Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson 1

[Fox Mulder]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

Economics 101 does not say that CEOs must make 400x what the average employee makes. You're just like the Republicans who when asked about global warming, don't ask is it possible? but state, "prove it!", a predisposed certainty of what is or is not possible, but more likely an answer based on ideology and preference. In this example, global warming is going to cost business more money so deny, deny, deny and maybe you won't have to change your profit margins.

What does that have to do with the question I asked you? :confused Forget CEOs--you are talking about a very rare occurrence and changing CEOs pay isn't going to provide a living wage for all workers--not even close--I could do the math for you but you probably wouldn't even read it. You're problem is you are too enraged with class envy to think rationally on the subject. Just focus on the part you talked about--how to provide a living wage for every worker from an economics standpoint. Believe it or not I'm trying to help you here--make you at least appear more intelligent.

In regards to any serious job that requires full time skilled employees, a living wage is fair and if the system can't handle it then you should question the system's faults. If it's a non-skilled job, then you do reap the rewards of not putting out any effort.

A "skilled" employee does earn a living wage--there may be exceptions (but there are both ways) but by and large if you've got skills, you'll be paid for them.

Regarding union greed, that is just propaganda fostered by people with a vested interest in keeping workers' pay as low as possible. My experience with unions is in the airline industry. Unions help employees and see that they get paid a fair wage, basically demanding a fair piece of the pie, that large corporations instinctually don't want to share.

So you are saying that the people working in corporations are greedy but the people working in unions are not? :confused Seriously--that's a statement so aburd on its face its not worth debating. But again--you are avoiding the topic. There is a reason for that.

Your tunnel vision is directed directly at workers, despite bonuses in corporate pay, ceo pay that's skyrocketed to astronomical heights, your only focus is on the workers who without a union have no say and just want to live a decent life. Man they are evil.

Well, again your emotions are blocking your reason. Let's concede all CEOs are evil and all union management are altruistic and good--let's get that out of the way and get back to the original question. How--from an economics standpoint--are we going to come up with a system that provides a living wage to all workers?

 

[Minor Axis]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

What does that have to do with the question I asked you?

Because you love quoting Mulder's Economics 101.

Well, again your emotions are blocking your reason. Let's concede all CEOs are evil and all union management are altruistic and good--let's get that out of the way and get back to the original question. How--from an economics standpoint--are we going to come up with a system that provides a living wage to all workers?

You certainly make a lot of assumptions. I'd never characterize people in that fashion.
And there are no emotions blocking anything I've said or am thinking and I really don't need your help to appear more intelligent. Your sure that what I'm saying can't work. I prefer to allow you expend the energy explaining why it can't.

And no I'm no economics expert in that I can't quote facts and figures for the U.S. economy. But I consider you no expert based on running a small business. My observations are based on experience what I see happening in my part of the economy, to people I know and what I read. And I don't really expect you to agree with me.

 

[Fox Mulder]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

Because you love quoting Mulder's Economics 101.



You certainly make a lot of assumptions. I'd never characterize people in that fashion.
And there are no emotions blocking anything I've said or am thinking and I really don't need your help to appear more intelligent. Your sure that what I'm saying can't work. I prefer to allow you expend the energy explaining why it can't.

It doesn't work that way--you are the one that made the claim that we need a form of government where all workers are given a living wage--you made the assertion so you need to tell us how that would work.

And no I'm no economics expert in that I can't quote facts and figures for the U.S. economy. But I consider you no expert based on running a small business. My observations are based on experience what I see happening in my part of the economy, to people I know and what I read. And I don't really expect you to agree with me.

You don't need to be an economics expert, you just need to know the basics.

I already laid the foundation for you--I said--let's suppose that $20 an hour is a "living wage." Tell us what you think would happen if we made that the minimum wage in the country? Just reason it out.

 

[Fox Mulder]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

Because you love quoting Mulder's Economics 101.

No--I don't--but in order to make statements with any credibility, I need to understand how it would work and so do you. The failure to understand basic economics is why the majority of people in this country supported an increase in the MW and why it passed even though politicians knew it would harm the economy and harm most the people it was suppossed to help.

 

[Minor Axis]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

It doesn't work that way--you are the one that made the claim that we need a form of government where all workers are given a living wage--you made the assertion so you need to tell us how that would work.

You assert every day that what I say is wrong. You've got the ball.


BTW I've all ready clarified that every worker in every job does not deserves living wage...

 

[Fox Mulder]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

You assert every day that what I say is wrong. You've got the ball.

Well unless you actually reason it out for yourself, you won't listen to anything I say because you've got a mental block.

