[LANMaster]

Dems Don't Care That Clinton Spied on Princess Diana, While Outraged Over Bush Spying On Terrorists

We had been hearing all last month that the U.S. government bugged Princess Diana's phone, and even recorded her conversation the night she died. What you haven't heard is "President Clinton's administration", the way you CONSTANTLY heard "Bush's warrantless wiretapping program". While every liberals are practically rioting in the streets over Bush's terrorist surveillance program, with a seemingly endless stream of outrage and lawsuits, they can't seem to be bothered over Clinton spying on Princess Diana.

So to be clear, Democrats don't want us spying on terrorists and their contacts in the country, but they do want us spying on foreign royalty. Of course this is in addition to Clinton's other warrantless wiretapping activities including spying on hundreds of pro-lifers.

I don't know if there was a legitimate reason to spy on Diana or not. I mean, the royal family in England is symbollic, so I don't think there would be an argument regarding U.K. government concerns. Perhaps Slick Willy had him a little crush and liked to sit back, listen to a taped Princess Diana conversation, and have a little "five against one" match in the oval office.

Who knows why it was done at this point, but my point remains. The "Bush's warrantless wiretapping" remains in the headlines, though not on a daily basis as it was for many weeks and months over the past couple years, but the liberal blogs aren't going crazy over President Clinton spying on Princess Diana. I for one am shocked! I mean, liberal hypocrisy!? Who ever heard of such a thing!?

[sy2]

At this point in time, are you surprised?

Everyone - republicans and democrats - seem to use 2 sets of standards when casting judgment. One for those beliefs which we hold to be true, another for those beliefs that challenge their current world view.

We're all guilty of this - I know that I certainly have been and it's something I try to make myself more conscious of - but it's getting to be ridiculous here.

[Wino]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

[size="5"]......................................Who knows why it was done at this point, but my point remains. The "Bush's warrantless wiretapping" remains in the headlines, though not on a daily basis as it was for many weeks and months over the past couple years, but the liberal blogs aren't going crazy over President Clinton spying on Princess Diana. I for one am shocked! I mean, liberal hypocrisy!? Who ever heard of such a thing!?

Lord you are a silly bugger.........getting your knickers in a knot over this petty crap. There is no comparison between the two episodes. I don't care whom Bush listens in on as long as he gets approval from the courts. As for Clinton listening in on Diana............who wouldn't if they had the opportunity?

[wacor]

Originally Posted by sy2

At this point in time, are you surprised?

Everyone - republicans and democrats - seem to use 2 sets of standards when casting judgment. One for those beliefs which we hold to be true, another for those beliefs that challenge their current world view.

We're all guilty of this - I know that I certainly have been and it's something I try to make myself more conscious of - but it's getting to be ridiculous here.

you got it right

some will admit it. but then some wont as is already evidenced in this thread

hypocritical it seems if one wants to justfy what was done in the past as being petty. it still was wrong and lord knows what other secret wiretapping was done before.

[poochee]

Whatever their reason, big deal.

[wacor]

i guess it is do as i say and not do as i do?

double standard

[poochee]

Originally Posted by wacor

i guess it is do as i say and not do as i do?

double standard

FYI, I have never made any statement against government listening in.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by Wino

Lord you are a silly bugger.........getting your knickers in a knot over this petty crap. There is no comparison between the two episodes.

That's the point. There's no comparisson.
Was Princess Di a security risk to the USA?

I don't care whom Bush listens in on as long as he gets approval from the courts. As for Clinton listening in on Diana............who wouldn't if they had the opportunity?

And the hypocricy displays itself for all the forum to read.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Wino

Lord you are a silly bugger.........getting your knickers in a knot over this petty crap. There is no comparison between the two episodes. I don't care whom Bush listens in on as long as he gets approval from the courts. As for Clinton listening in on Diana............who wouldn't if they had the opportunity?

Don't know how many times I have to say this, but it never sinks in--he doesn't need court approval for every wiretap--its ridiculous--the Contitution doesn't require it and no court has ever said its required. In fact, its a violation of the Constitution to force him to get wiretaps in every situation unconditionally.

I always point to the absolutely absurd liberal argument that its fine for Bush to take out terrorists (and I'm not talking about the Iraq war--I'm talking about specific Special Op strikes on known terrorists) WITHOUT court approval--so he can kill them without anyone's approval and on his say so, but he can't wiretap their phones! Honestly--it has to be the absolute dumbest argument I've ever heard, liberal or otherwise, yet you people keep making for it!

BTW--this has nothing to do with Bush--I'm not supporting Bush, I'm supporting the Constitution, specifically the President's power as enumerated therein and I'd support it no matter who was president. And that's the difference between liberals and me--liberals support a butchered Constitution that serves their own political purpose--I do believe that's called hypocrisy.

[teengeekgrrl]

I think Clinton must have been better at keeping quiet about it.

[Fidelista]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

That's the point. There's no comparisson.
Was Princess Di a security risk to the USA?


And the hypocricy displays itself for all the forum to read.

You are right I believe. What threat this woman --or the many others harassed, abused and spied uopon?.
Makes no difference who is President ---abuse of citizens should be resisted, and is not!.
Now , its only worse , and more easily accomplished because of AQ and a idioit. .
Even you Lan, will become a target. >f

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by Fidelista

You are right I believe. What threat this woman --or the many others harassed, abused and spied upon?.
Makes no difference who is President ---abuse of citizens should be resisted, and is not!.
Now , its only worse , and more easily accomplished because of AQ and a idioit. .
Even you Lan, will become a target. >f

OK, so it bothers me, why are some more worried about what happened years ago than what's happening now?

[wacor]

Originally Posted by bassetman

OK, so it bothers me, why are some more worried about what happened years ago than what's happening now?

there is a pattern of how government deals with issues. that past is very relevant.

i keep telling you both sides of the aisle pull the same crap.

take off the blinders and look at what is going on.

[GoneForNow]

Originally Posted by bassetman

OK, so it bothers me, why are some more worried about what happened years ago than what's happening now?

Respectfully, I believe the point has sailed about six feet over your head.

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by gbrumb

Respectfully, I believe the point has sailed about six feet over your head.

Well with Righty's aim, no doubt!