NationStates Jolt Archive

I think the whole lot of them ought to be lynched. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Liddy, etc etc.

I believe they were behind the 9/11 tragedy. I believe they orchestrated it to create the "new pearl harbor" the NeoCons needed to get americans on board with their endless wars for global domination.

They are traitors and should all be put on trial for treason against the american people.

I think the whole lot of them ought to be lynched. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Liddy, etc etc.

I believe they were behind the 9/11 tragedy. I believe they orchestrated it to create the "new pearl harbor" the NeoCons needed to get americans on board with their endless wars for global domination.

They are traitors and should all be put on trial for treason against the american people.
shit ive already done this so much today my eyes hurt...but i guess once more isnt too bad....:rolleyes:

This is amazing. This board is so liberal relative to the rest of the populace. Why is it this way? We need more balance.

No, Bush should not be impeached.
It's the other way around. The US is so conservative relative to the rest of the devoloped world. Why is it this way? We need more balance.

Vote Democrat.

And no Bush should not be impeached.

thanks for the thanks, its good to be loved, i had a great time with this thread last night, and learned alot from it the butler report and duelreport were both fairly interesting, and before this i hadnt taken a serious look at them.
edit: you seem like the kinda fellow who mgiht like this source, so ill give it to you, i order books and read articles from them fairly regularily, some i agree with, others i dont, but its a good time either way. www.mises.org
lots of good sources on this kind of thing as well

Thanks. I'll take a look at it :)

I think the whole lot of them ought to be lynched. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Liddy, etc etc.

I believe they were behind the 9/11 tragedy. I believe they orchestrated it to create the "new pearl harbor" the NeoCons needed to get americans on board with their endless wars for global domination.

They are traitors and should all be put on trial for treason against the american people.

Someone is very ignorant of facts it seems. Either that, or blinded by pure hatred. :rolleyes:

Wow, I'm so glad so many are jumping to conclusions before all the information is made available. I just hope none of those who voted in the poll work for the US Department of Justice.

I voted "Other", by the way, because I--unlike some in the General forum, apparently--don't know enough about the case to make any sort of an informed judgment.

The fall of Rome, anarchy reigns, the dark ages...

1) Rome was hardly free. Post Roman Europe was less so. The situation could hadly be called complete freedom. It was more the Hobbsian "State of Warre".
2) Rome =/= the whole world. The so called dark ages affected only a small part of the world. China, Persia, and the Arab world were full of learning.

Someone is very ignorant of facts it seems. Either that, or blinded by pure hatred. :rolleyes:

This from a person whose main style of debate is to ignore the facts from those who disagree.

Spare me.

if we impeached most the people who desrved it, we wouldn't have much of a government left.

Some freedoms get tossed out the window when a nation is in a war. Its a sad fact of life.

No, they do not. If you bothered to read the Constitution, you'd have noted that the President has the power to suspend habeas corpus in times of war or insurrection, although the Supreme Court has limited this power in cases like Ex Parte Merryman and Ex Parte Milligan. Thus, Lincoln did not toss out the damn Constitution; he upheld it while pushing the envelope.

This is not what President Bush has done. In fact, it is not only not in the same ballpark; it isn't in the same frapping sport. In 1978, Congress passed the FISA bill, which mandates that whenever the Executive Branch wants to issue a wiretap, it must first recieve authorization from the Judiciary Branch of the Federal Government. Now, you may not like the fact that the Executive is limited in this fashion by said system of checks and balances, but that is what the law says. The President openly, repeatedly, and willingly defied that law because he doesn't like it. This is not just a problem; it is illegal. The Supreme Court specifically stated in Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer that the President is required to uphold the law, even the ones he disagrees with. President Bush has not. Ergo, the only possible conclusion is that President Bush openly, willingly, and repeatedly broke the law, for no other reason than because he feels that the law should not apply to him. That is a pretty damn good reason to impeach, and it isn't because I'm liberal that I'm saying it; it's because I'm an American.

And as a side note, Cornelieu, no, the Senate resolution authorizing the President to use all possible means to defend the country does not authorize the President to overturn FISA just because he wants to. Bush specifically asked that said bill include language explicitly allow the NSA to wiretap without asking for judicial approval. Congress explicitly refused to put such language in the bill. Therefore, you cannot assume that the legislature intended for the President to ignore FISA; quite the opposite.

if we impeached most the people who desrved it, we wouldn't have much of a government left.


that might not be such a bad thing... until people replace them that is

This from a person whose main style of debate is to ignore the facts from those who disagree.

Spare me.

this from a guy who doesn't have an intelligent comeback?

Spare me!

No, they do not. If you bothered to read the Constitution, you'd have noted that the President has the power to suspend habeas corpus in times of war or insurrection, although the Supreme Court has limited this power in cases like Ex Parte Merryman and Ex Parte Milligan. Thus, Lincoln did not toss out the damn Constitution; he upheld it while pushing the envelope.

And yet, he never got funding for the Civil War, he did that all himself (violation of the Constitution). Ordered a draft without congressional permission, technically waged a war far beyond his constitutional mandate. That's three violations I can name right now.

*snip*

nice talking points.

And as a side note, Cornelieu, no, the Senate resolution authorizing the President to use all possible means to defend the country does not authorize the President to overturn FISA just because he wants to.

care to point out where I have said that? I never mentioned anything about this.

that might not be such a bad thing... until people replace them that is

they would be replaced by similiar incompetent assholes, as the same poeple who elect thema re the same people who elected the peopple we impeached.

I'll start a list, feel free to add.

Should Bush be impeached?

Pro:
Me
The Nazz
Gymoor II
OceanDrive3
Cat-Tribes (probably)
CanuckHaven
ChineseRepublics
Straughn

Contra:
Deep Kimchi
-Maghda-
Greenlander
Corneliu
ARF of course
Penlandia
Eutrusca (how could he possibly go against Bush, hey?)

Who didn't I think of?

Add me to the Contra side

My taxes are lower than they were under Clinton, and I'm currently middle-class (check)

He has aggressively gone after terrorists (check)

He is steadfastly committed to keeping US forces in Iraq until Iraqi police/armed forces can somewhat decently defend the peaceful Iraqis from the nutjob terrorists/insurgents who liked their oppressive totalitarian ways (check)

He did his best to keep the Patriot Act in force, which was aimed at protecting peaceful, law-abiding americans from any would-be terrorists (foreign or domestic) -- (check -- insomuch as he's tried his best, i think, to protect us in the post-9/11 world). For the record, I don't know a single person whose "rights" to be a terrorist have been trampled on by the Patriot Act.

He is generally pro-business -- if businesses are healthy, then there are jobs, naturally, for Americans (labor emigration notwithstanding, if businesses struggle then so do workers) (check -- keeping the socialists at bay)

blah blah blah. some of you have heard this before. To me, it's logically a no-brainer.

i hate to be a real arse but the fact is he's not going to get impeached so why argue it. You wanna fight against Bush? Argue about what he's doing now not about how he went to war in iraq because I'm (along with a lot of other people) sick of arguing for or against.

Disclaimer: To those people who are not "discussing" Iraq this clearly does not apply. My political stance has noting to do with this

A mature political thinker realises that no ideology is perfect.

This has always been a sublime concept. Kudos Gataway_Driver

And yet, he never got funding for the Civil War, he did that all himself (violation of the Constitution). Ordered a draft without congressional permission, technically waged a war far beyond his constitutional mandate. That's three violations I can name right now.

I have never heard anyone question Lincoln's constitutional mandate to wage war, nor have I heard how he unilaterally ordered a draft. Congress passed several conscription acts, including the one that led to the New York Draft Riots. If you have some evidence for this, I could use it. Same thing applies with funding: to the best of my knowledge, Congress approved all spending bills and debt accumulated.


nice talking points.


. . .I'm sorry, but that is the most retarded thing I have ever read in my entire life. Just because you can't refute the logic of the argument does not make it a talking point, and to be quite honest, if you are so cavalier about your liberties that you allow the President to violate the Constitution and ignore the law of the land, reducing such crimes to mere "talking points" because it would mean that you lose, then I am quite honestly embarrassed to call you a fellow American and ashamed that myself and my family has spilled blood to keep you as ignorant as you are.


care to point out where I have said that? I never mentioned anything about this.

I was heading off a convenient "talking point" before you got there. You see, there's a fairly significant difference between what you call a talking point and what is a talking point: a talking point is a line spouted in the interest of ensuring your party wins without consideration for the truth. Everything I said in my "talking point", as you put it, was perfectly true. The FISA bill does prohibit what Bush did. He did it anyway, and unapolegetically at that. That action is in explicit violation of constitutional precedent, and in fact makes a mockery of Bush's oath to uphold the Constitution. Such a crime is serious enough be classified as a "high crime and misdemeanor", the constitutional prescription for what constitutes grounds for impeachment. Logic then dictates that he ought to be impeached, and moreover that because everything I said was true and logical, it is not a goddamned talking point: it is fact.

Wow, I'm so glad so many are jumping to conclusions before all the information is made available.

what more information would you need? he is openly violating the law because he fancies himself a dicator after the bloodless military coup he's pulled.

He did his best to keep the Patriot Act in force, which was aimed at protecting peaceful, law-abiding americans from any would-be terrorists (foreign or domestic)

no, it wasn't. but even if it was, would any law that claimed to "protecting peaceful, law-abiding americans from any would-be terrorists" be a-ok in your book?

Will he be impeached? Probably not. The mainstream media is still too spineless to state the truth in unambiguous terms: the President not only repeatedly broke the law, but did so willingly and out of a view that the law does not apply to the President. Moreover, there are still too many people who will follow Bush anywhere but reality.

That being said, should he be impeached? Absolutely. He has run roughshod over the very thing that he gave an oath to uphold: the Constitution.

So when he tries to protect us from terrorists, he's running roughshod over our #1 Constitutional right, which is LIFE, right?

lol

it's his #1 job... and last time I checked, we haven't had any terrorist hits in America since 9/11.

If a terrorist were at your door tomorrow planting a bomb because the Patriot Act had been reversed or because the NSA was no longer able to monitor terrorists' phone calls, would you change your vote?

I want to know who in here actually thinks their rights have been abused... anyone?

I know mine haven't. Aside from waiting a bit longer to get on a plane so that (ostensibly, at least) nobody can sneak box cutters on board, I haven't suffered from the War on Terrorism/Patriot Act at all. As long as the president's actions only deter the actions of those allied against the United States, I'm more or less cool with it.

We can still say whatever we want
We can still buy whatever we want
We can still work for whom we want to/change jobs etc.
We can still eat whatever we want to
We can still worship as we please (or decline worship)
We can still go anywhere we want to in the US

The terrorists among us are no longer guaranteed a jury trial. Were they ever? If so, should terrorists have rights? Maybe that's the better question: What are the rights of terrorists?

it's his #1 job... and last time I checked, we haven't had any terrorist hits in America since 9/11.

How many foregin terrorist hits have there been before 9/11. And please go as far back as you want (But really if you go before Pearl Harbour (which wasn't a terrorist attack) your really scraping the barrel)

So when he tries to protect us from terrorists, he's running roughshod over our #1 Constitutional right, which is LIFE, right?

lol

it's his #1 job... and last time I checked, we haven't had any terrorist hits in America since 9/11.

no, his number one job is to uphold the constitution, not protect us at any cost. you think that we are all going to die because we force the government to obtain warrants?

no, his number one job is to uphold the constitution, not protect us at any cost. you think that we are all going to die because we force the government to obtain warrants?

um... if the terrorists hit before our countermeasures can get through all the red tape...

i'd rather be protected than die because of red tape.

How many foregin terrorist hits have there been before 9/11. And please go as far back as you want

the fact is that none have since then... which may be a result of our heightened security measures (I'd like to know how many attempts have been made)

the fact is that none have since then... which may be a result of our heightened security measures (I'd like to know how many attempts have been made)

But what if there have been none that have been made before wouldn't that suggest that 9/11 this was an isolated incident? I mean the only other foregin attempt I can think of was Richard Reid and that was stopped by civillians

um... if the terrorists hit before our countermeasures can get through all the red tape...

i'd rather be protected than die because of red tape.

all the red tape = attorney general contacting a FISA court in a matter of hours (sometimes minutes)

your not going to die, take a chil pill.

So when he tries to protect us from terrorists, he's running roughshod over our #1 Constitutional right, which is LIFE, right?

lol

it's his #1 job... and last time I checked, we haven't had any terrorist hits in America since 9/11.

No, his #1 job is to uphold the Constitution of the United States. That is why the oath of office says:


"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


Destroying the Constitution in order to save America does not make us safer; it only destroys America. As Abraham Lincoln put it:


At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means
shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant,
to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe,
Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own
excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander,
could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the
Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the
approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must
spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot,
we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we
must live through all time, or die by suicide.

i'm in america, first of all. and secondly, i don't think it matters what's done to any of our presidents because ALL the politicians are the same. it's a new world order - enjoy the ride. presidents, to my mind, are nothing more than faces for the public to look at. when it comes down to it, they're controlled puppets and do what they're told to do. in essence, it doesn't matter who's in or who's not.. they're all representing the same power/s. they're all evil bastards. they all suck equally. some are better to look at or listen to. that's about it. ;)

um... if the terrorists hit before our countermeasures can get through all the red tape...

i'd rather be protected than die because of red tape.

don't you guys get sick of wetting your pants because you are scared of the boogeyman?

me, i'm terrified of the swimming pool meanace, and look forward to the day were go for a bit of shock and awe against noah's ark water park.

This is amazing. This board is so liberal relative to the rest of the populace. Why is it this way? We need more balance.

No, Bush should not be impeached.
I think this poster means to say that NationStates should be at least as gullible and zombie-like as where they live.

Ha ha!

Yeah.

1. participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace
2. planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crime against peace
3. war crimes
4. crimes against humanity
5. treason against the people of the United Stats of America

Should be more than enough to impeach him.

He shouldn't be impeached. So he "broke" the law with the NSA. Since when has the intelligence community obeyed laws. Protecting the American people is above the law. We are the people. the government is for us and by us. If we don't like the constitution we can break it. We can overthrow the government. It's called popular soviergnty(sp?).
If you liked Bush before this you wouldn't want him impeached. You're just looking for a good reason to get rid of him. Damn hippies. The only reason people listen to you is because you can't argue with "peace and love." "If you're not on our side you must like war and killing." Everyone wants peace. And if the law has to be broken to keep it, then that is the price we pay.

Complete freedom is anarchy. Last time I checked humans are still much to impulsive and stupid to govern themselves. In order to maintain a semblence of order there are laws which restrict freedom to some extent (speed laws, theft, murder, statutory rape, etc). But that isn't fascism, that is just common sense.

