Englebert

So if you agree, why did you make the comment that I had no idea what it takes to get a FISA warrant. Are you really contradicting yourself or are you trying to facetious. Please expound on your expertise. I assume with your LOL that the latter is the case, and I will be shocked if you can muster a sensible response.

What percentage of Americans are unmasked in surveillance cases? How many agencies are privy to this unmasking. You say it is a mundane process, but you conveniently failed to mention this little tidbit of information. If you know as much as you think you do, you should have no problem answering these two questions. And if you do answer these questions, follow up with why you think the Obama administration felt the need to distribute this highly unusual request.

All it takes is a credible case, based on truth or lies, just as with any other case. How do you figure I have no idea what it takes to get a warrant. Are you really so naïve as to think judges can't be fooled as to the true motive of a request?

What I'm saying is I can get around the laws if I want to spy on you. If I go to a judge and say I want to spy on westend1, he will ask me why. Alternatively I could say I want to spy on Joe Blow, who I know associates with you, and is a Russian. I could say I believe old Joe might be a Russian spy. The judge would grant the warrant, and I could capture some of your conversations. My true objective is to spy on you. I don't know if this is what happened with the Trump spying situation, but it is possible. The Obama administration could have gotten a warrant to spy on certain Russians they know associate with Trump's administration, not in an attempt to spy on the Russians, but to gather information on Trump's people, who are Americans. So what do you know about the FISA court that sadly we don't know about?

Please explain to us peons about the FISA court and surveillance. If I want to spy on you, couldn't I simply find some shady people you associate with, then go to a FISA court with a request to spy on your friends, knowing I will capture you in the process. When explaining the FISA court and it's role in surveillance programs, please alleviate my concerns that this could happen. Then please explain why you think you know more about this program than all of us unenlightened minions.

I would bet any amount of money that if I suggested the Black vote has set this country back, and that Blacks should not be allowed to vote for 20 years, I would be called a racist and would have death threats levied against me. I'm curious to see if any Liberals condemn her little tirade.

I'm not going to get my hopes up until I see an actual prosecution occurring. I will feel a little better if Sessions says he will file criminal charges. I have no faith in government officials holding one of their own accountable, regardless of party affiliation.

Who are these people? What documents did they look at? Were they the same people that were on the Benghazi committees in which the first 26 committees couldn't even uncover the fact that Hillary was using a private server? Are you referring to these investigative geniuses? I have no idea if Lois Lerner is guilty of a crime, guilty of immoral and/or unethical practices, or totally innocent, but I do know that Conservative organizations were targeted under her watch.

Aren't these acts condemned by every Christian church? And were any of the acts done in the name of Christianity? I'm not following your equivalency theory. And your last statement seems to infer that you think many believe that all evil in the world can be laid at the feet of Islam. How did you arrive at that assumption? Who are these people that think that?

Greed (as with need) is the mother of invention. Stifling greed is crippling. It all depends on the situation and the circumstances. Both sides are wrong. This has nothing to do with capitalism vs socialism, or any label anyone wants to attribute. The man was a total a-hole to defy authority. At the same time, the company should never have the power to forcibly remove him after he purchased a ticket. (Granted, I don't know the rules of the ticket he purchased.) It is now the public's duty to decide if the status quo can continue. That is what democracy is all about. I have no faith in the public ever since I've discovered that the public will give up their privacy in favor of cheaper rates. (If you don't think what I'm currently writing is being saved by the ISP and the NSA, then you don't have a clue as to modern company and government surveillance...all with public consent). I have a feeling the same thing will happen here...people will willingly purchase tickets subject to "bumping" to save a few bucks. We, the public, have a unique opportunity to disavow airlines from offering tickets subject to "bumping", or we can settle for this practice in order to save some money. Sadly, I know which we will pick.

Apparently I miss out on local news. What are the details of the scandal?

What crazy stuff? I bet you won't answer. I bet you can't answer.

I responded to his post by asking him the same question 3 weeks ago, and he conveniently skipped over it. I'm sure he will just skip over yours also. It must be nice to live in a world where you can spout any ol' thing you want without having to face any detractors. Then again, that's a world I don't want to live in.

