(01-02-2016 09:20 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 10:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 10:20 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 10:09 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 09:31 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  SO, Obama's ILLEGAL wiretapping of Congressional phones (an impeachable offense)...

What congressional phones were wiretapped? Yeah...thought so.

Are you serious with that post?

Nobody tapped congressional phones dude. Phone conversations happen between more than one person. They were listening to the other people who happened to call congresspersons.

Your reliance on semantics is comic gold.

Semantics? Tell me then, which congress member's phone line did they wiretap?

There are none. That's not called a semantic, that's called a FACT!

(01-02-2016 09:50 AM)wahoowa Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 09:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 01:14 PM)wahoowa Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 11:21 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Congressmen working with foreign government to undermine talks...

Sickening.

I must have missed your outrage when Pelosi was slobbering all over Assad; you know, that guy that flaunts Obama's red line and lobs toxic chemicals at his own citizens.

Perhaps your recollection of the actual facts and events of that visit might be a tad off?
Pelosi to talk to Syria on behalf of Israel
Pelosi: My trip to Syria in 2007 was nothing like the GOP's Iran letter

Quote:The office of the House minority leader issued a scathing statement Wednesday night saying her meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar Assad was part of a bipartisan effort — conducted through the Bush administration — to encourage peace in the region, and accusing Republicans of launching a "desperate" defense of their Iran letter to mask criticisms coming from both sides of the aisle.

Typical Tom, quoting Pelosi Press Releases as viable news sources.

Pelosi said "a bipartisan effort — conducted through the Bush administration". That's truly disingenuous and an outright lie.

Pelosi Meets Syrian President Despite Objections From Bush

And more from that fetid pie hole:

Quote:After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert

Quote:Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message.

Pratfall in Damascus

You likely have some valid points, but if you're going to act like some of the others on here, I'm not going waste my time engaging you on it. Sorry.

(01-02-2016 10:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-02-2016 09:20 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 10:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 10:20 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 10:09 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  What congressional phones were wiretapped? Yeah...thought so.

Are you serious with that post?

Nobody tapped congressional phones dude. Phone conversations happen between more than one person. They were listening to the other people who happened to call congresspersons.

Your reliance on semantics is comic gold.

Semantics? Tell me then, which congress member's phone line did they wiretap?

There are none. That's not called a semantic, that's called a FACT!

It doesn't matter whose phone lines were taped. What matters is that they were "listening" to conversations with Congressmen. And this is against NSA's own directives.

Quote:According to a 2011 NSA directive which applies to certain types of communications, and which the NSA declassified in November 2013, NSA analysts are required to destroy intercepted communications between foreign targets and officers or employees of the U.S. government, including lawmakers,

Link

(01-02-2016 11:41 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(01-02-2016 10:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-02-2016 09:20 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 10:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 10:20 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  Are you serious with that post?

Nobody tapped congressional phones dude. Phone conversations happen between more than one person. They were listening to the other people who happened to call congresspersons.

Your reliance on semantics is comic gold.

Semantics? Tell me then, which congress member's phone line did they wiretap?

There are none. That's not called a semantic, that's called a FACT!

It doesn't matter whose phone lines were taped. What matters is that they were "listening" to conversations with Congressmen. And this is against NSA's own directives.

Quote:According to a 2011 NSA directive which applies to certain types of communications, and which the NSA declassified in November 2013, NSA analysts are required to destroy intercepted communications between foreign targets and officers or employees of the U.S. government, including lawmakers,

Link

So freaking what? They were not wiretapping congress. P E R I O D.

For example...say they're wiretapping a mob boss. Said mob boss calls his congressman and arranges a bribe for a vote. Were they wiretapping the congressman or were they wiretapping the mob boss?

Geez...talk about semantics!

And it's really quite shameful as potential treason against a sitting president and this country is being turned into an impeachable offense against the president. By a party that mostly loves the spying to begin with! Republicans are slime.

(01-02-2016 12:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And it's really quite shameful as potential treason against a sitting president and this country

No, it is not treason or potential treason. You need to look up the definition of treason.