Late reply to this post, but here goes.

The problem with your entire premise in this post is that if humans are too stupid to govern themselves, who governs them?

See, that's why a civilized democratic republic limits the power of it's leaders, because there's no assurance that they'll always play nice.

Frangland could be a stand-up comedian because that was all so ridiculous it can't be serious.

As Abraham Lincoln put it:
-snip-
Best. Quote. Ever.

He has been elected fair and square so at the next elections the Americans must think a bit better who they are electing. But impeaching.... no!!!:headbang:

He was not elected fair and square. This time or the time before. First time the supreme court installed him. Second time, his buddy that makes voting machines "made sure of his win".

He is and his administration is responsible for the death of thousands of people, starting with the World Trade Center.

The man is a criminal.

I think this poster means to say that NationStates should be at least as gullible and zombie-like as where they live.

Ha ha!

Yeah.

It already is gullible and zombie-like...just on the other side of the spectrum. Conservatives are on the endangered list, at least when it comes to Nationstates discussion. They're either driven out by snide, meat-starved libbies or erased from history for blowing their temper on the boards.

It already is gullible and zombie-like...just on the other side of the spectrum. Conservatives are on the endangered list, at least when it comes to Nationstates discussion. They're either driven out by snide, meat-starved libbies or erased from history for blowing their temper on the boards.
What brings you to that conclusion?
If NSers are all rabid US-liberals, who exactly is debating against them?

Damn hippies. The only reason people listen to you is because you can't argue with "peace and love." "If you're not on our side you must like war and killing." Everyone wants peace. And if the law has to be broken to keep it, then that is the price we pay.

How do you figure we are hippies? And the fact that you admit there is no arguing against peace, why would you want a war mongering president?

It already is gullible and zombie-like...just on the other side of the spectrum. Conservatives are on the endangered list, at least when it comes to Nationstates discussion. They're either driven out by snide, meat-starved libbies or erased from history for blowing their temper on the boards.

You are funny! I think the people that belong to NS are a very diverse crowd. Everyone has an opinion; and, those opinions range from God is the ruler of all to we are all under the control of the Devil.

Trouble is, there are a lot of gullible people in the world, and some of them choose to play here.

Besides, if everyone could be respectful, no one would get kicked out. So - don't blow your temper!

You are funny!

Why thank you!

I think the people that belong to NS are a very diverse crowd. Everyone has an opinion; and, those opinions range from God is the ruler of all to we are all under the control of the Devil.

Trouble is, there are a lot of gullible people in the world, and some of them choose to play here.

Besides, if everyone could be respectful, no one would get kicked out. So - don't blow your temper!

You know what? I liked your post. Honestly. It offered a friendly opinion to my bitter response. Keep up the good work, I like your style.

This thread disgusts me. President Bush does NOT need to be impeached. He has been a very good leader. The current employment rate is just as high as it was during Clinton's administration, if not higher. A lot of unemployed people are unemployed because they are too F##%# lazy to get a job. After all, why work when you can mooch off of welfare. 9/11 was NOT his fault. As long as we are democratic and a world power, the arab world will always hate us. They chose to attack at that time because they thought Bush wouldn't try to strike back. How wrong they were. If you think that the War on Terror is wrong, then you are siding with terrorists, and are despicable beyond belief. Invading Iraq? I guess you think men like Saddam Hussein are good men? You'd allow a violent, oppressive dictator to stay in power as long as he likes, but you can't let a democratic leader stay in power for 8 years? Don't even THINK about bringing up the weapons issue. There were sources saying that he had weapons, he even boasted about them. Pretty stupid thing to do, eh? Just because we didn't find them doesn't mean he didn't have any. He had a long warning, any idiot could smuggle them out of the country. You shouldn't boast about something that could get you laid out. Ever hear the story of the little boy that cried wolf? Oil? Like we need it that badly, if he had been going in for it, gas prices would have declined a long time ago. Iraqi's (the citizens, not the insurgents of Saddam's regime) would be resisting us violently, yet, for some reason *GASP* they HONOUR our troops. Honestly, look at some of those civilians who for the first time in 30 years get to have elections and taste freedoms, and tell them to f$$$ off and submit to a vicious dictator, because freedom is wrong. You may not like Bush, but at least you get to vote for your leader, dumbasses. You think Clinton is so great? Explain the Monica Lewinski instance, or the fact that he and Hillary shredded official documents when asked by the courts to hand them over. Perhaps some incriminating evidence? If he can't even be trusted by his own damn wife, how can the nation be STUPID enough to trust him? Bill Clinton is one of the biggest F#%#% ups in world history.

That is all i have to say.

This thread disgusts me. President Bush does NOT need to be impeached. He has been a very good leader. The current employment rate is just as high as it was during Clinton's administration, if not higher. A lot of unemployed people are unemployed because they are too F##%# lazy to get a job. After all, why work when you can mooch off of welfare. 9/11 was NOT his fault. As long as we are democratic and a world power, the arab world will always hate us. They chose to attack at that time because they thought Bush wouldn't try to strike back. How wrong they were. If you think that the War on Terror is wrong, then you are siding with terrorists, and are despicable beyond belief. Invading Iraq? I guess you think men like Saddam Hussein are good men? You'd allow a violent, oppressive dictator to stay in power as long as he likes, but you can't let a democratic leader stay in power for 8 years? Don't even THINK about bringing up the weapons issue. There were sources saying that he had weapons, he even boasted about them. Pretty stupid thing to do, eh? Just because we didn't find them doesn't mean he didn't have any. He had a long warning, any idiot could smuggle them out of the country. You shouldn't boast about something that could get you laid out. Ever hear the story of the little boy that cried wolf? Oil? Like we need it that badly, if he had been going in for it, gas prices would have declined a long time ago. Iraqi's (the citizens, not the insurgents of Saddam's regime) would be resisting us violently, yet, for some reason *GASP* they HONOUR our troops. Honestly, look at some of those civilians who for the first time in 30 years get to have elections and taste freedoms, and tell them to f$$$ off and submit to a vicious dictator, because freedom is wrong. You may not like Bush, but at least you get to vote for your leader, dumbasses. You think Clinton is so great? Explain the Monica Lewinski instance, or the fact that he and Hillary shredded official documents when asked by the courts to hand them over. Perhaps some incriminating evidence? If he can't even be trusted by his own damn wife, how can the nation be STUPID enough to trust him? Bill Clinton is one of the biggest F#%#% ups in world history.

That is all i have to say.
:rolleyes: , too much swearing and incoherence for me to finish reading it

If you'd like any indication of the political inclination of NationStates, I refer you to the U.N. resolutions page.

If you'd care to compile a list of which resolutions could be placed on the "left" of the political spectrum and which could be placed on the "right" of the spectrum, you'll find the results to be quite astonishing.

This thread disgusts me. President Bush does NOT need to be impeached. He has been a very good leader. The current employment rate is just as high as it was during Clinton's administration, if not higher. A lot of unemployed people are unemployed because they are too F##%# lazy to get a job. After all, why work when you can mooch off of welfare. 9/11 was NOT his fault. As long as we are democratic and a world power, the arab world will always hate us. They chose to attack at that time because they thought Bush wouldn't try to strike back. How wrong they were. If you think that the War on Terror is wrong, then you are siding with terrorists, and are despicable beyond belief. Invading Iraq? I guess you think men like Saddam Hussein are good men? You'd allow a violent, oppressive dictator to stay in power as long as he likes, but you can't let a democratic leader stay in power for 8 years? Don't even THINK about bringing up the weapons issue. There were sources saying that he had weapons, he even boasted about them. Pretty stupid thing to do, eh? Just because we didn't find them doesn't mean he didn't have any. He had a long warning, any idiot could smuggle them out of the country. You shouldn't boast about something that could get you laid out. Ever hear the story of the little boy that cried wolf? Oil? Like we need it that badly, if he had been going in for it, gas prices would have declined a long time ago. Iraqi's (the citizens, not the insurgents of Saddam's regime) would be resisting us violently, yet, for some reason *GASP* they HONOUR our troops. Honestly, look at some of those civilians who for the first time in 30 years get to have elections and taste freedoms, and tell them to f$$$ off and submit to a vicious dictator, because freedom is wrong. You may not like Bush, but at least you get to vote for your leader, dumbasses. You think Clinton is so great? Explain the Monica Lewinski instance, or the fact that he and Hillary shredded official documents when asked by the courts to hand them over. Perhaps some incriminating evidence? If he can't even be trusted by his own damn wife, how can the nation be STUPID enough to trust him? Bill Clinton is one of the biggest F#%#% ups in world history.

That is all i have to say.
Another pathetic and apparently uneducated post, needing desperately to attack Clinton AS IF HE WERE THE SUBJECT just like a f*cking leech. Seriously, get away from your media source, you're already being worse than merely betrayed, you are WILLINGLY surrendering your intellect and self-respect.

I like to think that being a Republican means you don't need to support 100% of the party platform.

I am strictly nonreligious and think that if the gays want to marry, I don't see why not. I am profoundly against income redistribution, tax hikes, gun control, and political correctness.

To say the truth I suppose I'm actually a libertarian, but we have to ride the Republican ticket for the time being as more of their policies make sense to me than those of the Democrats.
Fair enough ... but when you say "the Democrats" are you talking about traditional policy? Because it stands to reason that if traditional roles are disregarded for the Republicans ... you get my drift?

THANK YOU!!!!

*hands The Eidalons a cookie*
Yay!
Ferris Bueller, you're my hero ....

:D

Oh Corny, i'm glad i vex you so that you can't even come up with a competent defense in argument against me. It's tickling.

.... WHO gets a :fluffle:???

;)

This is precisely what I have been saying and getting nailed for it. Thank you for re-iterating what I have been saying.
Looks like someone ought to read this person's discussion with myself.
You've earned getting nailed. Now if your social life were so lively .... ;)
Just kidding, you know if i weren't taken i'd have a "revenge" fling with ya
:fluffle:



EDIT: I couldn't resist. Seriously, you do liven things up.

thanks for the thanks, its good to be loved, i had a great time with this thread last night, and learned alot from it the butler report and duelreport were both fairly interesting, and before this i hadnt taken a serious look at them.
edit: you seem like the kinda fellow who mgiht like this source, so ill give it to you, i order books and read articles from them fairly regularily, some i agree with, others i dont, but its a good time either way. www.mises.org
lots of good sources on this kind of thing as well
The sad thing is i think you actually take it seriously, and thus it'll be a harder road. Corny doesn't bother reading *ANYTHING* that doesn't fit in with his talking-point allegience (or at least understand it or take it to heart)

He has aggressively gone after terrorists (check)

...but not at all after Osama Bin Laden, the guy who actually was involved in 9/11, and has publicly stated he wasn't really all that worried about Osama Bin Laden WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY INVADING A COUNTRY THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT


He did his best to keep the Patriot Act in force, which was aimed at protecting peaceful, law-abiding americans from any would-be terrorists (foreign or domestic) -- (check -- insomuch as he's tried his best, i think, to protect us in the post-9/11 world). For the record, I don't know a single person whose "rights" to be a terrorist have been trampled on by the Patriot Act.
It's been pointed out who has been on this forum in MANY different threads. Ask The Nazz or Gymoor or Keruvalia or CanuckHeaven or MYSELF. You simply appear too ignorant to keep track of what doesn't agree with you. You've had your arse handed back to you a few times in this nature.

He is generally pro-business -- if businesses are healthy, then there are jobs, naturally, for Americans (labor emigration notwithstanding, if businesses struggle then so do workers) (check -- keeping the socialists at bay)

Ah, that is your lack of understanding. He is pro-corporation and providing safe haven for corporate pursuits without any real consequence to them for their responsibility to economy and integrity (what there is of it) of political influence.
blah blah blah. some of you have heard this before. To me, it's logically a no-brainer.
That's hair-raising insight for someone of your persuasion. :eek:
But knowing is half the battle. Looks like a long, hard slog ahead for you.

Funny how every election I hear how concervatives are a dying breed. That seems to be the liberal mantra every election and they pat themselves on the back and prepare for their victory.

Bush won his elections, and he is doing his job. BTW, the job sucks in case you did not know that.

There are far more conservatives in the US then liberals. And the odds are another conservative will be office for the next presidency as well.

I am not saying the Democrates can't win, but election after election, they shot themselves in the head. The Democrates could have easily won either of the last 2 Presidential Elections had they had someone with a bit of brains at the helm of the campaign.

Prepare now for the Hillary vs. McCain election.

I have never heard anyone question Lincoln's constitutional mandate to wage war, nor have I heard how he unilaterally ordered a draft. Congress passed several conscription acts, including the one that led to the New York Draft Riots. If you have some evidence for this, I could use it. Same thing applies with funding: to the best of my knowledge, Congress approved all spending bills and debt accumulated.



. . .I'm sorry, but that is the most retarded thing I have ever read in my entire life. Just because you can't refute the logic of the argument does not make it a talking point, and to be quite honest, if you are so cavalier about your liberties that you allow the President to violate the Constitution and ignore the law of the land, reducing such crimes to mere "talking points" because it would mean that you lose, then I am quite honestly embarrassed to call you a fellow American and ashamed that myself and my family has spilled blood to keep you as ignorant as you are.



I was heading off a convenient "talking point" before you got there. You see, there's a fairly significant difference between what you call a talking point and what is a talking point: a talking point is a line spouted in the interest of ensuring your party wins without consideration for the truth. Everything I said in my "talking point", as you put it, was perfectly true. The FISA bill does prohibit what Bush did. He did it anyway, and unapolegetically at that. That action is in explicit violation of constitutional precedent, and in fact makes a mockery of Bush's oath to uphold the Constitution. Such a crime is serious enough be classified as a "high crime and misdemeanor", the constitutional prescription for what constitutes grounds for impeachment. Logic then dictates that he ought to be impeached, and moreover that because everything I said was true and logical, it is not a goddamned talking point: it is fact.
You ROCK! *bows*

Bush won his elections, and he is doing his job. BTW, the job sucks in case you did not know that.

Wrong.
Three things you're wrong about. One, he didn't WIN the first election. Second, you can't seriously consider a guy who spends more time on vacation than any other president in history in a time of war THAT HE'S DECLARING as ACTUALLY doing his job (to say nothing of upholding the constitution ... can we say gay marriage?)
Third, what the hell do you think you know about his job sucking? You ever have it? *doubt*



I am not saying the Democrates can't win, but election after election, they shot themselves in the head. The Democrates could have easily won either of the last 2 Presidential Elections had they had someone with a bit of brains at the helm of the campaign.
I can't rightly disagree with you. It seems they do a lot of baffling things as a party.