So let's take it more to a micro-economics example. Let's say you--Minor--own a McDonalds. Most of your employees are earning $10 an hour or less. Your Happy meals cost the customer $5.00. Now the government comes in and says that a living wage is $20 an hour and you now have to pay all of your employees at least that. You have a night manager of the McDonalds that you had been paying $20 an hour. Answer these questions:

1. Would you continue to sell your happy meal for $5.00? Could you continue to do so an remain in business?

2. Would your night manager be satisfied to continue working at $20 an hour?

If you think that example through and answer those questions, you'd understand why it is impossible to pay every worker a "living wage," or at least its impossible to force it through legislation.

BTW I've all ready clarified that every worker in every job does not deserves living wage...

I missed it. Who deserves a living wage?

 

[Minor Axis]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

I missed it. Who deserves a living wage?

Skilled workers... I've all ready ruled out the lower working tier at McDonalds...

I just realized we are way off topic. Was that my fault?

 

[Fox Mulder]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

Skilled workers... I've all ready ruled out the lower working tier at McDonalds...

Well as I already said most skilled workers do earn a living wage--many a very good wage. Economics already takes care of that--supply and demand--skilled workers are in high demand always.

I just realized we are way off topic. Was that my fault?

Probably--it doesn't really matter to me.

 

[IntruderLS1]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

I'm just saying that: its the government. If they can abuse something and misuse it, they WILL.

Then why do you want to put them in charge of so much? :cool

 

[All Else Failed]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

Then why do you want to put them in charge of so much? :cool

There's a difference between government involvement and authority.

 

[Fox Mulder]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

Then why do you want to put them in charge of so much? :cool

That's what I don't understand--wether you are liberal or conservative just about everyone agrees they don't like politicians because all they do is make promises they can't keep. Less government then should be what EVERYONE wants. Democrats want to expand the federal government so why would you want them in charge--I just don't get it.

 

[Fox Mulder]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

There's a difference between government involvement and authority.

The issue is actually accountability--that's why the Framers set up a Republic with independent states that would not be beholden to a strong federal government (they'd lived with that with King George and didn't want it) because of the lack of accountability. Yet--its taken just 200 years for activist judges to chip away at the Constitution and little by little take power away from the states and give it to the federal government.

 

[Minor Axis]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

That's what I don't understand--wether you are liberal or conservative just about everyone agrees they don't like politicians because all they do is make promises they can't keep. Less government then should be what EVERYONE wants. Democrats want to expand the federal government so why would you want them in charge--I just don't get it.

Such an empty argument. What exactly do you think has happened to the US Federal Govt over the last 7 years under Republican rule? Not only is government bigger but deficit spending has gone through the roof. And you know why? Because the Republican Party wants Iraq to be the "free war", no taxes to pay for it, we just print up lots of money and drag our country much deeper into debt. It really is a scandal.

 

[ssl]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

top reading editorials like the one you just posted--they typically are laced with rhetoric, prejudice, and are agenda driven.

Okay, now before you liberals get too excited, this is actually intended as a lesson--to show you how easily you are manipulated by the press. Consider this Mulder's First Lesson on Constitutional Law--pull up a chair, get a pad and some paper and take some notes.

Now as step 1 in Mulder's Constiutional Law class, first--read this article:

"Senate Votes to Expand Spy Powers"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/us/13fisa.html?hp

Of course its from the Grey Rag and it uses explosive emotional language with little in the way of actual legal analysis or facts. Words in the title itself "Spy Powers" gets liberals blood boiling before they even read one word of the article--essentially by implication it suggests that Bush has developed a "new" program of wiretapping without warrants and flat out implies it violates the Constitution. It does not.

Let's take a look at the actual legislation and the Act discussed in the article in a little detail:

The article cited is referring primarily to FISA (Foriegn Intelligence Surveillance Act), which dates back to 1978--long before the Patriot Act--and long before Bush took office. Niether the Patriot Act nor FISA gave Bush or any president the power to use warrantless wiretaps-- the Constution gave it to him 200 plus years ago (not wiretaps because phones didn't exist, but the power to conduct searches without warrants in specific circumstances)!!!

To date only two cases have been brought before federal courts to decide the Constiutionality of "warranteless wiretaps" after FISA -- United States v. Duggan 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir., 1984) and United States v. Nicholson 955 F.Supp. 588 (Va. 1997). Both courts flatly rejected claims that warrantless wiretaps violated the Constitution.

Now to explain how FISA works there is a 3-judge court that decides whether warrants are necessary.
What is most amazing about the ignorance and absolute mischaracterization of the article cited above is that the special review court for FISA--the very same court that would ultimately review the issuance of warrantless wiretaps after the fact--has already stated (In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (Foreign Intel. Surv. Ct. of Rev. 2002) that “[A]ll the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information . . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power."

That's all the courts that have decided it!!!! They have all held that any attempt to restrict the President's power to use warrantless wiretaps would violate the Constitution. Maybe some liberal who thinks the use of warrantless wiretaps violates the Constitution can explain to me why or how--clue me and the rest of the federal judiciary in on the problem here because I am totally missing it.

