Skip to comments.Dick Cheney: Rand Paul is wrong on government surveillance
Posted on 07/19/2013 11:10:19 PM PDT by WilliamIII
click here to read article
I never could understand why some conservatives continue to defend and admire Bush and Cheney. We got TARP and the Patriot Act under their watch (the former isn't so suprising, since Cheney came right out and said that "deficits don't matter").
All I can think of is that it's a knee-jerk reaction: liberals hate Bush and Cheney (not sure why, Bush governed like a Scoop Jackson Democrat), therefore Bush and Cheney must be good. More or less the same reason why many on the right defended Nixon, who was basically a fiscal liberal and an across the board advocate of big government.
There is not one full blown lib that has anything to crow about doing/saying during my lifetime regarding US security. I have not forgotten the years of Clintonism and how security conscience they were not during their reign of terror.
Conservatives are all about individual responsibility, whereas some republicans form gangs.
You know. I would have agreed with you at one point. The past 10 years have moved me from “go with Cheney” to “go with Paul” at this point. Anything that government creates will be used for the wrong purposes, period.
No, I want them to try martial law sooner rather than later, because they’re going to do it eventually anyway.
The alternative is to let them continue to acquire power - which they’re very good at, and are going full-steam-ahead with as we type - with no one in power trying or effective enough to stop them, such that when they try it later, on their time table, employing their scenario, we will already have been adequately readied for the slaughter, incarceration or slavery.
You’re telling me you don’t see this freight train coming at you by now??
Another viewpoint: Suppose there’s a nuke set off in the US. Who can we trust - the government or the media - to tell us the truth about who the perps were? The Feds have already systematically facilitated enormous governmental infiltration and influence by the Communists, the Saudis, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Cartels. No matter who they say exploded the nuke, no matter which one of these groups they blame and say they have evidence confirming, we would be foolish to believe it. We will know, by now, that they are all in bed with each other. Except for some propaganda for the sheeple, we would have no assurance that our enemies are indeed now our enemies, and will be vanquished in retaliation. A nuke would confirm to me, res ipsa loquitur, that the Feds were behind it - no matter who pulled the trigger - and that the attack was merely a crisis to impose martial law. And your mind wouldn’t go there, and you’d be wrong.
“with . . . the last furnished room emptied down to the last piece of mental furniture, a yellow paper rose twisted on a wire hanger in the closet, and even that imaginary, nothing but a hopeful little bit of hallucination -—
“Ah Carl, while you are not safe I am not safe, and now you’re really in the animal soup of time -— “
One of the things I have discovered reading all the comments regarding my response on supporting Cheney ... if I don’t agree with those that support Rand Paul, I’m a liberal. LOL! Got the same response when I refused to support Romney in the last election.
Lessons learned over the years: If I disagree with a black person, I’m a racists, if I disagree with someone on FR, I’m a liberal. Some days no matter what you think, say or do, you can’t win. However, I will continue to speak my mind and, by the way, I’m neither a racists nor a liberal.
And believe me, I have been here long enough not to put too much stock in what those who disagree with me think. Half the fun is reading what folks have to say when I make a comment that goes against the consensus of a thread.
These laws that threaten our Constitutional rights; that are based upon 9-11 and terrorism and the need for the forever war on terror and citizen surveillance; such as the Patriot Act and all of its subsequent amendments; should automatically sunset/expire and become null and void within 2 years, unless they are re-upped for 2 more years by 60% of Congress.
They need to die unless overwhelmingly approved politically be a Congress that needs to face reelection.
What should worry us the most is a major false flag attack that the MSM will purposely hype and propagandize (they have lots of practice), and our leaders (D/R) will use to claim (just as did Hitler with the Reichstag fire) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag that Patriot Act 4 and martial law must be imposed, and we must relinquish our freedoms, rights and firearms, but just to keep us safe and to keep order.
There are 7,000,000,000 people on this planet and our government has reason to spy on 6,700,000,000 of them. Why then is Obama spying on the 300,000,000 of us and not them?
Between freedom from Govt surveillance and Dick Cheney, I choose freedom.
Because if we destroy our open society and sacrifice our Freedom in exchange for a little temporary safety, all in the name of fighting Terror, then the Terrorists have already won!