...but not at all after Osama Bin Laden, the guy who actually was involved in 9/11, and has publicly stated he wasn't really all that worried about Osama Bin Laden WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY INVADING A COUNTRY THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT


And who the hell cares about that. The job of President is not about being a Puritan. You just want a reason to hate him and you are picking this as yet another reason to do so.

Osama is a terrorist, plain and simple. I don't give a rat's ass if he did 9/11 or not. I want him caught or dead. And the President has been working along those lines and I am ok with that.

Iraq was a rogue nation and was only getting more dangerous. I don't give a rat's ass if they had WMD or if they were involved in 9/11. Sadam is no longer in power, 70% or more of Iraqi citizens are saying their country is better off then it was and the country is on the right path. Of course the surveys in Western Countries paint a different view, but I don't care what the British, French, Canadians, California, Hollywood Celebs, etc... think. I do care what the people of Iraq think. Oh, and BTW, we now have the early signs of the most democratic Arab government in the middle east starting to bloom. That can only be good for the entire region in the long term.

Wrong.
Three things you're wrong about. One, he didn't WIN the first election. Second, you can't seriously consider a guy who spends more time on vacation than any other president in history in a time of war THAT HE'S DECLARING as ACTUALLY doing his job (to say nothing of upholding the constitution ... can we say gay marriage?)
Third, what the hell do you think you know about his job sucking? You ever have it? *doubt*

I can't rightly disagree with you. It seems they do a lot of baffling things as a party.

Yes, he did win. Telling yourself over and over he did not, does not change it.

There is no such thing as vacation for a President. There is only a change of location. It is a 7 day workweek, 12 to 16 hours a day. Only Reagan pulled 8 hour days, nobody else has come close. p.s. Your gay marriage issue is a congressional matter, take your campaign there. And besides, do you truly believe the founding fathers of the constitution were supporting the concept of gay marriage? You do live in a fantasy world, don't you.

Of course I have not been the President, don't show your ignorance. But I am not blind either, I see what you see, but I don't look through my eyes trying to find fault with everything I see.

And who the hell cares about that. The job of President is not about being a Puritan.

Irrelevant to context of point.


Osama is a terrorist, plain and simple. I don't give a rat's ass if he did 9/11 or not. I want him caught or dead. And the President has been working along those lines and I am ok with that.

A man who publicly states "I don't know where he (Osama bin Laden) is and I don't care" cannot really be trusted to be looking for said person.


Iraq was a rogue nation and was only getting more dangerous. I don't give a rat's ass if they had WMD or if they were involved in 9/11.

Getting more dangerous how? In what manner would it pose a threat to its neighbors, much less the world? Without long range carriers or WMDs, much less an effective army, how would Iraq get more dangerous?

To look at it logically, would Iraq be more dangerous now if it had been left alone (bar existing sanctions) versus the current Iraq? Looking at the casualties inflicted so far, I would have to say that invading Iraq made it more dangerous to the invaders by the simple fact of casualties suffered for invading as opposed to sanctions.


Oh, and BTW, we now have the early signs of the most democratic Arab government in the middle east starting to bloom. That can only be good for the entire region in the long term.

In case you hadn't noticed, it's a government that doesn't seem to be able to do anything much. It is also showing the signs of evolving into a theocracy run behind the veil of democracy.

Hardly a good thing.


And besides, do you truly believe the founding fathers of the constitution were supporting the concept of gay marriage? You do live in a fantasy world, don't you.

The founding fathers also supported slavery. If you truly support everything they did, and opposed what they did, you'd support slavery too.

Do you?

And besides, do you truly believe the founding fathers of the constitution were supporting the concept of gay marriage? You do live in a fantasy world, don't you.
The founding fathers may not have been pro-gay marriage; however, they were pro-you shutting the hell up.

Government isn't technically allowed to outlaw shit because of religious opposition to it.

what more information would you need? he is openly violating the law because he fancies himself a dicator after the bloodless military coup he's pulled.
What more information? How about some information, obtained through due process, assessed by lawyers, et al.? That'd be some good stuff to have.

The little information I have is what the news has divulged. And, thankfully, the news media isn't judge, jury or executioner. Should there be an independent investigation? I'm would prbably say 'yes'. Should it lead to impeachment? I'm proud to say that I don't know.

Frangland could be a stand-up comedian because that was all so ridiculous it can't be serious.

When a good post is made, attack the poster. Its all the left AND right are good for.

He was not elected fair and square. This time or the time before. First time the supreme court installed him. Second time, his buddy that makes voting machines "made sure of his win".

He is and his administration is responsible for the death of thousands of people, starting with the World Trade Center.

The man is a criminal.

There are so many things wrong with this post. I don't even know where to begin.

1) NOT EVERYONE uses the electronic voting macines. And democrats won on those same machines Sensual.

2) The Supreme Court did not steal the election for Bush. There were recounting irregularities while it was going on and the Supreme Court put a stop to it.

And

3) Bush is not responsible for the deaths at the WTC.

It already is gullible and zombie-like...just on the other side of the spectrum. Conservatives are on the endangered list, at least when it comes to Nationstates discussion. They're either driven out by snide, meat-starved libbies or erased from history for blowing their temper on the boards.

A 100% accurate statement.

What brings you to that conclusion?
If NSers are all rabid US-liberals, who exactly is debating against them?

Notice the words on the endagengered list or wiped away. We are here but not in the numbers as those on the left.

The sad thing is i think you actually take it seriously, and thus it'll be a harder road. Corny doesn't bother reading *ANYTHING* that doesn't fit in with his talking-point allegience (or at least understand it or take it to heart)

This is 100% patently false and I demand a full apology.

When a good post is made, attack the poster. Its all the left AND right are good for.
I'm sadly quite serious. That post could only have been a joke it was so ridiculous on all levels.

And if it wasn't, I pity your side.

And who the hell cares about that. The job of President is not about being a Puritan. You just want a reason to hate him and you are picking this as yet another reason to do so.

Osama is a terrorist, plain and simple. I don't give a rat's ass if he did 9/11 or not. I want him caught or dead. And the President has been working along those lines and I am ok with that.

Iraq was a rogue nation and was only getting more dangerous. I don't give a rat's ass if they had WMD or if they were involved in 9/11. Sadam is no longer in power, 70% or more of Iraqi citizens are saying their country is better off then it was and the country is on the right path. Of course the surveys in Western Countries paint a different view, but I don't care what the British, French, Canadians, California, Hollywood Celebs, etc... think. I do care what the people of Iraq think. Oh, and BTW, we now have the early signs of the most democratic Arab government in the middle east starting to bloom. That can only be good for the entire region in the long term.

Keep it up Rightious Belief :)

I'm sadly quite serious. That post could only have been a joke it was so ridiculous on all levels.

And if it wasn't, I pity your side.

It was a character assassination since what he said was more true than what you just said.

It was a character assassination since what he said was more true than what you just said.
Then I pity him, I pity you, and I pity anyone on your side of the debate because what he said is an excellent culimination of all the asinine bullshit spouted by all those in the "Bush can do no wrong" group and is just so ludicrous I can do nothing more than laugh at it and pray it is a joke.

It was a character assassination since what he said was more true than what you just said.

No, it's filled with glaring and obvious inaccuracies that have been pointed out as such time and again with support. Show me a poll that says Iraqis thinks things are better now, just one. All the ones I've seen say the opposite.

Then I pity him, I pity you, and I pity anyone on your side of the debate because what he said is an excellent culimination of all the asinine bullshit spouted by all those in the "Bush can do no wrong" group and is just so ludicrous I can do nothing more than laugh at it and pray it is a joke.

As opposed to the Assinine Bullshit being spouted by the left who have already condemned him without an investigation? Unless there's an investigation, I don't condemn anyone.

As opposed to the Assinine Bullshit being spouted by the left who have already condemned him without an investigation? Unless there's an investigation, I don't condemn anyone.

You condemn people all the time Corny. You condem environmentalists as presenting flase information. You condemn anything that criticizes Bush as mere partisanry. You condemn things and put them from your mind all the time without any factual basis whatsoever.

So when he tries to protect us from terrorists, he's running roughshod over our #1 Constitutional right, which is LIFE, right?

lol

it's his #1 job... and last time I checked, we haven't had any terrorist hits in America since 9/11.
It's his #1 job to run roughshod over our Constitutional right? Wow, I didn't know. And now children, which one of you can tell me when the last terrorist attack on US soil by foreign terrorists was before 9/11.

If a terrorist were at your door tomorrow planting a bomb because the Patriot Act had been reversed or because the NSA was no longer able to monitor terrorists' phone calls, would you change your vote?
Woo, now that is a crazy fallacy. So if they revoked the Patriot Act and and the NSA was allowed to keep spying on foreign entities, not domestic entities which is what Bush had them doing, a terrorists, of unknown origin, would plant a bomb on my doorstep? I better go out right now and call my Senator and demand the reactivation of every provision of the draconian Patriot Act and demand more domestic spying and cameras on every corner, that way I know I will be safe.

But wait, what about domestic terrorists? How do they fit into your equation?

I want to know who in here actually thinks their rights have been abused... anyone?

I know mine haven't.Aside from waiting a bit longer to get on a plane so that (ostensibly, at least) nobody can sneak box cutters on board, I haven't suffered from the War on Terrorism/Patriot Act at all. As long as the president's actions only deter the actions of those allied against the United States, I'm more or less cool with it.
I believe there is a poem somewhere I could use here but I feel its significance would be wasted.


We can still say whatever we want
As long as you don't want to be chastised for it apparently.

We can still buy whatever we want
As long as it isn't declared a "dangerous" drug, or bought overseas, or from Canada in case of prescription drugs.

We can still go anywhere we want to in the US
Except for all those pesky "restricted areas."

The terrorists among us are no longer guaranteed a jury trial. Were they ever?
Um yes, there is this nasty little thing called the Constitution, and it protects the right to a trial by jury for any citizen of the US. Terrorists are not just foreign, and if they are in our custody, we have to try them somewhere. There are also international courts.

Maybe that's the better question: What are the rights of terrorists?
Who are these terrorists? Where do they come from? Do all terrorists come from there? Name 3 terrorists groups.

As opposed to the Assinine Bullshit being spouted by the left who have already condemned him without an investigation? Unless there's an investigation, I don't condemn anyone.
Well, if he goes on television and says "Yes, I did it, and I will keep doing it," that is pretty fucking damning.

No, it's filled with glaring and obvious inaccuracies that have been pointed out as such time and again with support. Show me a poll that says Iraqis thinks things are better now, just one. All the ones I've seen say the opposite.

And the left get blasted:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault/story?id=1389228

Results: 6 in 10 feel safer in their neighborhoods
61% say local security is better.

Average income is also on the rise.

70 percent of Iraqis rate their own economic situation positively, and consumer goods are sweeping the country. In early 2004, 6 percent of Iraqi households had cell phones; now it's 62 percent. Ownership of satellite dishes has nearly tripled, and many more families now own air conditioners (58 percent, up from 44 percent), cars, washing machines and kitchen appliances.

And this:

There are positive political signs as well. Three-quarters of Iraqis express confidence in the national elections being held this week, 70 percent approve of the new constitution, and 70 percent — including most people in Sunni and Shiite areas alike — want Iraq to remain a unified country.

Interest in politics has soared.

Preference for a democratic political structure has advanced, to 57 percent of Iraqis, while support for an Islamic state has lost ground, to 14 percent (the rest, 26 percent, chiefly in Sunni Arab areas, favor a "single strong leader.")

And yes they want us out but ya know? We'll begin to be leaving later this year.

You condemn people all the time Corny.
I think he wanted to imply "condemn anyone criminally". An example of this could be when CBS received forged documents or forged documents or whatever in the fun up to the 2004 election. It would have been easy for someone of conservative politics to have blamed CBS, John Kerry, or anyone else of a crime, within the first few weeks of the news being made public. But, I'm not remembering Corneliu's specific reaction, in that case he could have held back and waited for more information and an investigation.

And another piece of goodnews. After a terrorist killed iraqis in Ramadi, the people did something they never done before.

THEY BLAMED THE TERRORISTS for the assualt.

Looks like the insurgency and terrorism is starting to lose support among certian Sunni areas now.

Well, if he goes on television and says "Yes, I did it, and I will keep doing it," that is pretty fucking damning.

He may have said it but was it unconstitutional. That is what needs to be investigated. Just because he said I ordered it, doesn't make it unconstitutional or a crime. That is why we have what the right would call, investigations.

Yeah, let's work with that link.

Negatives

Other views, moreover, are more negative: Fewer than half, 46 percent, say the country is better off now than it was before the war. And half of Iraqis now say it was wrong for U.S.-led forces to invade in spring 2003, up from 39 percent in 2004.

The number of Iraqis who say things are going well in their country overall is just 44 percent, far fewer than the 71 percent who say their own lives are going well. Fifty-two percent instead say the country is doing badly.

You pointed out that they think things are going better in their personal lives, about Iraq, a minority think things are going better.


He may have said it but was it unconstitutional. That is what needs to be investigated. Just because he said I ordered it, doesn't make it unconstitutional or a crime. That is why we have what the right would call, investigations.
Yeah, but will they be held? No. Why? The right is full of partisan asshats who only think investigations apply to Democrats. Spying on American citizens without a warrant is illegal. Having the NSA do it, thus not involving the FBI, is illegal.

You condemn people all the time Corny. You condem environmentalists as presenting flase information. You condemn anything that criticizes Bush as mere partisanry. You condemn things and put them from your mind all the time without any factual basis whatsoever.

There's a difference between condemning people CRIMINALLY and just flat out condemning actions. Condemn the action all you like. I don't care. However, condemn someone criminally, especially if there's no investigation, then you are being stupid.

I'm going to wait till there's an investigation before condemning anyone criminally.

Yeah, let's work with that link.



You pointed out that they think things are going better in their personal lives, about Iraq, a minority think things are going better.

Apparently, you missed:

There are positive political signs as well. Three-quarters of Iraqis express confidence in the national elections being held this week, 70 percent approve of the new constitution, and 70 percent — including most people in Sunni and Shiite areas alike — want Iraq to remain a unified country.

Interest in politics has soared.

Preference for a democratic political structure has advanced, to 57 percent of Iraqis, while support for an Islamic state has lost ground, to 14 percent (the rest, 26 percent, chiefly in Sunni Arab areas, favor a "single strong leader.")

now what?

now what?
I don't think you even read down to the negatives part did you? Just stopped reading when it suited you?

Yeah, but will they be held? No. Why? The right is full of partisan asshats who only think investigations apply to Democrats. Spying on American citizens without a warrant is illegal. Having the NSA do it, thus not involving the FBI, is illegal.

U know, they are investigating on who leaked it because leaking that type of info constitutes a violation of security laws. Apparently, the left doesn't want you to know that since they are hailing the person or persons who leaked it as heros.