I think what people need to do is read that last full paragraph above (the FISA court decision) over and over and over and over and over until it sinks through that the Consitution envisions 3 separate and equal branches of government. And while liberals absolutely despise the fact that Bush has any power at all, if they really do have a concern for the Consitution, then they should be concerned that the Office of the President has had its Constiutional Powers encroached on by Congress, not the other way around--that is legislative fact! Remember that's the "Office of the President" not Bush. Bush wasn't born yet when the Framers decided to have 3 equal branches (maybe if they had envisioned him or Slick Willie getting his noodle yanked they would have thought differently, but we have to work with what they wrote)--that serves a valuable purpose--one we've existed quite nicely with for 200 plus years until liberals decided they didn't like it and that Congress and the Courts should actually have more power than the President.

If you don't like the President's Constitutional Power--write your Congressman and ask that a Constitutional Amendment be passed. But in the meantime, I will defend the Constiution of the United States as its presently written, I will continue to honor the letter of the law and the sanctity of Constution no matter who gets elected President--even if the Wicked Witch of the East liberals all love so much comes riding into the White House on her broomstick. Its probaly the only thing she's had between her legs since Monica Lewinsky strolled around the Oral, aahhhh, I mean Oval Office.

So--people--stop reading stupid editorials--you'd be better off listening to Fox News or better yet Fox Mulder. Just because some pinheaded liberal types something up on the Internet doesn't make it so.

This has been Constitutional Law 101, Lesson 1--more to come.

Bolded words/phrases seem to be "rhetoric, prejudice, and [...] agenda driven"
Bolded + italicized words seem to insinuate cult-like ideologies.
Bolded, italicized, and underlined paragraph at the end make it seem like I should follow your advice, by not reading what "pinhead [...] type[d] something [sic] up on the internet." Just because it can be understood/agreed with, "doesn't make it so."

Suggestion:

Instead of copying the supposed "pinhead" tactics of the 'liberals,' utilize the mind's conventional tools: reason and logic. Present your point, not a "lesson," in a manner that is not disrespecting of others, even if some article on the Internet is not as respectful in the first place.

 

[Fox Mulder]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

Such an empty argument. What exactly do you think has happened to the US Federal Govt over the last 7 years under Republican rule? Not only is government bigger but deficit spending has gone through the roof. And you know why? Because the Republican Party wants Iraq to be the "free war", no taxes to pay for it, we just print up lots of money and drag our country much deeper into debt. It really is a scandal.

I don't like the way the government's been expanded--don't like it at all.

 

[Fox Mulder]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

Bolded words/phrases seem to be "rhetoric, prejudice, and [...] agenda driven"
Bolded + italicized words seem to insinuate cult-like ideologies.
Bolded, italicized, and underlined paragraph at the end make it seem like I should follow your advice, by not reading what "pinhead [...] type[d] something [sic] up on the internet." Just because it can be understood/agreed with, "doesn't make it so."

Suggestion:

Instead of copying the supposed "pinhead" tactics of the 'liberals,' utilize the mind's conventional tools: reason and logic. Present your point, not a "lesson," in a manner that is not disrespecting of others, even if some article on the Internet is not as respectful in the first place.

I provided case cites to actual cases and facts and explained it well (not my fault if you missed it)--the issue isn't use of strong language or even rhetoric--the issue is understanding the facts. The NY Times article provided no facts--just emotional charged rhetoric.

 

[GraceAbounds]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

The NY Times article provided no facts--just emotional charged rhetoric.

One of my college english classes or was it a communication class, I think it was a communication class, anyways ... they specially used the NY Times as a medium to teach why not to use certain sources for that exact reason. Sorry, just had to add that as I found it comical.

 

[IntruderLS1]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

There's a difference between government involvement and authority.

Not much of a difference though.

 

[ssl]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

I provided case cites to actual cases and facts and explained it well (not my fault if you missed it)--the issue isn't use of strong language or even rhetoric--the issue is understanding the facts. The NY Times article provided no facts--just emotional charged rhetoric.

I understood your post, and am not passing judgment in the form of criticism of the content.

The word selections you decided to use in your explanation detracted from your content in such ways to my mind seemingly paralleling the content you were describing, mainly the underlying implications of the 'liberals.'

There are ways to present your topic in a clear, respectful manner of those who take to certain pathways. While we may not agree, a certain degree of tolerance is expected, if not required, when trying to make certain points, like the few you were trying to make about the NY Times editorial article.

I am not convinced that I am communicating my opinion well, so in order to lessen any type of conflict, I will not continue this course.

 

[Minor Axis]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

Constitution Lesson 102: It's most appalling the first President of recent history to profess to be devoutly Christian, who wears his religion on his sleeve, is the first one to promote illegal wiretapping, in addition to launching our very first offensive war and to condone torture. Christian standards have never been higher. (Ok a cheap shot cause I don't consider him to be a Christian and I don't consider his actions to be Christian-like. All devote Christians, please ignore the comment.)