Coulter has no credibility whatsoever. In a column of hers on July 1st, 2004 in which she was speaking about George Soros, Coulter said that the von Trapp Family were German. Anyone that has ever seen "The Sound of Music" for Christ's sake knows that the von Trapp's were Austrian. Coulter is an idiot. http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/anncoulter/2004/07/01/12217.html http://www.trappfamily.com/history.html
Ivy League undergrad, U of Michigan Law, editor of the law review there... Not knowing one's SOM trivia, now there's a reason to indict her as an anti-intellect.
Richard Nixon had a brilliant record at Whittier College and Duke University Law School. He also served as a Navy lieutenant commander in the Pacific . . . but that did not keep him from becoming a scumbag.
Didnt the Gore camp send in a mole to steal debate tapes from Bush? Not much different than Nixons "scumbag" role, no?
Pabst, I notce that you love to start threads that are specifically designed to irk those who you consider 'lefty bleeding hearts'. Which is fine, whatever you consider sport is fine with me. IMO, you should at least try to sprinkle a dash of credibility into these efforts to incite your political opponents. I get the distinct impression, from reading your posts, that you are actually a bright guy who doesn't necessarily buy in to some of the rubbish you post. I am mentioning this because one thing you want to do, at all costs, is stay away from Ann Coulter. She will be the downfall of the radical right, mark my words. The thing about Coulter is, she is an example of something I admire - a pure capitalist. She has figured out how to make millions of dollars and she is doing what it takes, informed by this knowledge. By the way, the best liars are the brightest ones; witness the weird twisting of the number of war dead in WWII above. I hardly think she is an idiot. She is a savvy businesswoman who has found a huge market for her product. The thing Ann Coulter loves above all is to make some ridiculous claim that everyone knows is a puerile piece of crap, and then watch as the interviewers eyes widen as he/she says 'You don't really believe that, do you?' She loves to widen her eyes right back and say 'Yes I do'!! and then go on to make some other bizarre claim. She knows that every time she does it, it means another $25,000++ in her pocket from some nutbag right wing organization that will pay her to come and vomit, errrrr... sorry, speak at their cross burning... errrr... annual meeting. Understand me - I have nothing against that. If she is smart enough how to figure out how to make millions, no problem. I don't see it as inciting hatred (which is illegal, by the way) because everyone, even the right, knows she is acting out a role and nothing she says can be taken seriously. If someone came out and started saying that all East Indians should be burned at the cross because they were really spies for the planet Zoltak-7 and they were dark skinned because they were filled with crude oil, we don't charge him for inciting hatred. If he dropped the part about burning at the cross and he could get right wing nutbags to pay him $25,000 to come and speak at their functions, I would say more power to him!! My point to you is, if you want to goad the left, pick other righties to quote. If you quote Ann Coulter, you're going to lose your credibility, because your other posts prove that you're not even close to being stupid enough to believe her spew. now agin145... he's another story. He's Ann Coulter's meat and potatoes. No, no, don't thank me... it's all in a day's work. Nik PS - isn't it brilliant how CNN is taking advantage of her?
First off, you really don't have a clue about the FISA ACT. You have proven this time and time again in your ranting about the NY Times. If you did have a clue, you would be aware that informing certain members of the Congress of the domestic surveillance of American citizens involved in communications overseas via wire-tapping has nothing to do with presenting such a surveillance operation to the 11-member FISA Court. Moreover, if you did have the slightest of clues you would also know that the reason that Senator Reid was "waffling" over admitting having been briefed is because one is sworn to secrecy regarding these briefings. A novel explanation for you, eh? Duh. Oh, and by the way . . . I provided a link to the FISA ACT so that you can educate your lazy ass. An additional link provides some basic facts about the Act. Perhaps you'll learn something. Enjoy the reading. http://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/ http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/fisa_faq.html
Well I'll thank you any ways. Sincerely. And yea it's true Ann has found a lucrative voice. IMO caricatures can still have sincerity though. And she's much more doable than Michael Moore. However I find Bernard Goldberg a more articulate and compelling pop advocate against leftist mythology.
True enough about caricature, I suppose. Both right and left have devolved to the point that it may be an effectively cartoony/reality-TVesque way to convey a message. I just re-read my post to you and 'rubbish'... well, it may not be too harsh, but it may be undeserved by you. I should save that word for others on here in whom I can't sense the slightest hint of an ability to step outside their own belief sets long enough to question anything they see or hear.
The issue of "probable cause" appears to be a major point in all of this. According to the FISA FAQ that altar ego posted: "On the basis of the application, a FISC judge must find probable cause that the target is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power, and that the facilities where the surveillance is directed are or will be used by the target. For U.S. persons, the FISC judge must find probable cause that one of four conditions has been met: " As the monitoring has been described as at least partly being done on phone numbers or e-mail addresses discovered in captured terrorists' phones or computers, one has to ask if by virtue of being so listed on those devices probable cause has been met. In Sunday's LA times: "Kenneth C. Bass III, another expert on FISA, said the administration might have thought it did not have enough evidence to obtain a warrant. Bass, a Washington lawyer who worked on intelligence matters during the Carter administration, speculated that U.S. authorities might have seized a computer or a phone that was used by an Al Qaeda operative. 'The scuttlebutt is they were then using all the links or phone numbers they found,' Bass said. 'It certainly sounds reasonable to say, 'We are targeting people with links to Al Qaeda,' but it may be just a list of phone numbers,' he said. 'That probably wouldn't satisfy the FISA court.' The law says the government must show probable cause to believe the targeted person is involved in a terrorist group." Another thing, going back to FISA and the aforementioned four conditions of probable cause that must be met for a judge to approve an application for a warrant: "(1) the target knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence activities on behalf of a foreign power which "may involve" a criminal law violation; (2) the target knowingly engages in other secret intelligence activities on behalf of a foreign power pursuant to the direction of an intelligence network and his activities involve or are about to involve criminal violations; (3) the target knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism or is preparing for such activities; or (4) the target knowingly aids or abets another who acts in one of the above ways. " Well, if the terrorist is caught and those numbers or e-mail addresses are found on his phone or laptop, how do we know if those people to whom the phone numbers and e-mail addresses belong "knowingly engage" or "knowingly aids or abets" the terrorist? Of course we don't with 100% certainty. The numbers could be for the local drycleaner, doctor, etc., but chances are pretty darn good that at least some of those numbers or addresses belong to fellow terrorists or those who were "knowingly" aiding and abetting the captured terrorist. Should all of those numbers and e-mail addresses be monitored in case they lead to information that could help capture more terrorists and/or prevent an attack on Americans? I believe so.