As to an investigation into the legality of what Bush is doing, I wouldn't know if one will be instituted or not. If there is one, I'll wait for the results before condemning Bush Criminally, if there isn't one, then that settles the answer to that question.

I don't think you even read down to the negatives part did you? Just stopped reading when it suited you?

I Read the negative parts. Its been that way since the beginning so it is inconsequential. I guess you haven't followed those polls

U know, they are investigating on who leaked it because leaking that type of info constitutes a violation of security laws. Apparently, the left doesn't want you to know that since they are hailing the person or persons who leaked it as heros.
Don't they make whistle blower protection laws for stuff like this? Your only response to my innumerating the ways it is illegal is to say we shouldn't know about it. Great, now explain how that makes it legal?

As to an investigation into the legality of what Bush is doing, I wouldn't know if one will be instituted or not. If there is one, I'll wait for the results before condemning Bush Criminally, if there isn't one, then that settles the answer to that question.
God forbid you be outspoken and demand answers when it comes to a Republican/Bush scheme. If he was a Democrat, you would be looking for a guillotine to collect his head.

Don't they make whistle blower protection laws for stuff like this? Your only response to my innumerating the ways it is illegal is to say we shouldn't know about it. Great, now explain how that makes it legal?

So your calling them whistleblowers even though they violated many National Security Laws? I didn't think the left were that stupid but apparently I was wrong.

God forbid you be outspoken and demand answers when it comes to a Republican/Bush scheme. If he was a Democrat, you would be looking for a guillotine to collect his head.

If he was a democrat, I'd wait for investigation before condemning him criminally.

So your calling them whistleblowers even though they violated many National Security Laws? I didn't think the left were that stupid but apparently I was wrong.
They revealed something illegal, thus they are whistleblowers.
And wow, nice sweeping statement there Cpt. Tolerance.


If he was a democrat, I'd wait for investigation before condemning him criminally.
I bet you would, Skippy.
That is of course to say nothing of condemning him everyway but criminally. Whereas you are going out of your way to defend Bush. We arn't blind or as stupid as you pretend we are.

They revealed something illegal, thus they are whistleblowers.
And wow, nice sweeping statement there Cpt. Tolerance.

So they are heros even though they violated every NS laws that we hav eon our books?


I bet you would, Skippy.
That is of course to say nothing of condemning him everyway but criminally. Whereas you are going out of your way to defend Bush. We arn't blind or as stupid as you pretend we are.

Apparently you are. I haven't said anything about this against him because truth be told, the President has more power than we as ordinary citizens believe. His duty is to defend the United States using whatever tools he can.

Apparently you are. I haven't said anything about this against him because truth be told, the President has more power than we as ordinary citizens believe. His duty is to defend the United States using whatever tools he can.
But he isn't above the law. You can't forget that just because he is Republican.

But he isn't above the law. You can't forget that just because he is Republican.

I haven't forgotten it at all. However, he does have more authority than what we believe he has. Ur right that he isn't above the law however, without an investigation, how would we know what he did was legal or not?

I haven't forgotten it at all. However, he does have more authority than what we believe he has. Ur right that he isn't above the law however, without an investigation, how would we know what he did was legal or not?
Well, this is a lovely conversation with a wall, but I rather hang myself from the ceiling fan.

Well, this is a lovely conversation with a wall, but I rather hang myself from the ceiling fan.

If there is no investigation into the matter then how can it be criminal in nature? I guess your one of those that doesn't care about justice at all. If they don't agree with you, hang him. That seems to be your philosophy.

Want help?

The Allies did not assassinate Hitler during WWII because they knew if he went, someone more competent would replace him.

Imagine how much more damage could be done by a more competent leader who shares Bush's contempt for the rule of law.

If there is no investigation into the matter then how can it be criminal in nature? I guess your one of those that doesn't care about justice at all.

justice exists to protect the people from the state, not to protect power grabs by the state. bush has openly and publicly stated that he broke the law, is breaking the law, and will continue to break the law. he also openly and publicly claims that the law doesn't apply to him because he is a military dictator. or in his terms, because of the inherent powers he gets from being in charge of the military - same thing.

i mean shit, it should have been enough when he started rounding up people with darker skin tones. and then it should have been enough when he started holding american citizens without charge or trial. and then it should have been enough when he went to war on obviously false pretenses. and then it should have been enough when we found out that they had an official policy of expanding the use of torture. and then it should have been enough when we found out they've been running secret torture and murder camps in foreign countries. and then it should be enough when we found them to be buddy-buddy with a regime that gets its kicks by boiling children. and then it should be enough to know that they are in favor of abolishing the 4th ammendment entirely. and that just scratching the fucking surface.

open your fucking eyes. the only monsters out to get you are running this fucking country.

open your fucking eyes. the only monsters out to get you are running this fucking country.
Corneliu will defend Bush up to Bush's death for war crimes (not saying this would happen, I am using something called hyperbole), and probably beyond that. No matter what happens he will bullshit up a defense and attack anyone who disagrees, not to mention his and likeminded people's sweeping generalizations and demonizations of "liberals," who, as far as I can tell, are defined by opposing a pro-Bush position.

This doesn't consist of an endorsement for any of the secret and warrant-less wiretapping that has been done by the NSA, at the request of the President, but it does make it look like there is a chance in hell that it was legal. In a WSJ piece that I get regularly, the following makes it look like there are decisions that lend credibility to the Administrations position, if not to their attitude of utter contempt for the public.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007771
The link is worth reading because the material does make a liberal judge look very silly.

United States v. United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, in which the United States Supreme Court specifically says, Justice Powell writing, we are not going to consider whether or not the president can, in fact, conduct surveillance of this sort.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=407&invol=297
Brooks: What sort?

Hewitt: Foreign agents communicating with their agents in the United States, even if those latter are citizens.

Brooks: OK.

Hewitt: So they specifically reserved the question to one side, and the foreign intelligence surveillance court appeals board, in In Re Sealed Case No. 2 [link in PDF], also said no, the president has the authority to do this. So given that the federal authority--
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/fisa111802opn.pdf


I'd be interested to see someone with more legal experience than I make a comment on the cases and the findings.

He may have said it but was it unconstitutional. That is what needs to be investigated. Just because he said I ordered it, doesn't make it unconstitutional or a crime. That is why we have what the right would call, investigations.
What fucking universe are you a resident of, anyway?

What fucking universe are you a resident of, anyway?

Not this one that for certain.

I'd be interested to see someone with more legal experience than I make a comment on the cases and the findings.

United States v. United States District Court - 1972
FISA - 1978

This thread should be re-done, with a public poll

Its complete and utter bullshit that Clinton was impeached for fooling around with a secretary, and Bush isnt being impeached for his many crimes against humanity and all the violations against the constitution.

This doesn't consist of an endorsement for any of the secret and warrant-less wiretapping that has been done by the NSA, at the request of the President, but it does make it look like there is a chance in hell that it was legal. In a WSJ piece that I get regularly, the following makes it look like there are decisions that lend credibility to the Administrations position, if not to their attitude of utter contempt for the public.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007771
The link is worth reading because the material does make a liberal judge look very silly.


I'd be interested to see someone with more legal experience than I make a comment on the cases and the findings.
If they knew they were agents, or even single persons, they could have obtained a warrant. A warrant from a court that, I might add, did not turn down a warrant request all of 2004.

The decision you cite (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0407_0297_ZO.html) (which was linked wrong) also predates FISA.

Bush's crimes are: Perjury, failure to protect and preserve the constitution of the US, failure to protect the mainland from attack, Election fraud, Mis-Using the CIA and FBI to seek out and manipulate intelligence to fit his agenda, ect.. Clinton was impeached for less. It's funny tho; the people who claim to be "patriots" support their President above their country and their constitution...

In terms of the wiretapping;

The Bill of Rights:
Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If they knew they were agents, or even single persons, they could have obtained a warrant. A warrant from a court that, I might add, did not turn down a warrant request all of 2004.

The decision you cite (which was linked wrong (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0407_0297_ZO.html)) also predates FISA.
The point of the interviewer was not that the decision affected FISA, only that the court excluded foreign agents from consideration in the 1972 decision.

And the link to findlaw worked for me. What was the problem with it?

It's funny tho; the people who claim to be "patriots" support their President above their country and their constitution...
What's also funny is that Bush may be the president of an entire nation, but he's never even bothered trying to appeal to all his people... just the ones who voted for him. He demanded bi-partisan support five years ago, but can't bring himself to address anyone's needs/wants/wishes except those of his most ardent and self-blinkered supporters.

Exactly! Apparently the 59 million of us who voted against the Chimp don't exist anymore in this country.....

The point of the interviewer was not that the decision affected FISA, only that the court excluded foreign agents from consideration in the 1972 decision.
Then there was new law introduced six years later. Previous case law does not overrule new legislation. Even if legislation was made specifically to overrule case law, it would have to be taken back to court.

And the link to findlaw worked for me. What was the problem with it?
Wrong case.

Bush doesn't deserve the title of President anymore. . . if he ever did.
As I've said from the start, he's an evil, war mongering, power hungering man, and his blatant disregard for laws only goes to drive that point home.
Impeaching is the least they should do to him.

Exactly! Apparently the 59 million of us who voted against the Chimp don't exist anymore in this country.....
Your thoughts, opinions, concerns, and any expressions thereof are at odds with National Security concerns and have been suspended for the duration of an open-ended war on a noun.

What's also funny is that Bush may be the president of an entire nation, but he's never even bothered trying to appeal to all his people... just the ones who voted for him. He demanded bi-partisan support five years ago, but can't bring himself to address anyone's needs/wants/wishes except those of his most ardent and self-blinkered supporters.
This is entirely off topic, but I can't resist.

Now, I'm no Bush lover, but I'll give credit where it's due. Bush cooperated with Teddy Kennedy on the biggest education act, ever. The result was NCLB. Both parties share the blame for that one. Bush also pushed the prescription drug act through Congress and again, both parties deserve the blame for the enormous expense.

But, on the brighter side, Bush has revived the economy to the point where a major natural disaster like Hurricane Katrina couldn't do more than just cause a little blip in the economic indicators. Amid controversy, he has defended the country adequately against terrorist attacks subsequent to the attacks on September 11, 2001.

So your statement is unfounded. Bush does, indeed, make the effort to represent all the constituents. He just doesn't sway with the opinion polls as another recent President was so fond of doing.

Your thoughts, opinions, concerns, and any expressions thereof are at odds with National Security concerns and have been suspended for the duration of an open-ended war on a noun.


isn't america grand?????

Your thoughts, opinions, concerns, and any expressions thereof are at odds with National Security concerns and have been suspended for the duration of an open-ended war on a noun.


Too funny. Regardless if he's impeached or not, Governor Bush will NOT be treated kindly by history. He's already recorded as stealing the election with 100,000+ vote win for Gore in 2000. Ever since that election, I still to this do not consider him the President. He's nothing more than an appointed Dictator, who does nothing more than try to divide the citizens and wage war over seas.... The next President is going to have a hell of a time cleaning up the mess Bush and the repubs left behind.... and for a conservative he doesn't seem to have a problem expanding gov't nor spending our taxes like its going out of style...

Too funny. Regardless if he's impeached or not, Governor Bush will NOT be treated kindly by history. He's already recorded as stealing the election with 100,000+ vote win for Gore in 2000. Ever since that election, I still to this do not consider him the President. He's nothing more than an appointed Dictator, who does nothing more than try to divide the citizens and wage war over seas.... The next President is going to have a hell of a time cleaning up the mess Bush and the repubs left behind.... and for a conservative he doesn't seem to have a problem expanding gov't nor spending our taxes like its going out of style...



didnt his father do the same thing as far as spending our tax money?

He's nothing more than an appointed Dictator, who does nothing more than try to divide the citizens and wage war over seas....
Newsflash: he's done it. is doing it. will probably continue to do it. the word 'try' is inappropriate in this context.

didnt his father do the same thing as far as spending our tax money?

I recommend reading Ted Rall's: Wake up! You're Liberal.

It's a good read and in it has a lot of stats of democrats vs republicans in the WH. And you are correct, his father did the same thing as did Reagan, but it's ok when a republican does it cause it's under the guise of defense. But if you look at some of the stats in the book, you'll see whenever a repub is in office, the deficit skyrockets, jobs are lost and the economy sinks and then when a democrat is elected they can't get anything done because they have to spend their presidency fixing republican mistakes...

Newsflash: he's done it. is doing it. will probably continue to do it. the word 'try' is inappropriate in this context.

Try is the appropriate word since he's now focusing on trying to divide the blue states... And he will once again try for yet another war.. There's no probably about it. He thinks 2006 will give him a clean slate and the ills of 2005 will be forgotten. Maybe among republicans but the rest of us, he's done for... His poll numbers are still strong among republicans.... 86% I believe but among everyone else, they're in the toilet....

Then there was new law introduced six years later. Previous case law does not overrule new legislation. Even if legislation was made specifically to overrule case law, it would have to be taken back to court.


Wrong case.
And the new law, which is mentioned in the second case -- now linked correctly, thanks -- is the one which the interviewer claims gives the President actually does have the authority to do what he is now doing.

What we appear to have, in the interviewer's mind anyway, is a decision that has no bearing on foreign agents coupled with a decision by the FISA appeals board that allows the President to do exactly what he is doing now.

I'm sure there are contradicting opinions about it, even from those of us that know law. But, this is the first justification that I've seen, outside of the Congressional resolution that gave Bush the power to do anything he thought necessary. It does return to an argument that I made in another thread. I had said if there was even an outside chance that the Presidents actions were legal, Congress should immediately pass a law to prohibit secret warrant-less wiretaps.

And the new law, which is mentioned in the second case -- now linked correctly, thanks -- is the one which the interviewer claims gives the President actually does have the authority to do what he is now doing.

What we appear to have, in the interviewer's mind anyway, is a decision that has no bearing on foreign agents coupled with a decision by the FISA appeals board that allows the President to do exactly what he is doing now.

I'm sure there are contradicting opinions about it, even from those of us that know law. But, this is the first justification that I've seen, outside of the Congressional resolution that gave Bush the power to do anything he thought necessary. It does return to an argument that I made in another thread. I had said if there was even an outside chance that the Presidents actions were legal, Congress should immediately pass a law to prohibit secret warrant-less wiretaps.


Unless congress ammended the constitution I dont know how what Bush did could ever be legal. It goes against the 4th right in the bill of rights. I don't think it's constitutional for congress to pass a law that goes against the constitution without first ammending it to suit their needs, even in times of war or grave threats..