I have no clue what you are trying to convey. If you actually think the media doesn't scrutinize everyone surrounding Trump way more than they did with Obama's administration, then I would have to say you have been in a coma for the last eight years. Can you name some of the goofy tweets or stupid quotes from Trump's administration? Your whole post was about his administration, but you seem now to pivot to "all about Trump". Let's stick with your original contention of criticizing his administration and see if "that will work" on you.

I'm not a Trump fan either, but I think he has surrounded himself with people that are heads and tails above the last administration. I also think Trump's administration is more scrutinized that any from the previous administration.

I didn't call you a Liberal. But since labeling, generalizing and stereotyping people, accusing others of wanting to leave the poor out on the streets to die, accusing others of hating Muslims and gays with no basis, etc. etc. etc. is the purview of the Liberals, I think I will stick to the notion you lean far to the Left.

You keep providing the material, we will keep responding.

I'm still curious as to how this judge thinks requiring proof of who you are is purposefully discriminatory against the poor and/or minorities. I would pose this question to her: How would you ensure that the person voting is who they say they are, and is eligible to vote, without putting some burden on the person that could be construed as discriminatory. I bet she can't come up with an answer, except for maybe "Show an ID". Her notion that the poor and/or minorities don't have the capability of obtaining an ID is just flat out insulting.

I watched a video a while back (the link might have come from a post on this site) in which a person was interviewing people on the street. I think it was Harlem. He asked the person if they agreed with voter ID laws and are these laws designed to discriminate against the poor and/or minorities. Each one (if I remember correctly) said they resented and were offended by the idea that showing an ID was discriminatory against the poor and/or minorities. They felt (the same way that I do) that obtaining an ID is not an undue burden to prevent fraud and abuse, and were offended by people thinking that many minorities did not have the ability to accomplish such a simplistic feat. Granted this was a video and we have no way of knowing how many people agreed and/or disagreed...through selective editing. I'm in no way implying this was some sort of proof, but it does parallel my feelings about how minorities are looked at by many people.

I see your point, and agree with it. This would work in Mayberry. But I think the Legislators want (and need) uniformity and stricter guidelines. I have little trouble imagining a scenario where someone shows some form of proof and is allowed to vote, and the next person in line shows a highly sketchy form of proof and is rejected. I can easily see that person shouting "racism" or "BS" or whatever, and even suing the poll workers, the county, the state, and whoever else his lawyer will think of. And they would probably win because the judge will state that there is no uniformity or strict guidelines in what is acceptable proof of ID.

I'm curious as to why you think the measures are to make it more difficult for the poor and/or minorities to vote. What specific measures are you referring? Is having to show ID/proof to sign up for food stamps (or any government benefit) an undue burden placed on the poor and minorities designed to discriminate against them. What about showing an ID to gain admittance to the DNC convention? Were they trying to discriminate against the poor and/or minorities? And does the minor inconvenience of having to go through the paperwork to obtain an ID such an undue burden as to discriminate against somebody? So much of a burden that we have to open up our Voting system to easy fraud and abuse? Now if you want to talk about undue burdens in order to exercise your constitutional rights, let's have a discussion on License To Carry regulations.

I do have issues with people that try backhanded insults then runs and hides when called out. And it is not something I need help with. It is abundantly clear who needs help. And you are still hiding from a simple explanation.

Really? Are you really asking someone to defend their comments when you won't dare defend yours? That is rich.

Obama gave us more material than any president in the history of the United States to deem him the worst president ever. That is undeniable by any sane person. All the Left can do now is try to demonize anyone on the Right to try to save face. Your comment is exhibit A.

That is just a sad and absolutely pathetic comment after your ridiculously pathetic earlier comment. No wonder you purposely avoided my simple request to defend your comment. It's hard to defend the indefensible. So let me ask again, so everyone is absolutely clear on whether you are avoiding the question or "didn't see it". Why do you feel the need to pray for a Republican based on the original post? And furthermore, why are your afraid to explain your true feelings after clearly revealing them in a (which you thought was a) masked manner? Your hate is on full display...no need to try to transfer that to others.