Remember when a few of our perceptive statesmen were saying that after 9/11? It seems as if that principle has been totally cast aside at this point. Suddenly, totalitarianism seems completely reasonable to our leaders.
Now, it's as if our leaders are saying "As long as we can claim to keep the People relatively safe from Terror, then it's OK to have a totalitarian Police State. The First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments are outdated vestiges of a simpler time."
It shall not stand.
.......love Cheney generally speaking but, NO, Dick you are wrong! Give me a choice of running the risk of getting nuked or “the government” having all this information about 300 million Americans I think I would prefer risking becoming charcoal instantaneously. I don’t think “a nuke” is the issue either. I think the issue is people like Jarrett, Axelrod, Pelosi, Obama, Reid and Biden using NSA data to BLACKMAIL a supreme court member (like Roberts) or key congressmen/women. That’s the issue, to me.
I’m to the point given recent history, added to long term history, where I don’t believe ANYTHING the government says about ANYTHING EVER! About the only person I believe in the U.S. Government is Ted Cruz and I worry about him gradually being bought off.
Last year if you said Cheney was a jerk because of the Patriot Act you would of been called a troll, a DUmmy, or whatever else.
Now if you call Cheney a jerk because of the Patriot Act your a patriot.
Actually the term is ‘needle in a haystack’ not ‘hayfield’. Searching the hayfield would be pretty discouraging if the the hay has any growth. Right after cutting, then you just get out the metal detector. With the haystack, just burn it (if you don’t like the hay!); the needle might be worthless, but you’ll find it in the ashes.
Islam is not a religion; it is a political system hell-bent on destroying human civilization, and replacing it all with a stone-age barbaric tyranny. Their stated goal is to establish sharia law everywhere on earth, including the USA. We, as humans, are not obligated to tolerate or accept any group of people whose stated goal is to sublimate American citizens under some foreign barbaric system.
Many European countries have banned the display of NAZI flags and symbols. Many muslim countries have banned the practice of Christianity. Neither of those is a threat tho those nations' survival, yet the bans exist. Islam is a threat to all humans and nations. Nations must do what is the interest of their national survival, or they will perish.
You may be tolerant of having your head chopped off, but you will likely find yourself in a minority.
On one hand, perhaps the reaction to your support of Cheney on this issue - equating you to a lib isn't very rational. On the other hand - do you think that the NSA (and other fascist elements of the FdGov), is in any way benevolent, or motivated by national security as envisioned by the constitution?
My post (link below) speaks somewhat to my knowledge and experience:
Replace the word "hay" with "liberty" and that sums up our current state.
That is the laugh I still feel, no one ask me why? Now I have had my fun and solicited the responses I expected.
I am as conservative as they come. I come from a long line of military folks, spent years in the Navy myself. I just happen to casually remark that I would rather support Cheney than Rand Paul and all hell breaks loose.
And the comments still keep coming ... got to be a best for something said as a causal aside.
The approach of Bush and Obama to terrorism is not much different than the approach of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter to Communism.
Its “containment” that ultimately allows the cancer to spread.
I sure as hell remember it. It was hard to believe.
Islam is not a religion. It's a political cult that brooks no opposition. Like the other tyrannical cult, Communism.
But on that day I thought there would be a silver lining: at least now the barbarians would be evicted, the fences and defenses would be fortified, and what had come to pass would be the catalyst for taking us back to where we used to be.
But no. Mr. Bush opened the Mexican border the next day, capitulated to Islam as a whole, and took it out on us by cursing us with an internal police state that we are only now seeing the full scope of.
Sorry Dickie. You had a chance, but you screwed the pooch.
"On the other hand - do you think that the NSA (and other fascist elements of the FdGov), is in any way benevolent, or motivated by national security as envisioned by the constitution?"In retrospect, I should have asked...
"Between Rand Paul and Dick Cheney, I think I will go with Cheney."... since the topic of the article is on NSA surveillance of every American
... do you agree with Cheney that the FedGov needs to collect every Call Detail Record (CDR) on earth (so called "medadata", which is actually where knowledge is derived):
"What information [was collected]? asked Cheney. And the answer is phone numbers and who contacted who. But we dont have any names associated with it. Its just a big bag of numbers thats been collected."Cheney proclaimed a bald-faced lie, but I'm sure you will concur that this is a serious issue that abridges more than the spirit of our constitution.