(01-02-2016 12:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-02-2016 11:41 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(01-02-2016 10:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-02-2016 09:20 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 10:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Nobody tapped congressional phones dude. Phone conversations happen between more than one person. They were listening to the other people who happened to call congresspersons.

Your reliance on semantics is comic gold.

Semantics? Tell me then, which congress member's phone line did they wiretap?

There are none. That's not called a semantic, that's called a FACT!

It doesn't matter whose phone lines were taped. What matters is that they were "listening" to conversations with Congressmen. And this is against NSA's own directives.

Quote:According to a 2011 NSA directive which applies to certain types of communications, and which the NSA declassified in November 2013, NSA analysts are required to destroy intercepted communications between foreign targets and officers or employees of the U.S. government, including lawmakers,

Link

So freaking what? They were not wiretapping congress. P E R I O D.

For example...say they're wiretapping a mob boss. Said mob boss calls his congressman and arranges a bribe for a vote. Were they wiretapping the congressman or were they wiretapping the mob boss?

Geez...talk about semantics!

And it's really quite shameful as potential treason against a sitting president and this country is being turned into an impeachable offense against the president. By a party that mostly loves the spying to begin with! Republicans are slime.

Again, the prohibition is against "listening". The NSA can't do that. Only an anal retentive would argue as you have.

And there is absolutely no evidence of any treason by anyone. And I haven't raised anything about impeachment. So stop trying to change the subject and stay on point.

The fact is that the NSA is prohibited from listening in on any conversations with Congressmen and if they accidently do, then they must redact the conversations.

For the record, I am not against the NSA spying. I'd actually encourage it. But in this case, a law broken was by the NSA. And ignoring the law is something that this administration has not had any problems with doing, especially when it suits their purposes.

(01-02-2016 12:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-02-2016 11:41 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(01-02-2016 10:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-02-2016 09:20 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 10:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Nobody tapped congressional phones dude. Phone conversations happen between more than one person. They were listening to the other people who happened to call congresspersons.

Your reliance on semantics is comic gold.

Semantics? Tell me then, which congress member's phone line did they wiretap?

There are none. That's not called a semantic, that's called a FACT!

It doesn't matter whose phone lines were taped. What matters is that they were "listening" to conversations with Congressmen. And this is against NSA's own directives.

Quote:According to a 2011 NSA directive which applies to certain types of communications, and which the NSA declassified in November 2013, NSA analysts are required to destroy intercepted communications between foreign targets and officers or employees of the U.S. government, including lawmakers,

Link

So freaking what? They were not wiretapping congress. P E R I O D.

For example...say they're wiretapping a mob boss. Said mob boss calls his congressman and arranges a bribe for a vote. Were they wiretapping the congressman or were they wiretapping the mob boss?

Geez...talk about semantics!

And it's really quite shameful as potential treason against a sitting president and this country is being turned into an impeachable offense against the president. By a party that mostly loves the spying to begin with! Republicans are slime.

It's funny, Tom is now accusing those disagreeing with his King have committed treason. What was treasonous?

Tom goes to whatever lengths necessary in defense of his hero.

(01-01-2016 10:09 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 09:31 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 11:21 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Congressmen working with foreign government to undermine talks...

Sickening.

SO, Obama's ILLEGAL wiretapping of Congressional phones (an impeachable offense)...

What congressional phones were wiretapped? Yeah...thought so.

Okay so don't wire tap congressional phones, just phones of global leaders that congressional representatives talk to, then leak the statements of the congressional representatives to give the appearance of improper dealings between them and said global leaders. Yea, that's completely different.

(12-31-2015 02:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm far more worried about the extent to which our government can be bought by anyone than I am by the fact that some of the anyones doing so happen to be foreign governments.

And what probably 99% of the people don't realize is that it's not congress where lobbyists do the majority of their heavy lifting. It's the myriad of federal agencies with their legions of unaccountable bureaucrats.

it is the pickle when in 'debt', eh?

a double edged sword.....

sink or swin it is...

one day that thought process drowns....

it's only a matter of 'when'.....there isn't an 'out' when it comes to population in numbers/economics......at least not with the media regime holding the reigns....

I'm pretty certain most on this board understand 'that'....

all we are, are peers that peer through glass....

oh wellzy.....