Unless congress ammended the constitution I do how what Bush could ever be legal. It goes against the 4th right in the bill of rights. I don't think it's constitution for congress to pass a law that goes against the constitution without first ammending it to suit their needs, even in times of war or grave threats..
What this Supreme Court will decide is anybody's guess. Look what they've done to our other rights. Freedom of Speech -- gone. Property Rights -- gone. Right to due process -- gone.

There needs to be a specific law passed that will categorically prohibit secret and warrant-less wiretapping of U.S. citizens and legal residents. Then, we will have something concrete on which to hang our objections.

What this Supreme Court will decide is anybody's guess. Look what they've done to our other rights. Freedom of Speech -- gone. Property Rights -- gone. Right to due process -- gone.

There needs to be a specific law passed that will categorically prohibit secret and warrant-less wiretapping of U.S. citizens and legal residents. Then, we will have something concrete on which to hang our objections.

You're right but I don't see how Congress could have given the President such power when it was unconstitutional in the first place...

You're right but I don't see how Congress could have given the President such power when it was unconstitutional in the first place...
That's one of the great mysteries of legislation. They probably _never_ gave the President this particular power. He wrongly took it, although some court decisions allow the for possibility that he didn't. Now, it's up to Congress to correct the error. We certainly can't rely on the Supremes to uphold the Constitution.

That's one of the great mysteries of legislation. They probably _never_ gave the President this particular power. He wrongly took it, although some court decisions allow the for possibility that he didn't. Now, it's up to Congress to correct the error. We certainly can't rely on the Supremes to uphold the Constitution.

Especially after the way Bushie is going to stack the court...

And the new law, which is mentioned in the second case -- now linked correctly, thanks -- is the one which the interviewer claims gives the President actually does have the authority to do what he is now doing.

What we appear to have, in the interviewer's mind anyway, is a decision that has no bearing on foreign agents coupled with a decision by the FISA appeals board that allows the President to do exactly what he is doing now.

I'm sure there are contradicting opinions about it, even from those of us that know law. But, this is the first justification that I've seen, outside of the Congressional resolution that gave Bush the power to do anything he thought necessary. It does return to an argument that I made in another thread. I had said if there was even an outside chance that the Presidents actions were legal, Congress should immediately pass a law to prohibit secret warrant-less wiretaps.
I frankly don't know what is going on in that pdf file, but I do know there are alot of references to the FBI so I assume it is about the abilities of the FBI. Well, Bush used the NSA to spy on citizens, not the FBI.

:D

It would never happen. There are only a few in Congress who want to, but they aren't enough. Conyers is that nutty congresscritter who think's the American People want him gone.

She's wrong.


NEXT!

You really seem to know what you are talking about!!

John Conyers is not a woman. He is the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Comittee; in his nineteenth term in the U. S. House of Representatives, winning 93 percent of the vote in Michigan's Fourteenth Congressional District (which includes Detroit).

Here's a small list of legislative accomplishments during Mr. Conyers tenure in Congress: Public Safety Officers Benefits Act, The Victims of Crime Act, The Violence Against Women Act, The Equal Protection of Voters Rights Act.

John Conyers is one of the few politicians who listens to the people. Not the lobbyists. Not the special interest groups. This is a man who has spent his entire career fighting for what is right and good in America. For you to make uninformed and misguided statements like these is offensive and disrespectful to the millions upon millions of people this man has helped in his 19 term tenure.

So, please, I beg you, try to get a clue on the issues of this world before making such assinine statements. Try reading the news now and again.

You really seem to know what you are talking about!!

John Conyers is not a woman. He is the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Comittee; in his nineteenth term in the U. S. House of Representatives, winning 93 percent of the vote in Michigan's Fourteenth Congressional District (which includes Detroit).

Here's a small list of legislative accomplishments during Mr. Conyers tenure in Congress: Public Safety Officers Benefits Act, The Victims of Crime Act, The Violence Against Women Act, The Equal Protection of Voters Rights Act.

John Conyers is one of the few politicians who listens to the people. Not the lobbyists. Not the special interest groups. This is a man who has spent his entire career fighting for what is right and good in America. For you to make uninformed and misguided statements like these is offensive and disrespectful to the millions upon millions of people this man has helped in his 19 term tenure.

So, please, I beg you, try to get a clue on the issues of this world before making such assinine statements. Try reading the news now and again.


Right On!!!!

So, please, I beg you, try to get a clue on the issues of this world before making such assinine statements. Try reading the news now and again.
You honestly think reading the news now and again is going to prevent Mr. Alphabet Soup from making asinine statements? C'mon - he's got Baby Jesus and his gun collection to think about. Throw in a third item and all bets are off.

As usual.

You're right but I don't see how Congress could have given the President such power when it was unconstitutional in the first place...

I don't know, maybe you should ask Bill Clinton, he used the same "loophole" in the law to spy on us, but when Clinton did it it was to gain info on "right wing,white supremecist,milititant, religous groups" but thats ok because white christains don't deserve any real rights do they? So it's wrong for the NSA to spy on calls originating from people with links to terrorism that are outside the country, but it is ok to tap domestic calls from one US citizen to another, especially if they are white religous "extremists". Ah....you know you are a liberal if there is one standard for you, and one for the people you disagree with (hate). I wonder, where was your complaining when Clinton was authorizing warrentless wire taps? But that was ok because it was Clinton right? Guess your utopian ideas of open mindedness and equal rights for all only apply to those who share your point of view.....what a suprise. It's always nice to see how stongly people follow the beliefs that they preach.

I don't know, maybe you should ask Bill Clinton, he used the same "loophole" in the law to spy on us, but when Clinton did it it was to gain info on "right wing,white supremecist,milititant, religous groups" but thats ok because white christains don't deserve any real rights do they? So it's wrong for the NSA to spy on calls originating from people with links to terrorism that are outside the country, but it is ok to tap domestic calls from one US citizen to another, especially if they are white religous "extremists". Ah....you know you are a liberal if there is one standard for you, and one for the people you disagree with (hate). I wonder, where was your complaining when Clinton was authorizing warrentless wire taps? But that was ok because it was Clinton right? Guess your utopian ideas of open mindedness and equal rights for all only apply to those who share your point of view.....what a suprise. It's always nice to see how stongly people follow the beliefs that they preach.

Considering I couldn't even vote when Clinton was around. I doubt anyone would've listened to me. However, if thats the true case why didn't the REPUBLICAN congress impeach Clinton for that instead of a BJ? And Pfft. You do not spy on American citizens without a warrant, sorry but just because you label someone a "terrorist" doesn't make them any less a citizen and they still are protected by the constitution. However, this only applies to American citizens, because the constitution only protects us...

I don't know, maybe you should ask Bill Clinton, he used the same "loophole" in the law to spy on us, but when Clinton did it it was to gain info on "right wing,white supremecist,milititant, religous groups" but thats ok because white christains don't deserve any real rights do they? So it's wrong for the NSA to spy on calls originating from people with links to terrorism that are outside the country, but it is ok to tap domestic calls from one US citizen to another, especially if they are white religous "extremists". Ah....you know you are a liberal if there is one standard for you, and one for the people you disagree with (hate). I wonder, where was your complaining when Clinton was authorizing warrentless wire taps? But that was ok because it was Clinton right? Guess your utopian ideas of open mindedness and equal rights for all only apply to those who share your point of view.....what a suprise. It's always nice to see how stongly people follow the beliefs that they preach.
Terrorists arn't just people holding AK-47s in the Middle East. And it is the FBI's job to spy on people inside the US. How about, you provide more information instead of going "Well, uhh he did it too!"

I don't know, maybe you should ask Bill Clinton, he used the same "loophole" in the law to spy on us, but when Clinton did it it was to gain info on "right wing,white supremecist,milititant, religous groups" but thats ok because white christains don't deserve any real rights do they? So it's wrong for the NSA to spy on calls originating from people with links to terrorism that are outside the country, but it is ok to tap domestic calls from one US citizen to another, especially if they are white religous "extremists". Ah....you know you are a liberal if there is one standard for you, and one for the people you disagree with (hate). I wonder, where was your complaining when Clinton was authorizing warrentless wire taps? But that was ok because it was Clinton right? Guess your utopian ideas of open mindedness and equal rights for all only apply to those who share your point of view.....what a suprise. It's always nice to see how stongly people follow the beliefs that they preach.
Wow. I bet there's a lot of actual bona fide Christians who'll come across this masterpiece of a post and wince even harder than usual. And I'd be willing to bet Jesus Christ himself would be so long past the point of voiding his digestive tract as to be merely dry-heaving by this point.

What unmitigated paranoiac drivel.

Wow. I bet there's a lot of actual bona fide Christians who'll come across this masterpiece of a post and wince even harder than usual. And I'd be willing to bet Jesus Christ himself would be so long past the point of voiding his digestive tract as to be merely dry-heaving by this point.

What unmitigated paranoiac drivel.

Wow you have a HUGE vocabulary, but it seems you can't argue the point, you can only insut. You just lost the debate. It never amazes me how fast fanatical haters such as yourself resort to insults when they cannot intelligently debate an opposing point of view.

Wow you have a HUGE vocabulary, but it seems you can't argue the point, you can only insut. You just lost the debate. It never amazes me how fast fanatical haters such as yourself resort to insults when they cannot intelligently debate an opposing point of view.

It's amazing... Christians have no rights, blah blah blah, but people like you have no problem trying to infringe on others rights to exist peacefully.. You claim you're doing God's work but people like you are not. You want us to tolerate your religion, fine, then tolerate my RIGHT to exist peacefully...

Considering I couldn't even vote when Clinton was around. I doubt anyone would've listened to me. However, if thats the true case why didn't the REPUBLICAN congress impeach Clinton for that instead of a BJ? And Pfft. You do not spy on American citizens without a warrant, sorry but just because you label someone a "terrorist" doesn't make them any less a citizen and they still are protected by the constitution. However, this only applies to American citizens, because the constitution only protects us...

Well that it is no surpise that you couldn't vote when Clinton ran for office. I definetly got the impression by your views that you were part of the uneducated generation that revels in trendy group think. Actually Clinton WAS impeached for LYING TO A GRAND JURY UNDER OATH (perjury). He was also disbarred from praticing law by the American Bar Association (the same organization that gave John Roberts an "outstanding" rating). So how about someone who ISN"T an american citizen and is KNOWN to have contacts with terrorists do they also enjoy the rights of a citizen?! So if a known Al-Qaida member is calling someone in the US the rights of the US citizen recieving the call trumps national security?! Hmmm....this response isn't worth my time!

Well that it is no surpise that you couldn't vote when Clinton ran for office. I definetly got the impression by your views that you were part of the uneducated generation that revels in trendy group think. Actually Clinton WAS impeached for LYING TO A GRAND JURY UNDER OATH (perjury). He was also disbarred from praticing law by the American Bar Association (the same organization that gave John Roberts an "outstanding" rating). So how about someone who ISN"T an american citizen and is KNOWN to have contacts with terrorists do they also enjoy the rights of a citizen?! So if a known Al-Qaida member is calling someone in the US the rights of the US citizen recieving the call trumps national security?! Hmmm....this response isn't worth my time!

Figures.... You're a "patriot" whose willing to give up your rights for some form of bleak security.. You're no patriot.. Just a traitor who'd love to see the constitution ripped to shreds....

Actually Clinton WAS impeached for LYING TO A GRAND JURY UNDER OATH (perjury).
Been discussed, he didn't commit perjury on a technicality. And why was he on the stand in the first place?

So how about someone who ISN"T an american citizen and is KNOWN to have contacts with terrorists do they also enjoy the rights of a citizen?!
You're just trying to be a pain in the ass.

So if a known Al-Qaida member is calling someone in the US the rights of the US citizen recieving the call trumps national security?!
Didn't why didn't they get a warrant if they knew a specific person was being called? Why didn't the FBI do it? And yes.

Hmmm....this response isn't worth my time!
Stop replying.

Its complete and utter bullshit that Clinton was impeached for fooling around with a secretary, and Bush isnt being impeached for his many crimes against humanity and all the violations against the constitution.
tit for tat isnt a very good idea

maybe you noticed that impeaching clinton was a disaster for this country since it took the attention of government away from government and onto whether or not oral sex is sex.

we dont need to do that again for a LONG time. even with a bad president, we dont need to be distracted while we are trying to deal with the war in iraq

Well that it is no surpise that you couldn't vote when Clinton ran for office. I definetly got the impression by your views that you were part of the uneducated generation that revels in trendy group think.

And you're part of the educated one? Funny, that sounds like the arrogance the Right Wing loves to accuse liberals of having.

Actually Clinton WAS impeached for LYING TO A GRAND JURY UNDER OATH (perjury). He was also disbarred from praticing law by the American Bar Association (the same organization that gave John Roberts an "outstanding" rating).

Lying under oath about the blowjob. Not about national security issues which is what this post was supposed to have been about. A blowjob that only surfaced because Ken Starr couldn't find solid evidence linking the Clintons to Whitewater and resorted to dumpster diving with aid from Linda Tripp, the world's best secret confidante.

So how about someone who ISN"T an american citizen and is KNOWN to have contacts with terrorists do they also enjoy the rights of a citizen?! So if a known Al-Qaida member is calling someone in the US the rights of the US citizen recieving the call trumps national security?! Hmmm....this response isn't worth my time!

The wiretappings would be more direct and efficient aimed at the known Al Qaeda operative than it would be aimed at random American Citizens on a fishing trip hoping that they'll either call or receive a call from Al Qaeda.

Again, Bush took it upon himself to authorized Ex Post Facto wiretaps on American Citizens with 72 hours to find some contrived bullshit to justify the action in case just like his brilliant WMD call on Iraq there's no actual evidence to connect the subject to any terrorist organizations.

Figures.... You're a "patriot" whose willing to give up your rights for some form of bleak security.. You're no patriot.. Just a traitor who'd love to see the constitution ripped to shreds....

I'm not afraid, I have nothing to hide from the government, do you? A traitor, hmm I served this country for ten years in the Marine Corps what have you done for your fellow citizens lately? besides waste their air?

I'm not afraid, I have nothing to hide from the government, do you? A traitor, hmm I served this country for ten years in the Marine Corps what have you done for your fellow citizens lately? besides waste their air?


HAHAHA... It's not about hiding things from the government. It's about the government staying the hell out of my life as much as possible.. And I refuse to sacrifice my rights because of terrorists... and I don't think it's right to wiretap AMERICAN citizens without warrants, its against the constitution. And if you were a TRUE patriot, you'd know the job of the citizenry is to defend and uphold the constitution NO MATTER WHAT... If you were a solider then you of all people should understand.. You fight and put yourself in harms way to defend the constitution and our way of life. Yet, you come back home and decide the constitution is worthless. Hmmmm

And you're part of the educated one? Funny, that sounds like the arrogance the Right Wing loves to accuse liberals of having.



