I lol when I find what people say is funny.
Something else that is funny I see a lot claim that FOX news is biased yet when I watch it I see them go after bush and republicans when they do wrong.
They are as biased as any other news outlet. The only difference is they are not biased in the same direction as you are.
In fact when it comes to politics most of the media is biased towards democrats.
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Even Harvard Finds The Media Biased