See my post #112
Sorry, Islam may be a totally screwed up religion, but its a religion. In the United States, you cannot ban a religion (or a political party). And if you did ban Islam, you know what the libs would be pushing next? To ban Christianity. Be careful what you wish for.
Your contempt for the Constitution is evident. I’m sure you’d be quite comfortable in the Democrat party.
“There are 7,000,000,000 people on this planet and our government has reason to spy on 6,700,000,000 of them. Why then is Obama spying on the 300,000,000 of us and not them?”
You’re wrong they are spying on EVERYBODY on this planet.
My point is that they should be spying on everyone else; not the American people. This is a point that Cheney and others miss. In fact, that was probably the Bush administration's intent when the program started. It's since been perverted by Obama into something sinister.
Bush and Cheney were,and are, not pro-Constitution and pro-America.Just another couple of NWO CEOs.
I’ll support Rand Paul on this one,and a number of other issues.
Like many Freepers I liked Cheney’s unapologetic style, and Rumsfeld’s and Bush’s. Let’s be clear here though. Bad-ass in-your-face attitude when everyone else is turning tail and running is refreshing, but it is NOT CONSERVATISM. Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld and the rest of them are somewhere between Moderate Republicans and neocons. I can tolerate them for a time especially when they are playing a useful role in the midst of international conflict, but let’s cut the hero worship crap. Now that the discussion is about an out-of-control Marxist attempting to create an all-powerful, all-knowing State versus privacy and civil liberties, it’s time for those guys to shut up. Until this country is back to normal and the derailed Bill of Rights is put back on its tracks, I want to hear from Rand Paul and others like him.
If Dick Cheney were right more resources would have been dedicated to the Boston Bombers... and the FBI wouldn’t have had to release pictures of two men that were easy to find and already on their radar.
Mr. Bush opened the Mexican border the next day, capitulated to Islam as a whole, and took it out on us by cursing us with an internal police state that we are only now seeing the full scope of.
The Bush/Cheney administration's tough talk on "national security" was mostly that - talk. The Patriot Act unleashed government surveillance on law-abiding American citizens while Bush's Saudi pals and the special interests that operate on cheap immigrant labor were coddled and protected.
Your contempt for the Constitution is evident. Im sure youd be quite comfortable in the Democrat party.
You're real quick to stoop to name-calling without knowing anything about a person or the topic being discussed. That's Alinskyite behavior.
Any religious practice that violates the rights of other people, or involves criminal acts, is already banned by laws of various sorts. Just about everything the muslim sub-humans do that defines their so-called religion is already a crime of some sort.
The "Free Exercise" clause of the First Amendment does not give any religion or person the right to violate the rights of other people, nor to violate existing laws, nor to corrupt our legislative or judicial processes.
IANAL, but I'd guess the people and the states could easily show a "compelling interest" in the discussions of banning the muslim practices of beheading those with whom they disagree, or stoning women for getting raped, or killing those who leave islam for some other religion, or just plain old every-day-muslims-blowing-up-stuff-and-killing-people-just-because.
Here's a wiki summary of the Free Exercise Clause for you to read while you're thinking up your next round of name-calling.
Here's another fer-instance for you:
If a so-called Christian preacher wanted to handle rattlesnakes as part of his show, that would be his right. If he were to get bitten and die from the practice, that would be his choice, and I'd be just as happy as everyone else to wish him well in the afterlife.
Now, if this same idiot preacher were to toss rattlesnakes upon unwilling recipients, and some of them were to get bitten and die, then that would be murder, and I'd be just happy to see that idiot preacher properly tried and hanged for that/those crimes.
Additionally, should a growing epidemic of such idiot preachers start spreading across the land, similarly tossing the rattlesnakes upon unwilling recipients, then the people and the states would have a compelling interest in banning such practices, and sentencing the practitioners to confinement or exile some great and safe distance from functioning humans.
Listen to what Reagan said about the evil empire http://youtu.be/M0NXs_uWPgg . These words match the entire western world today because we’re drifting into a evil empire.
uhh... hate to break it to you, but beheading, stoning and “blowing up stuff” are already illegal (i.e. banned)
Lets change a few words....
If a person owned a gun for target shooting and hunting, that would be his right. If he were to accidentally shoot himself, that would be his choice, and I’d be just as happy as everyone else to wish him well in the afterlife.