Lying under oath about the blowjob. Not about national security issues which is what this post was supposed to have been about. A blowjob that only surfaced because Ken Starr couldn't find solid evidence linking the Clintons to Whitewater and resorted to dumpster diving with aid from Linda Tripp, the world's best secret confidante.


No evidence because it all went ot the grave with Vincent Foster

WMD call on Iraq there's no actual evidence to connect the subject to any terrorist organizations.

His brilliant call and Bill Clinton's call, and John kerry's call and Chirac's call and the UN's call but either way we all know that if you are looking for something and you can't find it then it must not exist, right? So because we can't find Osama he must not exist in fact he never did

HAHAHA... It's not about hiding things from the government. It's about the government staying the hell out of my life as much as possible.. And I refuse to sacrifice my rights because of terrorists... and I don't think it's right to wiretap AMERICAN citizens without warrants, its against the constitution. And if you were a TRUE patriot, you'd know the job of the citizenry is to defend and uphold the constitution NO MATTER WHAT... If you were a solider then you of all people should understand.. You fight and put yourself in harms way to defend the constitution and our way of life. Yet, you come back home and decide the constitution is worthless. Hmmmm

Yeah sacrifice rights that you don't have, there is NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY in the constitution. And if you want the government out of your life why not complain about things that actually effect YOU. you know like taxes, fees disguised as taxes, social services taking kids out of their homes, liberals burning down compounds full of children, ATF snipers killing Idaho citizens because the were "white supremacists, Vincent Foster murdered by Clinton and co, seems to me that the average american citizen (in particular white males) lost more rights from 92-00 than have from 00-06, not that this matters it's not like white men actually deserve rights, they are just here to fund social programs with their income, fight and die for other americans rights (admittedly non-white men and women do this too, but white men make up the predominate gender/ehtnicity of combat units, minority groups tend to be the naval base dentist, or supply officers, statistically speaking of course)

I'm not afraid, I have nothing to hide from the government, do you? A traitor, hmm I served this country for ten years in the Marine Corps what have you done for your fellow citizens lately? besides waste their air?
Ahh, breathe the musty old scent of McCarthyism wafting from the wings. Well, the right wing, anyway.

No evidence because it all went ot the grave with Vincent Foster

Wow, are you smoking that Conspiracy Crack again? And learn how to use quotes properly instead of trying to pin that bullshit on me.

:rolleyes:

His brilliant call and Bill Clinton's call, and John kerry's call and Chirac's call and the UN's call but either way we all know that if you are looking for something and you can't find it then it must not exist, right? So because we can't find Osama he must not exist in fact he never did

This is the kind of fallacious thinking that lead to the "theory" of Intelligent Design.

Oh, and we can't find Osama because Dear Leader Shrub has declared that Bin Ladin wasn't that important remember?

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him.

Yeah sacrifice rights that you don't have, there is NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY in the constitution. And if you want the government out of your life why not complain about things that actually effect YOU. you know like taxes, fees disguised as taxes, social services taking kids out of their homes, liberals burning down compounds full of children, ATF snipers killing Idaho citizens because the were "white supremacists, Vincent Foster murdered by Clinton and co, seems to me that the average american citizen (in particular white males) lost more rights from 92-00 than have from 00-06


I have a right not to have the government come after or bother me without just cause nor without a warrant. 4th Ammendment to the Bill Of Rights...

And the 9th ammendment gives me the right to privacy...

I'm not afraid, I have nothing to hide from the government, do you? A traitor, hmm I served this country for ten years in the Marine Corps what have you done for your fellow citizens lately? besides waste their air?

Clayton Lonetree was a good Marine too.

Ahh, breathe the musty old scent of McCarthyism wafting from the wings. Well, the right wing, anyway.

Funny thing is McCarthy was RIGHT! go to the national archives or the KGB archives if you can find it. It's all there Algar Hiss, Whittiker Chambers and numerous other were communists agents, not just communists, but agents working for the USSR. This is from documents made available by the Freedom of Info Act (written by none other than Donald Rumsfeld himself) and they were declassified in the late nineties but for somereason the NY times didn't pick up the story, hmm maybe because of their agenda?

I have a right not to have the government come after or bother me without just cause nor without a warrant. 4th Ammendment to the Bill Of Rights...

And the 9th ammendment gives me the right to privacy...

Really, where does it say that? I just can't seem to find it

Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I can probably write down a list right now of who wants him impeached and who doesn't.

I would like to see it happen - but I probably wouldn't like him to be actually kicked out, because Cheney would take over. The important thing is that Bush gets another blemish on his miserable record, so that Americans in the future will be warned of voting for his type.


Only one of the two presidents that got impeached deserved to be impeached, and that was good ole Bill.

Funny thing is McCarthy was RIGHT! go to the national archives or the KGB archives if you can find it. It's all there Algar Hiss, Whittiker Chambers and numerous other were communists agents, not just communists, but agents working for the USSR. This is from documents made available by the Freedom of Info Act (written by none other than Donald Rumsfeld himself) and they were declassified in the late nineties but for somereason the NY times didn't pick up the story, hmm maybe because of their agenda?


Also the American Communist Party recieved millions in funds from the Soviet Government.

Clayton Lonetree was a good Marine too.

I'm sure he was, I don't now who he is but I assume that he died in service to his country, and you are using his death to further your anti war agenda, if so I am willing to bet that he wouldn't like you using his death to make the point that what he died for was and immoral, illegal, and just plain wrong

Really, where does it say that? I just can't seem to find it


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


I'll admit, I may not understand number 9 but I'll try it out there, if I'm wrong, my mistake, I'll admit it now..

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Also:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


I'll admit, I may not understand number 9 but I'll try it out there, if I'm wrong, my mistake, I'll admit it now..

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


I still don't see the phrase "every citizen has an right to privacy which overrides all other matters and rights of other citizens including, but not limited to national security" maybe I'm just looking in the wrong place.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


I'll admit, I may not understand number 9 but I'll try it out there, if I'm wrong, my mistake, I'll admit it now..

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Ammendment 9 grants you any powers not specifically given to you which don't already belong to the Federal, or state Governments.

Funny thing is McCarthy was RIGHT! go to the national archives or the KGB archives if you can find it. It's all there Algar Hiss, Whittiker Chambers and numerous other were communists agents, not just communists, but agents working for the USSR. This is from documents made available by the Freedom of Info Act (written by none other than Donald Rumsfeld himself) and they were declassified in the late nineties but for somereason the NY times didn't pick up the story, hmm maybe because of their agenda?

McCarthy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_mccarthy) had no access to the VERONA files whatsoever. All of his accusations were fearmongering plays of the Communist Card that he always used to get his way in politics. He never provided actual proof of Communist activities or sympathies in individuals he shameless accused, even those named in the VERONA files later on. And even then only a few of the numerous people whose lives he ruined in arrogance and avarice were actually listed in those documents.

Also the American Communist Party recieved millions in funds from the Soviet Government.
Abramoff jockeyed millions of dollars for the Russians, with the help of Tom DeLay specifically, and Abramoff was a Pioneer or Ranger for George W. Bush to the tune of $100,000.
So by your logic that means McCarthy and his vile ilk should be taking down all three of those caulksuckers.
Hey, who am i to disagree?

I have a right not to have the government come after or bother me without just cause nor without a warrant. 4th Ammendment to the Bill Of Rights... And the 9th ammendment gives me the right to privacy...

And the 1st Amendment; freedom of speech also means freedom to not speak, and so on with the other things protected under the first.

I still don't see the phrase "every citizen has an right to privacy which overrides all other matters and rights of other citizens including, but not limited to national security" maybe I'm just looking in the wrong place.
is it our fault you dont understand stuff?

the 4th ammendment protects us from warrantless searches even when its very very important.

Only one of the two presidents that got impeached deserved to be impeached, and that was good ole Bill.
This is just pathetic.

McCarthy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_mccarthy) had no access to the VERONA files whatsoever. All of his accusations were fearmongering plays of the Communist Card that he always used to get his way in politics. He never provided actual proof of Communist activities or sympathies in individuals he shameless accused, even those named in the VERONA files later on. And even then only a few of the numerous people whose lives he ruined in arrogance and avarice were actually listed in those documents.


But most of the people he did accuse had ties with the Soviet funded communist party, and turned out to be guilty of actually working with the Soviets, coincidence? I think not. The simple fact is that there were Soviet Union spies in America. McCarthy exposed most of them with few mistakes.

And the 1st Amendment; freedom of speech also means freedom to not speak, and so on with the other things protected under the first.

Is that a polite way to tell me to shut up ;)

Abramoff jockeyed millions of dollars for the Russians, with the help of Tom DeLay specifically, and Abramoff was a Pioneer or Ranger for George W. Bush to the tune of $100,000.
So by your logic that means McCarthy and his vile ilk should be taking down all three of those caulksuckers.
Hey, who am i to disagree?


Russian, and Soviet are two very distinctly different terms.

Ammendment 9 grants you any powers not specifically given to you which don't already belong to the Federal, or state Governments.

Would the right of privacy fall under that?

Is that a polite way to tell me to shut up ;)

Not this time...although I think I'll use it sometime in the future. ;)

Thanks, you've given me a new way to tell people to shut up without saying it directly.

I still don't see the phrase "every citizen has an right to privacy which overrides all other matters and rights of other citizens including, but not limited to national security" maybe I'm just looking in the wrong place.

How would my right to privacy over ride other citizens rights?? And I do believe even in times of national security unless marshal law is declared the constitution still stands...

I still don't see the phrase "every citizen has an right to privacy which overrides all other matters and rights of other citizens including, but not limited to national security" maybe I'm just looking in the wrong place.


Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Secure in their persons...etc. That means privacy. According to the U.S. Supreme Court. And that is a very reasonable interpretation considering the purpose of the Bill or rights is to limit government.

This is just pathetic.


So the fact that we quit counting Bill's scandals and frauds after 12 means he was a great president? Also the fact that he can't practice law because he was found guilty of perjury in his civil case, yea Bill was a great role model, but then again if we go by those guidelines it would be difficult to ever impeach a president again.

Not this time...although I think I'll use it sometime in the future. ;)

Thanks, you've given me a new way to tell people to shut up without saying it directly.


Glad I could help out :)

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,] and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Secure in their persons...etc. That means privacy. According to the U.S. Supreme Court. And that is a very reasonable interpretation considering the purpose of the Bill or rights is to limit government.


it doesn't mention you can't listen in to their conversations without the person knowing.

Abramoff jockeyed millions of dollars for the Russians, with the help of Tom DeLay specifically, and Abramoff was a Pioneer or Ranger for George W. Bush to the tune of $100,000.
So by your logic that means McCarthy and his vile ilk should be taking down all three of those caulksuckers.
Hey, who am i to disagree?

Oh but remember McCarthy's ordeal was during the fifties and last time I checked this is 2006, a few things have changed since then....mainly the collapse of the soviet union!!!! Remember Russia is now "a democratic counrty ruked by it's wonderful people" at least according to Hillary...Oh and by the way Sen. McCarthy is dead.

it doesn't mention you can't listen in to their conversations without the person knowing.

That sure doesn't sound very secure. :p

So the fact that we quit counting Bill's scandals and frauds after 12 means he was a great president? Also the fact that he can't practice law because he was found guilty of perjury in his civil case, yea Bill was a great role model, but then again if we go by those guidelines it would be difficult to ever impeach a president again.

I don't believe anyone said he was a great president. But I think impeaching someone for lying about gettin blown is a mockery of our entire system... But yet, if a President lies about a war for some odd reason thats ok... So let me see if I got this right; War = Good, BJ = Bad.... And if there was evidence against greater crimes, why wouldn't the republican controlled congress go with a heavier change than the one pertaining to the BJ

Would the right of privacy fall under that?

Not necessarily because it was specifically laid out to my understanding, but if it was not already specifically written down then yes it would be, because the government is not given the right to be omni-present.

The 9th Ammendment was written because the fore-fathers knew they couldn't forsee everything, and it was meant to be very loose and very general so the federal government couldn't take over our lives

Not necessarily because it was specifically laid out to my understanding, but if it was not already specifically written down then yes it would be, because the government is not given the right to be omni-present.

The 9th Ammendment was written because the fore-fathers knew they couldn't forsee everything, and it was meant to be very loose and very general so the federal government couldn't take over our lives


Thanks for the lesson.. When I read it I tried to search on it and all I got was the same stuff.. I had no clue what it meant...

I don't believe anyone said he was a great president. But I think impeaching someone for lying about gettin blown is a mockery of our entire system... But yet, if a President lies about a war for some odd reason thats ok... So let me see if I got this right; War = Good, BJ = Bad.... And if there was evidence against greater crimes, why wouldn't the republican controlled congress go with a heavier change than the one pertaining to the BJ


Its not over the fact that he lied about gettin blown, its the fact that he lied under oath in a court of law.

President Bush on the other hand did not intentionally lie, he was given false intelligence. The intelligence blew I'll give ya that and he took care of that by letting some heads role, has he done enough? I don't know, but he didn't intentionally lie, thats the clincher. Bill on the other hand did intentionally lie in a court of law, under oath. And it is a mockery of our entire system and Bill made the presidency a joke by talking about his bloody underwear on MTV, and by coining the term "Presidential kneepads".

No, impeachment is not neccessary. I've never been wiretapped myself. I don't really understand what the problem is.

How would my right to privacy over ride other citizens rights??
Well lets see you are on a phone plotting with terrorists to kill other citizens, but your right to privacy prevents the authorities from tapping your phone. They have no idea and you with the terrorists kill five people, your right to privacy has just overridden their right to "LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happieness" It really isn't that hard.

No, impeachment is not neccessary. I've never been wiretapped myself. I don't really understand what the problem is.

How do you know you haven't been wiretapped?

it doesn't mention you can't listen in to their conversations without the person knowing.
luckily the supreme court understands that technology changes over time.

Wow you have a HUGE vocabulary, but it seems you can't argue the point, you can only insut. You just lost the debate. It never amazes me how fast fanatical haters such as yourself resort to insults when they cannot intelligently debate an opposing point of view.
Okay, "intelligently" debate this ... i know it'll be tough, obviously tougher than anything you've done here ...
The NON-PARTISAN Congressional Research Service, a research arm of Congress, has given the first official assessment of the legality of Bush's wiretapping debacle, and according to them, Congress HAS NOT given him the authority to order the surveillance.
All finality in the report hangs in suspension in accordance with declarations of "classified" nature, kind of like the "classified" pages and pages that was excised from the 9/11 Commission's findings.
Would you like to know more or will this hinder your skewed perspective enough as to derail your sophomoric arguing capacity?

But most of the people he did accuse had ties with the Soviet funded communist party, and turned out to be guilty of actually working with the Soviets, coincidence? I think not. The simple fact is that there were Soviet Union spies in America. McCarthy exposed most of them with few mistakes.

