tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post113507978639274902..comments2024-03-25T07:29:08.216-04:00Comments on 2 Political Junkies: Billy Valentine - Portrait of a FascistMariahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10439330154875628083noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-47733998773357739542008-01-01T20:53:00.000-05:002008-01-01T20:53:00.000-05:00Just to second what Steven Valentine said, I am al...Just to second what Steven Valentine said, I am also gay and we all like to have group orgies together.Mike Moehlenhofhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11138730582542874344noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-1170943230444076962007-02-08T09:00:00.000-05:002007-02-08T09:00:00.000-05:00Billy valentine is not a fascist. He loves babies....Billy valentine is not a fascist. He loves babies. And he loves me. We are gay together.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-1138522753332814582006-01-29T03:19:00.000-05:002006-01-29T03:19:00.000-05:00haha, i was just about to go to bed when i stumble...haha, i was just about to go to bed when i stumbled upon this site. i'm glad i could get a good laugh in before bed. my favorite part was where you said billy valentine was a gay-bashing, misogynist! LOL that was a good one! thanks for that. God blessAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-1135481603930719212005-12-24T22:33:00.000-05:002005-12-24T22:33:00.000-05:00"You really how to figure out how to let this go"I..."You really how to figure out how to let this go"<BR/><BR/>I'm the confused one? What are you trying to say here?Billy Valentinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04472392692981225758noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-1135287313797065012005-12-22T16:35:00.000-05:002005-12-22T16:35:00.000-05:00Billy;You really how to figure out how to let this...Billy;<BR/><BR/>You really how to figure out how to let this go as your postings are growing more and more irrational and confused.<BR/><BR/>I am honestly concerned about your general mental health.<BR/><BR/>Are you REALLY accusing Maria and I of conspiring with terrorists?<BR/><BR/>For what? For asserting that what Bush okayed was unconstitutional?<BR/><BR/>For that, we're conspiring with terrorists?<BR/><BR/>See - irrational and confused.Dayvoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06971560627535402858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-1135219845730809082005-12-21T21:50:00.000-05:002005-12-21T21:50:00.000-05:00"Feel free to give away YOUR rigths, not MINE."I'm..."Feel free to give away YOUR rigths, not MINE."<BR/><BR/>I'm not a terrorist. The only "rights" that are being aimed to be taken away is, apparently, to you, a "right" to operate in conjunction with terrorists overseas.Billy Valentinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04472392692981225758noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-1135157841885011782005-12-21T04:37:00.000-05:002005-12-21T04:37:00.000-05:001. "If you're not a terrorist, you have nothing to...1. <EM>"If you're not a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about."</EM><BR/><BR/>Feel free to give away YOUR rigths, not MINE.<BR/><BR/>2. <EM>"Apparently, you are unaware that Clinton also used his executive order powers to do PHYSICAL searches without a court order in order to get foreign intelligence on American soil."</EM><BR/><BR/>Nice way to miss the obvious! What you're missing in the National Review article is that this was DEBATED in the open at the time. That Clinton SOUGHT Congressional APPROVAL. That he actually sought real Congressional AUTHORIZATION. That Gorelick did TESTIFY before Congress and that The Washington Post was able to quote that testimony the next day. Clinton did not act like a THIEF IN THE NIGHT telling partial truths to an extreme minority of Congress and keeping them from seeking any legal opinion. And that the outcome of that OPEN DEBATE was an order that DID NOT INVOLVE WARRANTLESS SPYING ON AMERICANS:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/" REL="nofollow"><B>Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans</B></A> <BR/><BR/>The top of the Drudge Report claims “CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER…” It’s not true. Here’s the breakdown –<BR/><BR/>What Drudge says:<BR/>Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”<BR/><BR/>What Clinton actually signed:<BR/>Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, <B>if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.</B><BR/><BR/>That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.<BR/><BR/><B>The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.</B> <BR/><BR/>Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter. <BR/><BR/>What Drudge says:<BR/>Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”<BR/><BR/>What Carter’s executive order actually says:<BR/>1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, <B>but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.</B><BR/><BR/>What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” <B>So again, no U.S. persons are involved.</B>Mariahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10439330154875628083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-1135145446481799912005-12-21T01:10:00.000-05:002005-12-21T01:10:00.000-05:00If you're not a terrorist, you have nothing to wor...If you're not a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about.<BR/><BR/>Apparently, you are unaware that Clinton also used his executive order powers to do PHYSICAL searches without a court order in order to get foreign intelligence on American soil.<BR/><BR/>Way to do your research.<BR/><BR/>http://nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.aspBilly Valentinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04472392692981225758noreply@blogger.com