Now, if some idiot gun owner were to start shooting and killing other people, I’d be happy to see that idiot gun owner properly tried and hanged for that/those crimes.
Additionally, should a growing epidemic of such idiot gun owners start spreading across the land, similarly shooting at other people, then the people and the states would have a compelling interest in banning such practices, and sentencing the practitioners (gun owners) to confinement or exile some great and safe distance from functioning humans.
So... you still good with this line of thought?
This cuts both ways. Sure, there are some over the top Tea Party types who demand ideological purity. But you also get that faction who start screeching "liberal Democrat" or "go back to Huffington Post" when George W. Bush or members of his administration are criticized, even when that criticism comes clearly from a right-wing perspective.
” But no. Mr. Bush opened the Mexican border the next day, capitulated to Islam as a whole, and took it out on us by cursing us with an internal police state that we are only now seeing the full scope of.
Sorry Dickie. You had a chance, but you screwed the pooch. “
Rush today made it obvious he thinks she’s the cat’s meow.
I think it’s overloaded and down now, but you can set them off where you’d like on that and see from the ground what it would look like. Even a small 10kt would be unbelievable, the country would be virtually destroyed.
I’d rather have more security but it needs to be very targeted. Throw all the illegals out and seal the borders. Throw all islamics out, citizens or not. Forever.
Then we could relax the security quite a bit.
I’d rather just ban all religions if it meant we’d be done with islam for once and all. People can get into other activities frankly. Have social clubs and stuff.
I just don’t understand why religion actually matters to so many people. At least with political parties there’s a real element on Earth right now (usually) for what they say or do.
If you are SO scared of Islam that you’d ban all religions just get rid of it, then they have won. Thats like amputating your arm because you’re afraid of getting a hangnail.
No, it’s like amputating it after gangrene is up to the shoulder.
So you think Islam in the US is currently like “gangrene to the shoulder?” They are a minor problem. At best. And certainly not a problem worth throwing away the first amendment to the Constitution.
Relax. Have a beer. Its not that bad.
Not so much in the US, but the global threat is bad enough. I’d rather get rid of them globally, but the least we can do at this point is stop it from spreading internally.
Indeed, and it perpetuated the expansion of the military industrial complex needed to carry on the endless war against the religion of peace. Our sovereignty and freedom now challenged by the very apparatus created to put up a false sense of security.
There was and still is, a simple solution to this— if the parties can separate themselves from the arabic/muslim money invested in them, to influence legislation and our government. The solution is the one Machiavelli, or Sun-Tzu would approve of. We must return to the founding principles of this country, and the rule of law— not lobby and not foreign entanglements (thank you George Washington) which do not come under our secure control.
Cheney and many other technocrats(of any political persuasion) have made millions from this ruse— and we are NOT more secure with the notion of “forget the needle, gather up the haystack” intel. He is wrong, and in a different way so is Rand Paul. We should take our lessons from Israelis, and human intel, not a new liberal gestapo, run by the people who live in gated communities and think each other to be “OK” because they are in the same club. This is what has bastardized the UK and will destroy us. Freedom first, borders, language and the culture of moral belief essential to our Constitution. We got here starting with the Bushes, through the Clintons, another Bush and now this apostate thing. And the complex Eisenhower warned us about has metastasized into a nightmare they cannot and will not put in abeyance.
Rush's compass in discerning "conservative" vs. Republican has always been broken. Frankly, neither he or his judgement can be trusted.
Moreover, we don't need 0bama supported in any respect by Bush and Cheney, and yet isn't that just what they've done? Anti-Constitution, Big Guv Statists one and all.
So... you still good with this line of thought?
For your rewording of my statement to be logically consistent with the example I presented, you would have to insert [(gun owners who are shooting and killing other people)]; also assuming that the shootings are not legally justified.
Gun owners, so far as I know, do not have a stated intent to abolish the US Constitution. Muslims, on the other hand, do have that stated intent. Muslims also have a stated intent to replace our Constitution and our system of laws and justice with sharia law.
Muslims also have a stated intent of using our Constitution and our system of laws against us, to undermine and overthrow our system.
Apparently you are in favor of this muslim agenda, as you are most certainly defending it, and you are using their same methods to do so.
What the hell is wrong with you??