I'm sorry but the American justice system theoretically works on what are called "Proof" and "Evidence." Unless you'd like the United States to turn into the Police States. "If the glove doesn't fit you must acquit."

Since you have no idea who Clayton Lonetree was, I'm starting to doubt you actually served in the Marines at all.

:rolleyes:

Ah ha when indoubt attack the credibility of the messenger, right out of the Howie Dean handbook, Regardless of my own service, this post isn't about Clayton Lonetree, and calling me a traitor shows that you have no intellectual contribution to this thread. In the Marines we don't glorify traitors....especially those that defected for the love of a woman

That sure doesn't sound very secure. :p


Black and white loopholes. Hey he might have found a loop hole and worked with it, so we need to kick the loophole in the ass, just like FDR and his 4 terms, we got rid of that.:D

Russian, and Soviet are two very distinctly different terms.
That the best you've got?
Depends on your definition of "is"
:rolleyes:

Well lets see you are on a phone plotting with terrorists to kill other citizens, but your right to privacy prevents the authorities from tapping your phone. They have no idea and you with the terrorists kill five people, your right to privacy has just overridden their right to "LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happieness" It really isn't that hard.


Ok I'll level with you.. Its not the fact its terrorists, nothing to do with that... If these laws stay on the books, whose to say a president or the CIA or the FBI wont abuse the law one day?? I'm not scared of our government, but people do frighten me... People, especially ones in power tend to go on a power trip. The last thing we need is a law thats become acceptable over time getting abused by a crooked President...

Ah ha when indoubt attack the credibility of the messenger, right out of the Howie Dean handbook

That only works if the messenger has any credibility to start with.

:rolleyes:

And I didn't know Howard Dean published a handbook. Where did you get a copy?

it doesn't mention you can't listen in to their conversations without the person knowing.

listen to the fascist sing

Ah ha when indoubt attack the credibility of the messenger, right out of the Howie Dean handbook
Ah when in doubt of intellect, attack anyone on the opposite side of an argument you yourself don't even clearly understand.
Then assign names of people to them and attack them, like strawmen, since you can't handle the real issues.

That the best you've got?
Depends on your definition of "is"
:rolleyes:


No Russian is an ethnic group and Soviet Union, was a nation. Josef Stalin was a Soviet, but he was not a Russian (He was Georgian). All Russians were not members of the communist party, nor did all of them believe in the soviet union. All soviets were not Russians.

Plus, its the constitution.. The whole reason our country has been successful... Changing it or changing our way of life, lets the terrorists win.. and to tell ya the truth... I'd rather be blown up by a terrorists than to have my country ripped to shreds for false security....

I'm sorry but the American justice system theoretically works on what are called "Proof" and "Evidence." Unless you'd like the United States to turn into the Police States. "If the glove doesn't fit you must acquit."

Ah proof and evidnece, so where is your proof that these wiretaps were not actually for terrorists but for "random citizens" hint: NYTimes doesn't count.
Where is your proof bush lied? Hint: John Kerry and Dean quotes don't count

Ah proof and evidnece, so where is your proof that these wiretaps were not actually for terrorists but for "random citizens" hint: NYTimes doesn't count.
Where is your proof bush lied? Hint: John Kerry and Dean quotes don't count

Bush admitted to authorizing the wiretaps on american citizens... No matter if its a terrorist or not, they are still an American citizen until they are stripped of the citizenship, but until then the constitution still protects them because they are an American citizen... And what is the definition of a terrorist according to the PA??? It's so vague... Anyone could be one for critizing government...

Plus, its the constitution.. The whole reason our country has been successful... Changing it or changing our way of life, lets the terrorists win.. and to tell ya the truth... I'd rather be blown up by a terrorists than to have my country ripped to shreds for false security....

Sucessful?? I thought it was a meltingpot of despotism, built by racist white european men on the backs of ehtnic minorities. Well if you want to be blown up by terrorists I'm sure there many who would oblige you (But they might behead you first)

Its not over the fact that he lied about gettin blown, its the fact that he lied under oath in a court of law.

President Bush on the other hand did not intentionally lie, he was given false intelligence. Both bullsh*t. Pathetic.
No, you're blatantly and arrogantly ignorant of the situation. Re-read the thread and educate yourself. Bush and his cronies DIRECTLY and INTENTIONALLY IGNORED most of the people who had the knowledge to give him intelligence, and only picked from what he liked. The evidence IS QUITE CLEARLY in affirmative of that. The intelligence blew I'll give ya that and he took care of that by letting some heads role, has he done enough?
You mean like propping Ahmed Chalabi for administrative positions in Iraq? Pathetic again.
I don't know, but he didn't intentionally lie, thats the clincher.It would appear that he had. Pathetic again.
Bill on the other hand did intentionally lie in a court of law, under oath. And it is a mockery of our entire system
It's good that you take that personally, so now go after Ted Stevens and the heads of the oil companies that were brought up to explain their role in Cheney's "Energy Task Force" meeting. We'll see that you're not full of sh*t.

No Russian is an ethnic group and Soviet Union, was a nation. Josef Stalin was a Soviet, but he was not a Russian (He was Georgian). All Russians were not members of the communist party, nor did all of them believe in the soviet union. All soviets were not Russians.
Now use that same discrimination to the facts i presented to you.
Surely if they aren't communists then it is easily established they have connections to them, and as far as McCarthy is concerned, that's good enough.

Well lets see you are on a phone plotting with terrorists to kill other citizens, but your right to privacy prevents the authorities from tapping your phone. They have no idea and you with the terrorists kill five people, your right to privacy has just overridden their right to "LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happieness" It really isn't that hard.

i know that the boogey man scares you, but honestly, it isn't fucking hard to get a warrant. especially not within 72 hours after the fact, from a court that rarely turns down shit. if anything, we need to severely restrict the warrant granting power of the secret FISA court.

there is no terrorist threat. this shit is weaker than the reichstag fire. but you rough and tough wingnuts all collectively pissed your pants and fell right in line demanding more and bigger government to trample on my hard-won liberty.

Sucessful?? I thought it was a meltingpot of despotism, built by racist white european men on the backs of ehtnic minorities. Well if you want to be blown up by terrorists I'm sure there many who would oblige you (But they might behead you first)

Our history has its black eyes just like any country.... And it is successful because of that document and our economy played a part... And I don't want to be beheaded, but I wont give up my rights for fake security... I refuse.. It is my duty as an American citizen to defend and uphold the constitution even if its against my own government... Our founding principle is that the constitution is sacred....

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

i know that the boogey man scares you, but honestly, it isn't fucking hard to get a warrant. especially not within 72 hours after the fact, from a court that rarely turns down shit. if anything, we need to severely restrict the warrant granting power of the secret FISA court.

there is no terrorist threat. this shit is weaker than the reichstag fire. but you rough and tough wingnuts all collectively pissed your pants and fell right in line demanding more and bigger government to trample on my hard-won liberty.

BRAVO!!!!!! :D

Ah proof and evidnece, so where is your proof that these wiretaps were not actually for terrorists but for "random citizens" hint: NYTimes doesn't count.
Where is your proof bush lied? Hint: John Kerry and Dean quotes don't count
Is there any proof you're not educated in this topic or that you have clarity of thought? Hint: Bob forbid your own quotes should count. :rolleyes:

So the fact that we quit counting Bill's scandals and frauds after 12 means he was a great president? Also the fact that he can't practice law because he was found guilty of perjury in his civil case, yea Bill was a great role model, but then again if we go by those guidelines it would be difficult to ever impeach a president again.
You know that this is about Bush, and no amount of bait-and-switching on the part of Bush's SS propsuckers is going to change it.
You have a problem with Clinton call him up and tell him that. Now grow the hell up and deal with the thread topic itself and quit throwing pansy punches at ghosts.

Is there any proof you're not educated in this topic or that you have clarity of thought? Hint: Bob forbid your own quotes should count. :rolleyes:

And I don't recall most Marines writing in childish confrontational tones either.

Oh but remember McCarthy's ordeal was during the fifties and last time I checked this is 2006, a few things have changed since then....mainly the collapse of the soviet union!!!! Remember Russia is now "a democratic counrty ruked by it's wonderful people" at least according to Hillary...Oh and by the way Sen. McCarthy is dead.
Hint: Hillary quotes don't count. :D
Are you really going to pick and choose what you want here?
Besides, it's quite apparent that Putin has other designs on the nature of Russia. And since you probably don't know what that means, I suggest you read up on what's going on with Gazprom. Then get back when you learn something. The thread might not exist by then, but hey, that's the chance we take.
Apparently you don't understand what people say here. Try rereading the thread from the beginning.

:sniper: :mp5: :gundge: cool smilies, anyway he called the constitution, "nothing but a goddamn piece of paper he allows invasion of privacy and if i were'nt so lazy i could probably list a million other things hes done to, i think I personally want to see him dead, but impeachment is good enough i guess, and a whole new election as well

And I don't recall most Marines writing in childish confrontational tones either.
Why is this going my way? I didn't get in on your marine topic line.
I have nothing against them and i have a couple of marine friends, so where you goin' with this?

---
EDIT: Upon review, i'm taking it your post to refer to Cygnus A and i would tend to agree with you.

Hint: Hillary quotes don't count. :D
Are you really going to pick and choose what you want here?
Besides, it's quite apparent that Putin has other designs on the nature of Russia. And since you probably don't know what that means, I suggest you read up on what's going on with Gazprom. Then get back when you learn something. The thread might not exist by then, but hey, that's the chance we take.
Apparently you don't understand what people say here. Try rereading the thread from the beginning.

On a side note; Everyone can rest assured that given Putin and the recent turn of events... We'll once again be greeting to Soviets in the not to distant future...

:sniper: :mp5: :gundge: cool smilies, anyway he called the constitution, "nothing but a goddamn piece of paper he allows invasion of privacy and if i were'nt so lazy i could probably list a million other things hes done to, i think I personally want to see him dead, but impeachment is good enough i guess, and a whole new election as well

Given the scandals of late... I'd rather censure Bush and have his term run out.... IF we impeach bush, cheney would go as well and since the other republicans are under indictment, we'd end up with Rice as President... A constitutional crisis if I've ever seen one in the making...

EDIT: Upon review, i'm taking it your post to refer to Cygnus A and i would tend to agree with you.

Oh yeah.

Given the scandals of late... I'd rather censure Bush and have his term run out.... IF we impeach bush, cheney would go as well and since the other republicans are under indictment, we'd end up with Rice as President... A constitutional crisis if I've ever seen one in the making...

To be honest, while Cheney scares the hell out of me, at the very least he won't be the man behind the curtain anymore if he were President. He'd have to do all his dirty work out in the open, and you know what they say about sunshine being the best disinfectant.

To be honest, while Cheney scares the hell out of me, at the very least he won't be the man behind the curtain anymore if he were President. He'd have to do all his dirty work out in the open, and you know what they say about sunshine being the best disinfectant.


True true... And odds are the Cheney wouldn't be allowed to do anything... Just run out the term.... In the event of a constitutional crisis, congress could run the country... If they could learn to be bi-partisan and realize not everyone is a liberal nor a conservative.. But what do I know??? Its the winner take all mentality with republicans and those who voted against bush are "traitors"

Cheney in office would be worse for the Republicans in general, and we could probably get Cheney impeached after Bush for Plamegate.

And that would make way for the first Black, and Woman president. So it's all good!

Oh yeah, I would say that impeachment is definately a possibility in the next few years. with the 2006 Elections, and the bribery exposure in congress, the Democrats may win a majority in the house. Provided they can continue the momentum they have as of now, it's certainly a possibility.

Plus, there are quite a few libertarian and centrists in the Republican party that may turn on Bush. After Abramoff(sp?) the Republican edge will be minimal, so it would take only a small amount of Republicans switching to give the dems power.

What fucking universe are you a resident of, anyway?

One in which we should be investigating such incidents instead of jumping to immediate conclusions as both sides seem to have a habit of doing.

And no need to swear. It takes away from your point. However, there wasn't a point to this post but still..... its a sign of anger.

And that would make way for the first Black, and Woman president. So it's all good!

unfortunately we'd immediately have to remove her as well, what with the war crimes and the torture and the lying to the public and the support for the current dictatorship and such.

Bush's crimes are: Perjury,

Incorrect. There has been no investigation in which he has lied under oath. So perjury is out.

failure to protect and preserve the constitution of the US,


Since no investigaiton has happened, he isn't guilty of this either. And if we hang him on this, then we have to hang ALL PRESIDENTS on it too.

failure to protect the mainland from attack,

Where did this come from? So far he has.

Election fraud,

None committed.

Mis-Using the CIA and FBI to seek out and manipulate intelligence to fit his agenda, ect..

And yet one more charge that has no water. Sorry. No crime committed here as most investigations have already proven.

Clinton was impeached for less.

Was impeached for Obstruction of Justice and for lying under oath during an official investigation. Those are impeachable offenses. So Far, Bush hasn't been investigated for anything. Until he is, he is INNOCENT! You know the phrase, and one I will state in big cap bold letters: INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY

It's funny tho; the people who claim to be "patriots" support their President above their country and their constitution...

As oppose to supporting Clinton when he did commit crimes while in office?

I saw a great bumper sticker the other day: When Clinton lied it didn't cost us any lives.

How perfect is that?!?!

:cool:

What this Supreme Court will decide is anybody's guess. Look what they've done to our other rights. Freedom of Speech -- gone. Property Rights -- gone. Right to due process -- gone.

There needs to be a specific law passed that will categorically prohibit secret and warrant-less wiretapping of U.S. citizens and legal residents. Then, we will have something concrete on which to hang our objections.

I agree 100%

Of course impeach him. Impeach Cheney at the same time. Just because its incredibly unlikely doesn’t mean I can’t hope for it.

Oh, why did that grenade in Jordan have to be a dud?

Abramoff jockeyed millions of dollars for the Russians, with the help of Tom DeLay specifically, and Abramoff was a Pioneer or Ranger for George W. Bush to the tune of $100,000.
So by your logic that means McCarthy and his vile ilk should be taking down all three of those caulksuckers.
Hey, who am i to disagree?

And then upon further checking, Democratic Party leaders and congressmen and senators are also in deep trouble.

Only if he's done the job he was set-up for.

And then upon further checking, Democratic Party leaders and congressmen and senators are also in deep trouble.

What a great campaign slogan: those Dems are so sleazy, some of them were even willing to associate with us.

And then upon further checking, Democratic Party leaders and congressmen and senators are also in deep trouble.

while the democratic party are a bunch of corporate whores and deserve to be chased from the halls of power, they aren't going down in that scandal. that is a repubs only affair.

And then upon further checking, Democratic Party leaders and congressmen and senators are also in deep trouble.

But not as deep as the Republicans.

You know, it's funny. The Bush backers ALWAYS come up with a "But Clinton!" or "But FDR!"

It never seems to hit them that they have to reference several Presidents to get all the "but..."s in.

while the democratic party are a bunch of corporate whores and deserve to be chased from the halls of power, they aren't going down in that scandal. that is a repubs only affair.

Well...a Repubs mostly affair.

while the democratic party are a bunch of corporate whores and deserve to be chased from the halls of power, they aren't going down in that scandal. that is a repubs only affair.

They are part of the same scandal and they'll go down with the republican party.

What a great campaign slogan: those Dems are so sleazy, some of them were even willing to associate with us.
Which is why ALL of our current politicians should be thrown out of office, with the exception of one or two.

But not as deep as the Republicans.

BULL!!!!

You know, it's funny. The Bush backers ALWAYS come up with a "But Clinton!" or "But FDR!"

Nowhere did I say Clinton or FDR. I stated that the Dems as well as the Repubs are in trouble with this scandal.

It never seems to hit them that they have to reference several Presidents to get all the "but..."s in.

Remember that.

Which is why ALL of our current politicians should be thrown out of office, with the exception of one or two.

agreed

They are part of the same scandal and they'll go down with the republican party.

"They" is awfully encompassing Corny and gives an entirely inaccurate picture.

Nowhere did I say Clinton or FDR. I stated that the Dems as well as the Repubs are in trouble with this scandal.

You might to check out some memory enhancement.

Funny thing is McCarthy was RIGHT!
Well, he was far-right, anyway. Bordering on the Fascistic. No, I'll amend that - Delving deep into the territory of Fascism.

One in which we should be investigating such incidents instead of jumping to immediate conclusions as both sides seem to have a habit of doing.

And no need to swear. It takes away from your point. However, there wasn't a point to this post but still..... its a sign of anger.
In this case, take it as proof positive of my unwavering incredulity at the continued ranting and raving of a dyed-in-the-wool Bush cheerleader who is evidently on the ropes these days.

while the democratic party are a bunch of corporate whores and deserve to be chased from the halls of power, they aren't going down in that scandal. that is a repubs only affair.

That's just the Democratic Leadership Council. They have a lot of power in the DNC because money is power everywhere.

The thing is, the DNC is being corrupted by corporate whoredom. The GOP is nothing but corporate whoredom.

It's like if you have an apple with a lot of brown spots or a big piece of shit. The piece of shit (the GOP) may have once been something worthwhile, but now it is merely rot and disease out of which something useful might be made if it is destroyed. The rotting apple (the DNC with the DLC in power) might be really distasteful, but if you cut out the brown spots (the DLC) then you still have something nourishing. If you throw it out, then you're going to starve if you sit around waiting for the piece of shit to fertilize some vegetables, and you're just going to make yourself sick if you actually try to recieve nourishment from it directly.

Well, he was far-right, anyway. Bordering on the Fascistic. No, I'll amend that - Delving deep into the territory of Fascism.

For once, I agree with you.

So, what do you think? Should Bush be impeached? If so, why, and if not, why not?

It may or may not be an impeachable offense. Ever since FISA was implemented, every single president has stated that they have the authority to override it. For that matter, certain commitees of congress and certain high-ranking demos were informed of this when bush started, which is really all that's required by the constitution itself. Pelosi was one. As to the legality itself, it will be interesting to see if the Patriot Act trumps FISA.

As to the legality itself, it will be interesting to see if the Patriot Act trumps FISA.
It probably would, if we were talking about the FBI doing domestic spying.

However, even according to people who agree with what Bush did and the Bush White House, you can read between the lines and see everyone knew this was illegal and bullshit.

I had a long diatribe with evidence and logic here, but I realized who I was dealing with and replaced it with this sentence.

a little bit off topic...i just thought 33 pages was impressive, and almost 500 posts. i feel proud to have contributed alot....like 30 posts 20 pages ago..... i remember this from like 2 or 3 days ago

Bush should definitely be impeached. I can't believe that he has the cahones to spy on the americans. Its disgusting, and I think he should be impeached ASAP!

Bush should definitely be impeached. I can't believe that he has the cahones to spy on the americans. Its disgusting, and I think he should be impeached ASAP!

But what if he's not done with his part of building the New World Order's enforcement infrastructure?

But what if he's not done with his part of building the New World Order's enforcement infrastructure?

I think the Zionist Occupied Government could take over from here; I mean, Cheney's already in the pocket of the Jewish Bankers, and the Trilateral Commission is killing sovreign citizens in Montana...

And who the hell cares about that. The job of President is not about being a Puritan.
"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job." —
George W. Bush, speaking to a group of Amish he met with privately, July 9, 2004
The irony of that is just priceless. It makes arguing with dimwits and chimpf*cks a certain pleasure. Not that i'm insinuating anything. ;)
You just want a reason to hate him and you are picking this as yet another reason to do so.
You know approximately turd about me, polisher. Back 2 spaces.
If you want to go the littany go ahead and punch my name up and you MIGHT ACTUALLY LEARN SOMETHING. Until then, get off your pedestal of hot air.

Osama is a terrorist, plain and simple. I don't give a rat's ass if he did 9/11 or not. I want him caught or dead.
Then your partiality makes you an easy goad, since you DON'T DISCRIMINATE YOUR TARGETS FOR HATRED (note:You just want a reason to hate him). I suspect you're the kind of guy that likes Abu Graib videos for your personal masturbatory collection. That's kind of a bad thing to have to live down, i sure hope you're not like that.
And the President has been working along those lines and I am ok with that. ... when he's not falling off of Segways, running into police escorts, kicking his dog, getting lacerations from his DANGEROUS self-imposed job of "clearing brush", needing help saving his own life from EVEN MORE DANGEROUS pretzels, and ... what else did i miss ... oh yeah, GUTTING THE F*CKING CONSTITUTION.


Iraq was a rogue nation and was only getting more dangerous. Wrong.
I don't give a rat's ass if they had WMD or if they were involved in 9/11.That would make it appear that factual consistency isn't your strong suit, so you obviously represent your party well. Also, it would reinforce your statement earlier regarding preferred blissful ignorance.
Oh, and BTW, we now have the early signs of the most democratic Arab government in the middle east starting to bloom. That can only be good for the entire region in the long term.Ah yes, independent of the sources that are actually there OF THE POPULACE that attest to the near-imminent civil war, the one that was kept in check by your buddy Saddam (you know, the one Rumsfeld helped out, that one!)
It'd be nice to be pleasantly surprised. Too bad you fail *miserably* in that regard.

Incorrect. There has been no investigation in which he has lied under oath. So perjury is out.
.... other than the 9/11 Commission, where he took it with Cheney and "classified" the rest. You are incorrect.



Since no investigaiton has happened, he isn't guilty of this either. And if we hang him on this, then we have to hang ALL PRESIDENTS on it too.
Do you mean the dead ones or just the living ONE you don't like?
Incorrect again.
And here's a little from the Chicago Tribune for ya ...
WASHINGTON -- President Bush's rationale for eavesdropping on Americans without warrants rests on questionable legal ground, and Congress does not appear to have given him the authority to order the surveillance, said a congressional analysis released Friday.

The analysis by the Congressional Research Service, a non-partisan research arm of Congress, reached no bottom-line conclusions on whether the program was legal, in part because it said so many details of the operation remained classified.



Where did this come from? So far he has....unless you're talking about anthrax.



None committed.
Don't bother looking up disenfranchising of 7 different districts in Florida, nor the issue of Diebold's political ties with their voting machines. Again you're incorrect.



And yet one more charge that has no water. Sorry. No crime committed here as most investigations have already proven.
Well i guess it's a good thing i've provided MANY MANY SOURCES THAT DISPROVE YOUR oblivious statement. I'd do it again but you've got the intuition of a turnip. You know that old saying, "...and it annoys the pig."



Was impeached for Obstruction of Justice and for lying under oath during an official investigation. Those are impeachable offenses. Yes, so get Cheney up here with his "energy task force" and give Ted "The Hulk" Stevens his well deserved anti-depressants!
So Far, Bush hasn't been investigated for anything.Wrong. Surprise. :rolleyes:

But what if he's not done with his part of building the New World Order's enforcement infrastructure?

Oi...

Listen, if you think Dick is organizing a New World Order behind the scenes, more power to you. But, coming from someone who voted for Bush as the lesser of two evils, I don't think George has the mental faculties to build a New World Order.

Out of curiosity, assuming he was really smart and was just concealing it from us, who are his compatriots? You did say "part" of the New World Order, so I assume other countries are in on this bandwagon as well.

And then upon further checking, Democratic Party leaders and congressmen and senators are also in deep trouble.
Actually that was known pretty early on. You're late on this one, so again your "information" is largely useless.
And btw, as i've said before, i'm an independent moderate, so you're not dungflinging me when you attack them. You're only wearing it when you're lying.

What a great campaign slogan: those Dems are so sleazy, some of them were even willing to associate with us.
*FLORT*

Hahahaha!

I'd love a 21st century Ross Perot to come along right now and force the Republicans and Democrats back in line. We could actually have some semi-legitimate politics then.

They are part of the same scandal and they'll go down with the republican party.
Good. Good f*cking riddance. To the whole lot. As has been stated, it is mostly the republicans. And i guess that brings a hell to the clingers, like yourself ... but obviously not for long given the INCREDIBLY short-attention span and critical self-inspection required in order to keep hell going. So oh well.

I'd love a 21st century Ross Perot to come along right now and force the Republicans and Democrats back in line. We could actually have some semi-legitimate politics then.
Uhm what do you think about Perot taking the dive like he did before?
He is a business man, after all. He had some good ideas but he sold out just fine.

Note: I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. We need SOMETHING else to maintain the frail dignity that is our great experiment of participatory government.

That's just the Democratic Leadership Council. They have a lot of power in the DNC because money is power everywhere.

The thing is, the DNC is being corrupted by corporate whoredom. The GOP is nothing but corporate whoredom.

It's like if you have an apple with a lot of brown spots or a big piece of shit. The piece of shit (the GOP) may have once been something worthwhile, but now it is merely rot and disease out of which something useful might be made if it is destroyed. The rotting apple (the DNC with the DLC in power) might be really distasteful, but if you cut out the brown spots (the DLC) then you still have something nourishing. If you throw it out, then you're going to starve if you sit around waiting for the piece of shit to fertilize some vegetables, and you're just going to make yourself sick if you actually try to recieve nourishment from it directly.
Have i ever mentioned that i *LOVE* your analogies?
I'll have to review but i'm hedging towards you being the best at it of the people i've seen ... given this subject.
Then again, though, i don't read many other topic lines.

So when he tries to protect us from terrorists, he's running roughshod over our #1 Constitutional right, which is LIFE, right?
Wrong. You don't appear equipped to argue about this kind of thing. You should try a thread about fluffy kitties ... no, wait, maybe ... maybe you should waste less time online and maybe pick up a book or two.
The Constitution of The United States of America

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
#1 what were you saying? Do you mean Article 1?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.




lol

it's his #1 job... and last time I checked, we haven't had any terrorist hits in America since 9/11.You don't know what anthrax is apparently.

If a terrorist were at your door tomorrow planting a bomb because the Patriot Act had been reversed or because the NSA was no longer able to monitor terrorists' phone calls, would you change your vote?No. There are already people and capabilities in place and have been. If you actually knew anything about this subject you would know that, and you would also know the problem is about cooperation. The rest, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, is my responsibility to pay attention to who MY REAL ENEMIES are. Not to be TOLD THEM in talking points and FauX-news and blog sources.

I want to know who in here actually thinks their rights have been abused... anyone?
Ask Keruvalia that, and listen carefully. Maybe after that you won't sound like such a smarmy little schoolchild. There are two others who post here that have also had run-ins.

I know mine haven't.
No you don't. What you should've said is, I don't know if mine have.
That would have been more accurate and less dangerously ignorant.
Aside from waiting a bit longer to get on a plane so that (ostensibly, at least) nobody can sneak box cutters on board, I haven't suffered from the War on Terrorism/Patriot Act at all. Again blatant and dangerous ignorance.
*ahem*

WASHINGTON -- 12/19/2005
Federal authorities should not eliminate restrictions on small knives and other tools carried by airline travelers Thursday as planned, U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., told Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.

The Transportation Security Administration, part of Chertoff’s agency, announced Dec. 2 that screeners would begin conducting random passenger screenings, rather than doing so at intervals, and would remove some carry-ons from its list of "restricted items"
As of Thursday, passengers will be allowed to carry scissors with a cutting edge of 4 inches or less and tools such as screwdrivers, wrenches and pliers smaller than 7 inches in total length, which have been prohibited since soon after 9/11.
See, that pretty much qualifies you as *COMPLETELY* ignorant of what you're talking about. And the fact that you persist is the dangerous part.
Seriously take up some other hobby and hope no one is gullible enough to take you seriously. You'd think with as many times as you've had your arse handed to you you might have learned that by now.

Yes, he did win. Telling yourself over and over he did not, does not change it.
The kind of advice that echoes unnoticed by parrots. Heal thyself.
You aren't knowledged as such so i won't argue it with you. I'll just tell you to look it up, you ARE wrong.
There is no such thing as vacation for a President. You're obviously not paying attention. Even his chief of staff and his admin communicators to the press say as much. That sure makes you out to be a dimwit.
Your gay marriage issue is a congressional matter, take your campaign there.
It's funny you use those terms. It was a CAMPAIGN ISSUE for Bush. Look it up. Perhaps you weren't paying attention. I fear that is costing you a lot in the way of face and integrity.
And besides, do you truly believe the founding fathers of the constitution were supporting the concept of gay marriage?Okay go ahead and post to the contrary. We've got time. But not as much as it's going to take. And btw, i don't mean using right-wing BS blogs as your source.

Of course I have not been the President, don't show your ignorance. If i didn't we wouldn't have anything in common to talk about.
But I am not blind either, I see what you see
*NOTE : I SERIOUSLY doubt that. -Ed.*
but I don't look through my eyes trying to find fault with everything I see.And in this case, and probably many others, that is a dangerously ignorant way of life. I hope it doesn't cost you, your loved ones, or even relatively innocent/uninvolved people in your proximity too much in the future and now. You should do the honorable thing and isolate yourself from everyone and thing until you get your facts straight.

When a good post is made, attack the poster. Its all the left AND right are good for.
Woohoo! With a slight alteration, i actually AGREE with you Corny!
When a good post is made, attack the poster. Its all the left AND right MOUTHPIECES are good for.

Well, you got most of the words, and YOU GOT THEM IN THE RIGHT ORDER!!
This calls for a ... :fluffle: