NationStates Jolt Archive

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.
http://www.linkcrusader.com/vote_machines.htm
Check it out. Compare your numbers. It's also a good thing there's an easily retrievable Time Magazine issue or two that covers it, especially the guys who found out how easy it was to throw a vote. And guess whose favour it was in? And guess who was a campaign contributor to Bush?
(I bet you know but argue the opposite!)

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.
Woohoo!
I gotta give ya credit. That's BY FAR the best spin i've ever seen you throw. Too bad you're betraying what actually happened, as is often the case with you, sadly.
I'll put it to you further - voting irregularities were in the RE-ELECTION of '04 as well - how come someone in Katherine Harris' position didn't intervene and declare an end to the count? Hmmm?

And

3) Bush is not responsible for the deaths at the WTC.
He's not even responsible as a puppet president, so there's not much to argue here. He's bested by Segways, lines of people, doors in China, the english language, piss tests, facts, basic fiduciary conduct, EVEN REALLY RECENTLY a particularly arrogant source of brush, and, OH YES, pretzels.

This is 100% patently false and I demand a full apology.
I don't think you understand what 100% means, given the last few responses where you invoked it.
But if you want a superficial, shallow, not heart-felt placation, it seems like a good time to renew my New Year's Resolution!
:fluffle:
That's pretty much what you're going to get until you stop insulting people's intelligence and the nature of the facts involved in the subject you're so keen on arguing about.
I will say, however, i'm sorry you feel that way.

EDIT: Patently wrong? Then it should be easy enough to find on the USP site.
Well, after checking, it's certainly NOT there. I did find this though, and i thought i'd offer it to you ...

US Patent
Number 5344396

:fluffle:

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.
Amen to that, bro.
Too bad he never wants to apologize for it.

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.


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 believe there is a poem somewhere I could use here but I feel its significance would be wasted.



As long as you don't want to be chastised for it apparently.


As long as it isn't declared a "dangerous" drug, or bought overseas, or from Canada in case of prescription drugs.


Except for all those pesky "restricted areas."


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.


Who are these terrorists? Where do they come from? Do all terrorists come from there? Name 3 terrorists groups.
EXCELLENT POST. You *ROCK*!
As for the last line ... you know he'll say,
"ACLU"
"PETA"
"Greenpeace"
It's in the talking points. Lets see if we beat him to it!

Amen to that, bro.
Too bad he never wants to apologize for it.

Corny has proven time and time again to be a hardcore Bushevik. Don't expect anything credible or intelligible from him.

I'm going to wait till there's an investigation before condemning anyone criminally.
Well strangely enough, and good for non fascist neocon-fellators any/everywhere, you don't have *ANY* authority in that regard. So really, who gives a fat phuck if you think you will or not?

YES!


Of course, by saying this, my phones will be tapped, my records seized, and I will be held in indefinite detention.

EXCELLENT POST. You *ROCK*!
As for the last line ... you know he'll say,
"ACLU"
"PETA"
"Greenpeace"
It's in the talking points. Lets see if we beat him to it!

Calling the ACLU a terrorist group is typical Bushevik hyperbole. PETA? I'd agree there. Greenpeace? They've used questionable tactics but far as I'm aware they haven't sunk as low as PETA has.

Corny has proven time and time again to be a hardcore Bushevik. Don't expect anything credible or intelligible from him.
I haven't given up hope and i'm not sure why. Maybe 'cuz it's the new year!
It could be the same reason why i still flick Weiner "Savage" every now and then ... every now and then, RARELY, on occasion, they get something right or something close to it. But then they start talking and inflecting their opinion, and it all kinda goes to sh*t.
Somewhere in there is some form of sick amusement, too, i guess.

:mp5: I haven't given up hope and i'm not sure why. Maybe 'cuz it's the new year!
It could be the same reason why i still flick Weiner "Savage" every now and then ... every now and then, RARELY, on occasion, they get something right or something close to it. But then they start talking and inflecting their opinion, and it all kinda goes to sh*t.
Somewhere in there is some form of sick amusement, too, i guess.


PETA is a bit :mp5: happy; but in comparison to Bush, who is pro :mp5:, :gundge:, and anti-:fluffle:, with a regard towards law as :upyours:, I would vote PETA into office any day by comparison.

Calling the ACLU a terrorist group is typical Bushevik hyperbole. PETA? I'd agree there. Greenpeace? They've used questionable tactics but far as I'm aware they haven't sunk as low as PETA has.
Well, that's why i expect it. Besides, they don't want to feel zinged, so they may just try a little harder and ACTUALLY DO SOME HOMEWORK!
PETA can, on occasion, go too far. Their videos sure as hell don't make me comfortable about eating ANYTHING. And technically they are responding to violence or mass indifference with violence.
Hey, on a completely unrelated note, i'm trying to figure out who's playing the sasquatch in the current Mythbusters commercial. I think it's that dude who played the bounty hunter in X-Files. What do you think?

Calling the ACLU a terrorist group is typical Bushevik hyperbole. PETA? I'd agree there. Greenpeace? They've used questionable tactics but far as I'm aware they haven't sunk as low as PETA has.
Naw they'd call the ACLU "terrorist sympathizers" but NORML - now, there's a pretty target. Greasy-haired patchouli-scented beatniks and their filthy treacherous beatnik ways. Death's too good for 'em.

Exactly! Apparently the 59 million of us who voted against the Chimp don't exist anymore in this country.....
We do! We are called "liberals" and "un-patriotic slime" and "pinko commies" and a plethora of baseless, childish insults that the rightwing agitprop has in spades but for some reason i haven't committed enough to memory to bother recalling, even when i need it. My bad.
I'm sure there's a few infants on here that'll fill you in. No shortage of neocon-fellating imbeciles here with a marked lack of understanding of facts.

Naw they'd call the ACLU "terrorist sympathizers" but NORML - now, there's a pretty target. Greasy-haired patchouli-scented beatniks and their filthy treacherous beatnik ways. Death's too good for 'em.
Funny that you were the first filler for a good insult. Again, the right is too slow and reactionary. No surprise, since it took the pains of thinking, understanding, and wit.
*bows*

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....
Among Tom DeLay's woes are review and eschew his arrogant contempt for rules regarding his 2002 gerrymandering scheme (which resulted in a very cool public display by Willie "Uncle Jesse" Nelson)
So, comeuppance in a small degree.

I would like to see it happen - but I probably wouldn't like him to be actually kicked out, because Cheney would take over.
exactly.

Screw just impeaching him, for all the garbage hes done, him AND the rest of his administration should be packed into a rocket/ rail gun shell / unessesarily large trebuchet and hurdled twoards the Sun, so their hydrogen can help it burn just a but longer.:sniper: Those who don't agree WILL FACE THE WRATH OF AZHREA!, or not if im not in the mood.

Oh, why did that grenade in Jordan have to be a dud?
Woe indeed.
*curses under breath*

"They" is awfully encompassing Corny and gives an entirely inaccurate picture.
Don't forget what he attributes the value "100%" to.

You might to check out some memory enhancement.
That would impair his life philosophy of happiness.
Good health & bad memory ... ;)
Now it may stand other parts of him AS WELL could use some enhancement ... :fluffle:






I was talking about factual consistency. I don't know what you were thinking!! ;)

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
Stick with it.
And, i'd appreciate you obliging me with a review of that post of mine, as you'd alluded to doing yesterday or the day before.

:mp5:


PETA is a bit :mp5: happy; but in comparison to Bush, who is pro :mp5:, :gundge:, and anti-:fluffle:, with a regard towards law as :upyours:, I would vote PETA into office any day by comparison.
You CERTAINLY garner my vote for the most colourful post on this thread!
At least, as far as i can remember.
Good post.

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

Jeb will pick it up in 2016 when a new flock of highschool graduates are ready to believe "I think republicans are more moral, because ever since I've been able to vote they've been saying that some democrat got a blowjob once."

Jeb will pick it up in 2016 when a new flock of highschool graduates are ready to believe "I think republicans are more moral, because ever since I've been able to vote they've been saying that some democrat got a blowjob once."

College Professors are having a hard time teaching these days because their students are more conservative than they used to be.

College Professors are having a hard time teaching these days because their students are more conservative than they used to be.

Proof?

Proof?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0921/p02s01-ussc.html
http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_1_campus_conservatives.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1254/is_n1_v25/ai_13566093
http://www.studentpress.org/acp/trends/~cpapers.html
http://chronicle.com/free/v50/i23/23a01801.htm
http://www.illinimedia.com/di/nov03/nov17/news/stories/news_story03.shtml

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0921/p02s01-ussc.html
http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_1_campus_conservatives.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1254/is_n1_v25/ai_13566093
http://www.studentpress.org/acp/trends/~cpapers.html
http://chronicle.com/free/v50/i23/23a01801.htm
http://www.illinimedia.com/di/nov03/nov17/news/stories/news_story03.shtml
Corneliu and his Great Southern Threadkill

Again with the bait-and-switch. Oh well. Ashes to ashes ....

Corneliu and his Great Southern Threadkill

Again with the bait-and-switch. Oh well. Ashes to ashes ....

Straughn, ENOUGH!!! if you have nothing nice to say, don't say it at all. Someone asked for proof of what I said and I provided it.

So if you have nothing nice to say don't say it at all. Didn't your mother teach you that.

Someone asked for proof of what I said and I provided it.

actually, you provided evidence that conservatives/crypto-fascists are more organized on college campuses than they were a generation ago. which makes sense, because there is an official republican strategy of funding and aiding the organization of college republican groups and their offshoots and their newspapers. as an example, all the 'anti-discrimination' bakesales got their start with help from horowitz and his band of tinfoil hatters. as did all campaigns for 'intellectual diversity'. all the republican college newspapers and journals are partially funded by various official republican groups and are advertised (at a discount if not for free) in the big repub journals. as the 1993 'change' article you linked to said,

"In fact, the Dartmouth Review is funded by subscriptions and contributions from conservative alumni. The Olin Foundation has reportedly given money, as has the H. Smith Richardson Charitable Trust, the Earhart Foundation, and the Sarah Scaife Foundation; among the paper's Advisory Board arc former presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan, essayist George Gilder, and Right-to-Lifer Mildred Jefferson."

of course, we know about all of this and expect it. the current republican strategy people came of age in the 60s and decided to change the party's fate as a losing minority party. and they did this by using big money to organize, organize, organize. it's the same thing they did with the conservative blogoshpere, the mainstream media, the think-tank industry, the astroturf 'grassroots' organizations, etc.

the only thing i saw in those that came close to showing that "students are more conservative than they used to be" was a poll that showed a nearly even split of 27-31 dem vs repub. which, by my calculations leaves 42% as independents of various sorts. the best you can say is that apathy has overtaken everything and there was a bit of a fall in support for abortion according to one study. on the other hand, college students overwhelmingly support gay rights and oppose discrimination.

and, of course, in the run up to the 2004 election, the conservative numbers stayed roughly the same and the independents broke heavily towards the dems (except for the hardcore like myself that know that voting is a scam, but voted green in a swing state again, this time to scam the government for tuition purposes), with the final numbers being something like 57 kerry, 40 for bush.

and last year after the election a poll showed the opposite of the 2003 27-31 split, with college students identifying 33% dem, 28% repub. and as of october 2005, it stood at 33-25.

some sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/22/college.poll/?section=cnn_latest
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/21/college.poll/
http://www.iop.harvard.edu/pdfs/survey/fall_2004.pdf
http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_College_Voting.pdf
http://www.iop.harvard.edu/pdfs/survey/april_2004_topline.pdf
http://www.iop.harvard.edu/pdfs/survey/fall_2005_topline.pdf

Straughn, ENOUGH!!! if you have nothing nice to say, don't say it at all. Someone asked for proof of what I said and I provided it.

So if you have nothing nice to say don't say it at all. Didn't your mother teach you that.
No, but your mom did. ;) Mmmm.
Nah just kidding. I did what needed to be done and i have no apologies *echo ... echo ...*
This is evidenced by the above post. :D
Seriously though, do you think i want to attack you for actually DOING homework?
I commend you on it. Seriously, it even garners a SERIOUS :fluffle:
But as for this line,
Someone asked for proof of what I said and I provided it.
You took a tangent and tried to run with it. Then it got bit, you yanked, and then suddenly there weren't no catch left. That's what earned you the title, The Great Southern Threadkill.

...consequently, i replied thusly. See above post.

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:

Why? He has committed a federal offense that he has admitted to...constitutionally, that is the GROUNDS for an impeachment. So another question, for those of you who don't believe Bush should be impeached - should anyone, ever? To rephrase - is the president above the law?

Why? He has committed a federal offense that he has admitted to...constitutionally, that is the GROUNDS for an impeachment. So another question, for those of you who don't believe Bush should be impeached - should anyone, ever? To rephrase - is the president above the law?
Apparently, throwing an extended war party thus elevates him thus, at least according to some around here.

A toast: to interminible, unwinnable war against abstract nouns. May we all rot for allowing it to continue unabated.

<snip irrelevant to point> And what is the definition of a terrorist according to the PA??? It's so vague... Anyone could be one for critizing government...

Exactly. The government is on the way to becoming a totaltarian autocracy, through such means as using terrorism as an excuse to suspend civil liberties such as privacy, expression, and legal rights and increasing federal power.

Exactly. The government is on the way to becoming a totaltarian autocracy, through such means as using terrorism as an excuse to suspend civil liberties such as privacy, expression, and legal rights and increasing federal power.

Thats exactly it.. The republicans use religion against their base in order to keep them in line.... In order to keep the rest of us in line, well, maybe we'll share a cell one day ;)

Thats exactly it.. The republicans use religion against their base in order to keep them in line.... In order to keep the rest of us in line, well, maybe we'll share a cell one day ;)

Actually, both parties are in on it, as the ones behind it want to leave little to nothing to chance. And as fixing the votes is too likely to cause a scandal, it's better to turn both parties into puppets.

Why? He has committed a federal offense that he has admitted to...constitutionally, that is the GROUNDS for an impeachment. So another question, for those of you who don't believe Bush should be impeached - should anyone, ever? To rephrase - is the president above the law?

U do realize that nothing has been investigated right? it is only illegal if it is deemed illegal by a court or an investigation. Since none is forthcoming....

Exactly. The government is on the way to becoming a totaltarian autocracy

We are? I'll have to call ur BS.

through such means as using terrorism as an excuse to suspend civil liberties such as privacy, expression, and legal rights and increasing federal power.

*yawns* more leftist garbage.

It's Magic Hour, folks.

Getcher popcorn heeee-re!

We are? I'll have to call ur BS.



*yawns* more leftist garbage.

With Republicans controlling almost all branches of govrnment. The population at ends with one another. I'd say we're well on our way to be a totalitarian wasteland. When one party controls everything, and I'd argue the same way if Democrats were doing it, I'd be angry. It undermines our whole principle as a nation...

*yawns* more leftist garbage.
Yeah, those examples mean nothing.

We are? I'll have to call ur BS.



*yawns* more leftist garbage.

I'm not a leftist, just a person who likes to try and think ahead.

Yes, he should be impeached and we need to impeach a Supreme Court Justice just so it doesn't get any more set into stone and tradition.

That way if we actually needed to we could.

U do realize that nothing has been investigated right? it is only illegal if it is deemed illegal by a court or an investigation. Since none is forthcoming....
I've already PROVEN you wrong on this count. You're being worse than ignorant now, you're being contagiously ignorant.
Here's your refresher Cliff's Notes:

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, according to a congressional analysis released on Friday.

The analysis by the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan arm of Congress, is the first official assessment of a question that has gripped Washington for three weeks: Did Bush act within the law when he ordered the National Security Agency, the country's most secretive spy agency, to eavesdrop on some Americans?

Your disregard for fact has moved from a semi-humorous derisionfest into what appears to be an irritating case of OUTRIGHT lying. Normally i would be a little embarassed for you, but you don't earn it this time.
Shame on you.

*snip*

So where's the investigation at? Until there's an investigation he can't be guilty of anything. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! Does that mean anything to anyone anymore?

Does that mean anything to anyone anymore?
It is alot easier to feign ignorance when he doesn't admit he is doing stuff and every one with any sort of qualified opinion isn't saying it looks illegal.

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! Does that mean anything to anyone anymore?
I'll tell you, it doesn't mean shit to the poor bastards sitting in dog kennels at Gitmo.

Does it?

I used to live in naperville illinois!

So where's the investigation at? Until there's an investigation he can't be guilty of anything. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! Does that mean anything to anyone anymore?

Should ask President Bush.... but hell he wont even give people a chance to prove their innocence...

I'll tell you, it doesn't mean shit to the poor bastards sitting in dog kennels at Gitmo.

Does it?

Those guys mean nothing and are not protected by the Geneva Conventions! Why? Al Qaeda didn't sign it. Therefor, they are not protected by it.

Those guys mean nothing and are not protected by the Geneva Conventions! Why? Al Qaeda didn't sign it. Therefor, they are not protected by it.


AHHH yes the subhuman approach....

Should ask President Bush.... but hell he wont even give people a chance to prove their innocence...

Its not up to Bush. Its up to Congress.

Come to think of it, they have launched an investigation to see who leaked it.

Should ask President Bush.... but hell he wont even give people a chance to prove their innocence...


ZING!

Those guys mean nothing and are not protected by the Geneva Conventions! Why? Al Qaeda didn't sign it. Therefor, they are not protected by it.
Doesn't the sense of superiority fill you up inside with all sorts of fuzzy feelings?

AHHH yes the subhuman approach....

WHere did you get that from? Sorry but that doens't hold weight.

Doesn't the sense of superiority fill you up inside with all sorts of fuzzy feelings?

Just going by the law.

Just going by the law.
No, you are going by absence of law and relying on blindspots and technicalities.

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! Does that mean anything to anyone anymore?Is Clinton guilty of perjury? According to what you are saying then you would agree that he is not. However you have said otherwise in the past.

No, you are going by absence of law and relying on blindspots and technicalities.

ahh but technicalities do more damage to a case than actual evidence.

So where's the investigation at? Until there's an investigation he can't be guilty of anything. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! Does that mean anything to anyone anymore?

Let me rephrase what you just said so you can see how completely insane it is. If I commit murder, and admit to it, but nobody will prosocute me and I'm never convicted, I didn't commit a crime. This is what you JUST said, for the record.

Those guys mean nothing and are not protected by the Geneva Conventions! Why? Al Qaeda didn't sign it. Therefor, they are not protected by it.

Nor did we. I guess American soldiers deserve to be tortured by foreign nations.

Having said that, the key thing should be: al Qaida is not a nation nor is it an angent of a nation. It has no uniform, no insignia. Because of this, those terrorists in Gitmo should be thankful that they weren't shot or hung for 'spying'.

As I previously mentioned, the US has not signed the Geneva Conventions. We still follow it, but we didn't sign. Thus we are not bound by it, but nor is any nation we're fighting. We keep to it because if we did things differently, so would everyone else. That's part of why being a spy really isn't all that dangerous any more (so long as you aren't caught on a military base, that is).

Is Clinton guilty of perjury? According to what you are saying then you would agree that he is not. However you have said otherwise in the past.

Well, that's just silly. He was tried on that charge, and found not guilty. Bush has never been tried, and doesn't appear likely to be.

Let me rephrase what you just said so you can see how completely insane it is. If I commit murder, and admit to it, but nobody will prosocute me and I'm never convicted, I didn't commit a crime. This is what you JUST said, for the record.

Legally, no, you did not commit a crime.

Is Clinton guilty of perjury? According to what you are saying then you would agree that he is not. However you have said otherwise in the past.

He was caught lying otherwise they wouldn't have impeached him. There u did have an investigation that said he was lying. Unfortunately the Senate didn't convict.

I'm not happy but that is over with.

Here though, we have no investigation and people are doing the samething the republicans did during that event. It never ends.

Those guys mean nothing and are not protected by the Geneva Conventions! Why? Al Qaeda didn't sign it. Therefor, they are not protected by it.

You are operating under the assumption that everyone there is a member of Al Qaeda. Doesn't that flatly contradict your argument of innocent before proven guilty? They are assumed guilty, and given no means to prove their innocence. Hypocricy anybody?

Nor did we. I guess American soldiers deserve to be tortured by foreign nations.

Depends on what accord u go with.

Having said that, the key thing should be: al Qaida is not a nation nor is it an angent of a nation. It has no uniform, no insignia. Because of this, those terrorists in Gitmo should be thankful that they weren't shot or hung for 'spying'.

Yep. Correct on that.

As I previously mentioned, the US has not signed the Geneva Conventions. We still follow it, but we didn't sign. Thus we are not bound by it, but nor is any nation we're fighting. We keep to it because if we did things differently, so would everyone else. That's part of why being a spy really isn't all that dangerous any more (so long as you aren't caught on a military base, that is).

Actualy, we have signed some of them.

Well, that's just silly. He was tried on that charge, and found not guilty. Bush has never been tried, and doesn't appear likely to be.

Since he hasn't been asked, under oath, to an investigatoin, no he can't be tried for perjury.

Legally, no, you did not commit a crime.

Dictionary.com begs to differ -
crime ( P ) Pronunciation Key (krm)
n.
An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime.
A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality.
An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition: It's a crime to squander our country's natural resources.

I would like you to cite any resource that backs your claim that a conviction must be present for a crime to have been committed. I will be generous and say I don't care what you cite from, as long as it isn't yourself.

Since he hasn't been asked, under oath, to an investigatoin, no he can't be tried for perjury.

No, but he did swear, under oath, to support and uphold the constitution of the United States. What would you call THAT particular lie?

He was caught lying otherwise they wouldn't have impeached him. There u did have an investigation that said he was lying. Unfortunately the Senate didn't convict.

I'm not happy but that is over with.

Here though, we have no investigation and people are doing the samething the republicans did during that event. It never ends.
Of course, there is no difference at all between the two situations. When describing the two events to some one without using the president's names, there is no way they could separate the two events.

I would like you to cite any resource that backs your claim that a conviction must be present for a crime to have been committed. I will be generous and say I don't care what you cite from, as long as it isn't yourself.

OK, how about I use yours?

crime ( P ) Pronunciation Key (krm)
n.
An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime.
A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality.
An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition: It's a crime to squander our country's natural resources.

Well, there it is.

Post Script: I never said that you didn't morally commit a crime. Only legally did you not commit a crime.

WHere did you get that from? Sorry but that doens't hold weight.

Well if you accuse someone of a crime, IDC if you're from Russia. You deserve your day in court... This is America, not Saudi Arabia..... And you lumped terrorists together, to say pretty much, if Bush says so, then omg, they're terrorists.... Give em their day in court... Just because they didn't sign the geneva conventions doesn't mean we shouldn't hold up our end of the treaty... And from what've seen/heard from past releases is that some people were held for years and released without charges, no explaination, no nothing...

No, but he did swear, under oath, to support and uphold the constitution of the United States. What would you call THAT particular lie?

Ain't perjury Maegi.

Ain't perjury Maegi.

Actually, while addressing a joint session of congress a President is uder oath.... So in essence, those magic 16 words were a fib... Not to mention he's not upholding the oath of office...

OK, how about I use yours?

Dictionary.com begs to differ -
crime ( P ) Pronunciation Key (krm)
n.
An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime.
A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality.
An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition: It's a crime to squander our country's natural resources.

Well, there it is.

Well, since 2 of 3 definitions still call what he's done a crime, I guess we'll have to use the "That depends on what your definition of 'crime' is" defense. Kind of like how the Clinton affair depends on how you define "sex". We could go at this all day, but at the end of it, you would some how still think that you're not wrong.

Edit - Since a crime is an act, and not a specific instance of that act, we will look at it from a different angle. Had a Democrat done what Bush did with the current power structure, not only would he be impeached, he would probably be on trial for treason. Given that punishment would be imposed for his actions in the event of a conviction, the actions are criminal.

Well, since 2 of 3 definitions still call what he's done a crime, I guess we'll have to use the "That depends on what your definition of 'crime' is" defense. Kind of like how the Clinton affair depends on how you define "sex". We could go at this all day, but at the end of it, you would some how still think that you're not wrong.

AHHH The republicans were just pissed a democrat got head and they didn't... Come on guys, admit it....

Actually, while addressing a joint session of congress a President is uder oath.... So in essence, those magic 16 words were a fib... Not to mention he's not upholding the oath of office...

actually, no he isn't under oath. I suggest u read the constitution on messeges to Congress.

actually, no he isn't under oath. I suggest u read the constitution on messeges to Congress.

Give me a min and I'll find it.... However, you didn't argue that he's upholding the oath the office...

Ain't perjury Maegi.

You're right, I'd call it treason

trea·son ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trzn)
n.
Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
A betrayal of trust or confidence.

Last I checked, treason was slightly higher than perjury on the list of "high crimes and misdemeanors"

Well, that's just silly. He was tried on that charge, and found not guilty. Bush has never been tried, and doesn't appear likely to be.
It's not silly at all. It's a simple question. I do not mean to imply anything concerning Bush.

You're right, I'd call it treason

trea·son ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trzn)
n.
Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
A betrayal of trust or confidence.

Last I checked, treason was slightly higher than perjury on the list of "high crimes and misdemeanors"

Sounds like whoever leaked this is guilty of Treason. Not Bush. hope they hang the guy that leaked it.

It's not silly at all. It's a simple question. I do not mean to imply anything concerning Bush.

I was saying that the perjury argument was silly...Clinton was tried for perjury, and acquitted. I was agreeing with you, though used a bit of sarcasm to do so ;)

Well, since 2 of 3 definitions still call what he's done a crime, I guess we'll have to use the "That depends on what your definition of 'crime' is" defense. Kind of like how the Clinton affair depends on how you define "sex". We could go at this all day, but at the end of it, you would some how still think that you're not wrong.

Edit - Since a crime is an act, and not a specific instance of that act, we will look at it from a different angle. Had a Democrat done what Bush did with the current power structure, not only would he be impeached, he would probably be on trial for treason. Given that punishment would be imposed for his actions in the event of a conviction, the actions are criminal.

Allow me to rephrase: If you committed a crime, then, yes, a crime has been committed. If you are tried and acquited, then for all legal intents and purposes you did not commit the crime. Even if afterwards a video shows up that you made of the murder, complete with an introduction where you describe every little detail of your life that only you and one or two other people would know, and the video shows you performing the act.

Legally, you didn't commit the murder. In actuality, yes, you did commit the murder. Whether or not you actually did only matters in the court of public opinion. In a court of the US legal system, no matter who is truly right, the truth may not prevail in the end. Such is the nature of a system intended to let ten guilty men walk instead of putting a single innocent behind bars.

Sounds like whoever leaked this is guilty of Treason. Not Bush. hope they hang the guy that leaked it.

So leaking that the president has committed a federal offense is treason? I'm interested in hearing defense for your assertion that violation of Bush's oath of office isn't though.

Sounds like whoever leaked this is guilty of Treason. Not Bush. hope they hang the guy that leaked it.

Treason is an excuse invented by the winner for hanging the loser.

Or words to that effect.

Allow me to rephrase: If you committed a crime, then, yes, a crime has been committed. If you are tried and acquited, then for all legal intents and purposes you did not commit the crime. Even if afterwards a video shows up that you made of the murder, complete with an introduction where you describe every little detail of your life that only you and one or two other people would know, and the video shows you performing the act.

Legally, you didn't commit the murder. In actuality, yes, you did commit the murder. Whether or not you actually did only matters in the court of public opinion. In a court of the US legal system, no matter who is truly right, the truth may not prevail in the end. Such is the nature of a system intended to let ten guilty men walk instead of putting a single innocent behind bars.

Then let it go to trial. Saying he is not guilty because his loyal party backers refuse to press charges is obscene. If he is honestly tried and acquitted of wrongdoing, I might be pissed, but I will accept that an effort was made. Simply allowing the president to be above the law with no attempts to keep him in check is sickening.

So leaking that the president has committed a federal offense is treason? I'm interested in hearing defense for your assertion that violation of Bush's oath of office isn't though.

Since that leaked violated national security laws, yes.

Impeach Bush for been a lieing cheating constitution breaking underachieving idiot..............oh and while you are at it send him and his entire administration off to fight in Iraq.........and then send every moron who voted for him off to fight alonside them

I was saying that the perjury argument was silly...Clinton was tried for perjury, and acquitted. I was agreeing with you, though used a bit of sarcasm to do so ;)
Oh well in that case yes we probably do agree. The whole process was silly. The republicans were the laughing stock of the planet for turning the private life and personal affairs of their president into a media circus.

Or words to that effect.

Accurate but he was talking about the rebellion. Last time I checked, we're not in a rebellion.

Then let it go to trial. Saying he is not guilty because his loyal party backers refuse to press charges is obscene. If he is honestly tried and acquitted of wrongdoing, I might be pissed, but I will accept that an effort was made. Simply allowing the president to be above the law with no attempts to keep him in check is sickening.

I'm pro-facts here. In this instance, it makes me defend Bush's supporters, but I more often wind up being anti-Bush.

As far as I'm concerned, the man should be put on trial for his illegal taps and the person who leaked it, if they are ever revealed, should be given a medal. Specifically the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Since that leaked violated national security laws, yes.

Please enlighten me as to which national security laws require silence about a felony - the technical term for breaking a federal law? I could just as easily argue that breaking that law was treason, because if it had been followed, the leak would never have happened.

Since that leaked violated national security laws, yes.
But, where is the investigation conclusion? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

I'm pro-facts here. In this instance, it makes me defend Bush's supporters, but I more often wind up being anti-Bush.

As far as I'm concerned, the man should be put on trial for his illegal taps and the person who leaked it, if they are ever revealed, should be given a medal. Specifically the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Even though leaking that type of infomration constutes violating every NS Law on the books? I'm sure glad ur not running the government.

Impeach Bush for been a lieing cheating constitution breaking underachieving idiot..............oh and while you are at it send him and his entire administration off to fight in Iraq.........and then send every moron who voted for him off to fight alonside them

Now thats a platform I could rally behind...

I'm pro-facts here. In this instance, it makes me defend Bush's supporters, but I more often wind up being anti-Bush.

As far as I'm concerned, the man should be put on trial for his illegal taps and the person who leaked it, if they are ever revealed, should be given a medal. Specifically the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

That's all I'm saying. The Bush supporters seem to be anti-trial, which seems to me to be an anti-facts stance. Through refusal to bring the matter to trial, they are effectively giving him the authority to do whatever he wants without reprecussions. I am not saying hang him without a trial, but his actions do merit at least HAVING that trial.

But, where is the investigation conclusion? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

The investigation is going on.

But, where is the investigation conclusion? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Its the old double standard...

The investigation is going on.

Which investigation? The outing of an CIA agent? The NSA leak? The Corruption Scandals? The gerrymandering case? The terrorists investigation? Oppps scratch that, they aren't allowed their day in court.. But which investigation?

Even though leaking that type of infomration constutes violating every NS Law on the books? I'm sure glad ur not running the government.

Let me share something they taught us when I was in the army. It pertained specifically to the UCMJ, but I was in Intel at the time, and security was constantly drilled into our heads. It is NEVER a crime to report criminal activity. EVER.

The investigation is going on.
Where is the conclusion proving them guilty? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

You arn't the only one who can be an antagonizing pain in the ass here.

Even though leaking that type of infomration constutes violating every NS Law on the books? I'm sure glad ur not running the government.

If a leak is performed in the name of protecting the spirit, if not the word, of the Constitution is committed, then the good done by the leak out-does any damage done to our national security.

And, yes, I, too, am glad that I'm not running the government.

Where is the conclusion proving them guilty? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

You arn't the only one who can be an antagonizing pain in the ass here.

I'll leave you to be the antagonizing pain in the ass, I only have the patience to do it for so long. Anybody who says that Bush is free and clear to do whatever he wants isn't going to change their mind anyway.

That's all I'm saying. The Bush supporters seem to be anti-trial, which seems to me to be an anti-facts stance. Through refusal to bring the matter to trial, they are effectively giving him the authority to do whatever he wants without reprecussions. I am not saying hang him without a trial, but his actions do merit at least HAVING that trial.

As I recall our debate began about a hypothetical murder, not whether or not Bush should be put on trial. :p

So where's the investigation at? Until there's an investigation he can't be guilty of anything. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! Does that mean anything to anyone anymore?
Read the GODDAMNED ARTICLE! Doesn't that mean anything to you? THEY'VE ALREADY STARTED AND THERE'S ALREADY AT LEAST ONE QUALIFIED CONCLUSION!!! GET WITH THE F*CKING PROGRAM AND FAMILIARIZE YOURSELF WITH THE MATERIAL.
And THEN when you actually SEE how WRONG you are, CORRECT YOURSELF.
Are you TRULY THAT FRIGGIN' DENSE?

Is Clinton guilty of perjury? According to what you are saying then you would agree that he is not. However you have said otherwise in the past.
THAT would be a case of what Corny sees as a "technicality".

As I recall our debate began about a hypothetical murder, not whether or not Bush should be put on trial. :p

Well, our debate began about the nature of crime, I picked murder as my hypothetical because it's blatent.

Let me rephrase what you just said so you can see how completely insane it is. If I commit murder, and admit to it, but nobody will prosocute me and I'm never convicted, I didn't commit a crime. This is what you JUST said, for the record.
Woohoo!!

Well, our debate began about the nature of crime, I picked murder as my hypothetical because it's blatent.

Bah. Fine. You win.

He was caught lying otherwise they wouldn't have impeached him. There u did have an investigation that said he was lying. Circumstantial until admission, indeed technicality territory? fortunately the Senate didn't convict.
I wonder why that would be?
I'm not happy but that is over with.
No it isn't, not when you're a Bushevik. It works as an excellent distraction and excuse to continue doing the bullsh*t Busheviks do and agree to. And as the be-all end-all fallback position.

Here though, we have no investigation and people are doing the samething the republicans did during that event. It never ends.
NO, here we have DENSE people who still back up an administration that is being nailed LEFT AND RIGHT by investigations and when it finally gets to the pontiff they simply deny the facts of the matter and say, "well, NOW it's not fair."

You are operating under the assumption that everyone there is a member of Al Qaeda. Doesn't that flatly contradict your argument of innocent before proven guilty? They are assumed guilty, and given no means to prove their innocence. Hypocricy anybody?
WooIIhoo!!

Actually, while addressing a joint session of congress a President is uder oath.... So in essence, those magic 16 words were a fib... Not to mention he's not upholding the oath of office...
As were the oil executives just recently questioned about Cheney's "Energy Task Force" ... to the chagrin of Ted "The Hulk"/"I need my Zoloft" Stevens.

actually, no he isn't under oath. I suggest u read the constitution on messeges to Congress.
Criminal nontheless, here ya go.

"...committee Democrats had protested the decision by Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) not to swear in the executives. But a person can be fined or imprisoned for up to five years for making "any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation" to Congress."

I don't understand why people are against impeachment out of fear of Cheney gaining more power. Bush did not pick Cheney to run with him out of no where. They where combined for a singular purpose, it's not like they have any seperation in ideology. I think that Cheney has as much influence now over the presidency as he would if he were made president. The only reason he was not put in the position to be made president is because he was unheard of (unlike the name Bush) and is completely unlikeable. But the administration's policies won't sway one way or the other with either one of them in the position.

Sounds like whoever leaked this is guilty of Treason. Not Bush. hope they hang the guy that leaked it.
I have come to the conclusion that you are a plant.
No not the leafy-fern kinda plant, although your deductive instincts are reasonably comparable.
I mean you're the kind of plant that causes people with reasonable capacity to understand things to go into conniption fits and to cause brain aneurysm. Or at least a thrombosis or two.
I know another guy like that, he gets beat up a lot if he acts like that in real life, so he's compensated by becoming a faster runner and also by saving his baffling BS for people on chat lines and forums.

So leaking that the president has committed a federal offense is treason? I'm interested in hearing defense for your assertion that violation of Bush's oath of office isn't though.
WooIIIhoo!!

It doesn't surprise me that there is a lot of support for Bush's impeachment here. Not a bit. However, what keeps getting ignored in this latest installment in the American liberals latest attempt to fan the flames of discontent, is that Bush is not the only American president that has spied on private citizens overseas phone calls to gain intelligence. Not even out of the most recent presidents. In fact, four out of the last five American presidents have done this "crime". The only difference is that impeachment was never even discussed when the past seated presidents did this. Why is this even being discussed now? (and only seriously here)

Probably because Bush is Republican.

And almost certainly he will never will be impeached (or even have it come to a vote, for that matter) because in this case, Bush got a 99 to 1 vote in favor of going to war after 9/11. Democrats had then voted en masse to provide him with wartime presidential powers. Under a declared state of war, he is allowed to gather intelligence, and yes, that means it does allow the surveillance of private citizens to gather that intelligence.

So there was no crime committed. As long as we are still in Iraq and have troops there, you have no argument. Hope all this futile posturing makes you feel better, because in the real world, you haven't got a leg to stand on.

It doesn't surprise me that there is a lot of support for Bush's impeachment here. Not a bit. However, what keeps getting ignored in this latest installment in the American liberals latest attempt to fan the flames of discontent, is that Bush is not the only American president that has spied on private citizens overseas phone calls to gain intelligence. Not even out of the most recent presidents. In fact, four out of the last five American presidents have done this "crime". The only difference is that impeachment was never even discussed when the past seated presidents did this. Why is this even being discussed now? (and only seriously here)

Probably because Bush is Republican.

And almost certainly he will never will be impeached (or even have it come to a vote, for that matter) because in this case, Bush got a 99 to 1 vote in favor of going to war after 9/11. Democrats had then voted en masse to provide him with wartime presidential powers. Under a declared state of war, he is allowed to gather intelligence, and yes, that means it does allow the surveillance of private citizens to gather that intelligence.

So there was no crime committed. As long as we are still in Iraq and have troops there, you have no argument. Hope all this futile posturing makes you feel better, because in the real world, you haven't got a leg to stand on.

There is no war. There is no declared state of war.

Bush probably committed a crime. Wire-tapping the calls of American citizens is illegal. (Contracting foreign governments to do the same is not, however.)

This isn't about Republicans. I was one. Until the party left me. (Which occured, by the by, around the time that Bush entered office.)

And I've got two legs to stand on, supported by a moderate arsenal of democracy.

Bush has, again, violated the tenents of our Constitution. What should happen to him, I won't put to words due to the fact that my saying such a thing is illegal. However, he should be tried. If he's innocent, then he has nothing to fear, does he?

Under a declared state of war
No it doesn't work that way since there WAS NO DECLARED STATE OF WAR against anything other than, as Bobs Own Pipe has so poignantly professed so often, a noun.
He said he wanted to do things, Congress didn't want to look weak, so they gave him money but THEY DID NOT DECLARE WAR, which is WHAT THEY HAVE THE POWER TO DO AND HE DOESN'T.
Bullsh*t.
Also, with that thinking, no one COULD GO AFTER CLINTON for aggressions in the Slavic area SINCE WE'RE STILL TECHNICALLY AT WAR WITH NK. Look it up.

It doesn't surprise me that there is a lot of support for Bush's impeachment here. Not a bit. However, what keeps getting ignored in this latest installment in the American liberals latest attempt to fan the flames of discontent, is that Bush is not the only American president that has spied on private citizens overseas phone calls to gain intelligence. Not even out of the most recent presidents. In fact, four out of the last five American presidents have done this "crime". The only difference is that impeachment was never even discussed when the past seated presidents did this. Why is this even being discussed now? (and only seriously here)

Probably because Bush is Republican.

And almost certainly he will never will be impeached (or even have it come to a vote, for that matter) because in this case, Bush got a 99 to 1 vote in favor of going to war after 9/11. Democrats had then voted en masse to provide him with wartime presidential powers. Under a declared state of war, he is allowed to gather intelligence, and yes, that means it does allow the surveillance of private citizens to gather that intelligence.

So there was no crime committed. As long as we are still in Iraq and have troops there, you have no argument. Hope all this futile posturing makes you feel better, because in the real world, you haven't got a leg to stand on.

Thanks to a loophole back in the 40's I believe... A President can declare his own version of a war... The last time congress declared war was in WW2... Now we have conflicts.... We havent had a true war in decades...

Read it and weep.

TITLE II--ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES
Sec. 201. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism.

Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 434(2) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-132; 110 Stat. 1274), as paragraph (r); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 201(3) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (division C of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-565), the following new paragraph:
`(q) any criminal violation of section 229 (relating to chemical weapons); or sections 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332d, 2339A, or 2339B of this title (relating to terrorism)

This is from the Patriot Act. Which was renewed, just recently.

Like I said. No. Crime.

Read it and weep.

TITLE II--ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES
Sec. 201. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism.

Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 434(2) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-132; 110 Stat. 1274), as paragraph (r); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 201(3) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (division C of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-565), the following new paragraph:
`(q) any criminal violation of section 229 (relating to chemical weapons); or sections 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332d, 2339A, or 2339B of this title (relating to terrorism)

This is from the Patriot Act. Which was renewed, just recently.

Like I said. No. Crime.

The Constitution trumps that and the President is sworn to uphold the Constitution, not ignore it (or worse, piss on it) when it isn't politically viable.

Read it and weep.

done and done. dear god, people's heads should roll for merely thinking that writing like that makes sense as a way to write laws.

The Constitution trumps that and the President is sworn to uphold the Constitution, not ignore it (or worse, piss on it) when it isn't politically viable.

It's interesting how some folks invoke the Constitution whenever it favors their position, and ignore it when it suits them to do so.

It's interesting how some folks invoke the Constitution whenever it favors their position, and ignore it when it suits them to do so.

Yes. Like our current President. The entire United States government. And you.

I'm sorry, were you trying to imply something?

Bah. Fine. You win.

I actually wasn't in that discussion to win...you win arguements, you reach common ground in discussions. From my observation, we agreed that Bush has done a bunch of messed up stuff and should go to trial. Winning would be getting Congress to see that.

I actually wasn't in that discussion to win...you win arguements, you reach common ground in discussions. From my observation, we agreed that Bush has done a bunch of messed up stuff and should go to trial. Winning would be getting Congress to see that.

You're making the leap of faith and large assumption that Congress doesn't already know and doesn't already see.

done and done. dear god, people's heads should roll for merely thinking that writing like that makes sense as a way to write laws.

Think of it this way, if they didn't write laws like that, anybody could be a politician, or a lawyer. We can't have that now:rolleyes:

You're making the leap of faith and large assumption that Congress doesn't already know and doesn't already see.

Good correction. Winning would be getting them to act on it.

Think of it this way, if they didn't write laws like that, anybody could be a politician, or a lawyer. We can't have that now:rolleyes:

But anyone can be! So long as they have the money and/or corrupt sponsors!

Good correction. Winning would be getting them to act on it.

But they've already acted. Winning would be getting them to make a meaningful action. Not to split hairs, mind you....

Read it and weep.

TITLE II--ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES
Sec. 201. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism.

Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 434(2) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-132; 110 Stat. 1274), as paragraph (r); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 201(3) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (division C of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-565), the following new paragraph:
`(q) any criminal violation of section 229 (relating to chemical weapons); or sections 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332d, 2339A, or 2339B of this title (relating to terrorism)

This is from the Patriot Act. Which was renewed, just recently.

Like I said. No. Crime.

As inserted, with none of the supporting legislation, what you posted shows nothing except that lawmakers are in the business of keeping themselves in power through obfuscation.

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?

You can count me in under "kick his ass OUT". His right-wing, redneck agenda of war should be enough of a case for impeachment: he willfully and deliberately LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE WORLD, started a war that has cost billions in money and thousands upon thousands of not only Iraqi, but American lives, and what's he got to show for it? A joke of an interim, barely democratic government, further occupation with no end in sight, Congress and the Senate continually funnelling money into bombs and tanks and guns, while there are children starving not only in Baghdad, Basra, and Tikrit, but in Detroit, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, and all across the US. Why not fight a war on poverty? It'd produce better, less lethal results...

But they've already acted. Winning would be getting them to make a meaningful action. Not to split hairs, mind you....

lol, we'd hate to split hairs. How about this? Winning would be getting them to bring the whole affair to trial - the illegal activities, misrepresenting intelligence, violation of his oath of office to support and uphold the constitution, evertything - and then have a fair trial resulting in a conviction. THAT would be winning.

lol, we'd hate to split hairs. How about this? Winning would be getting them to bring the whole affair to trial - the illegal activities, misrepresenting intelligence, violation of his oath of office to support and uphold the constitution, evertything - and then have a fair trial resulting in a conviction. THAT would be winning.

Agreed!

And then we'd have our next victory to aspire to: getting the South to secede from the Union!

done and done. dear god, people's heads should roll for merely thinking that writing like that makes sense as a way to write laws.


btw, here is the section of the u.s. code (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002516----000-.html) all that amending was about. particularly important is the opening paragraph, which states:

"The Attorney General...may authorize an application to a Federal judge of competent jurisdiction for, and such judge may grant in conformity with section 2518 of this chapter an order authorizing or approving the interception of wire or oral communications by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or a Federal agency having responsibility for the investigation of the offense as to which the application is made..."

that's right, they have to go before a judge and apply for a warrant. you should also check out section 2518 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002518----000-.html), referenced above.

bush's warrantless domestic spying is still illegal.

As inserted, with none of the supporting legislation, what you posted shows nothing except that lawmakers are in the business of keeping themselves in power through obfuscation.

It does give you the relevant information so that you can seek it out on your own initiative, though, does it not?

I did. Look it up.

Here was my favorite part.....

(7) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, any investigative or law enforcement officer, specially designated by the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or by the principal prosecuting attorney of any State or subdivision thereof acting pursuant to a statute of that State, who reasonably determines that—
(a) an emergency situation exists that involves—
(i) immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person,
(ii) conspiratorial activities threatening the national security interest, or
(iii) conspiratorial activities characteristic of organized crime,
that requires a wire, oral, or electronic communication to be intercepted before an order authorizing such interception can, with due diligence, be obtained, and
(b) there are grounds upon which an order could be entered under this chapter to authorize such interception,

Think of it this way, if they didn't write laws like that, anybody could be a politician, or a lawyer. We can't have that now:rolleyes:

indeed - there's too many of them already!

I would like him to be impeached just for the chance for him to gaffe that into

"I'm being Im-pear-ed"

:)

Clinton was elected fair and square too. That didn't make him immune to impeachable offenses and neither should Bush. If they can make the charges stick, impeachment would be required unless someone slipped a few extra lines in the constitution making presidents untouchable by law when no one was looking.

Clinton didn't commit an impeachable offense, people just happen to be excessively uptight about sex.

Anyway. I certainly think Bush should be impeached. I've been thinking that for quite a long time. Hell, I had a dream about impeaching Bush, although that was really quite a weird dream because his replacement was Bob Dole and the vote was made with scoops of laundry detergent - but that's not the point. I'm not sure if there's really much point to impeaching him, though, because Cheney would then take his seat. There's not much point in NOT impeaching him though, because Cheney's running it all anyway, and at least he'd have to own up to his dirty work as official prez. So I guess yeah, I'd like to see Bush impeached.

Clinton didn't commit an impeachable offense, people just happen to be excessively uptight about sex.

Anyway. I certainly think Bush should be impeached. I've been thinking that for quite a long time. Hell, I had a dream about impeaching Bush, although that was really quite a weird dream because his replacement was Bob Dole and the vote was made with scoops of laundry detergent - but that's not the point. I'm not sure if there's really much point to impeaching him, though, because Cheney would then take his seat. There's not much point in NOT impeaching him though, because Cheney's running it all anyway, and at least he'd have to own up to his dirty work as official prez. So I guess yeah, I'd like to see Bush impeached.

You forget:

-Cheney has a lesbian daughter and is much more empathic with the plight of homosexuals in the US
-Cheney has a bad ticker. He might rule the nation justly, for fear of death at any moment.

Read it and weep.

TITLE II--ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES
Sec. 201. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism.

Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 434(2) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-132; 110 Stat. 1274), as paragraph (r); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 201(3) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (division C of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-565), the following new paragraph:
`(q) any criminal violation of section 229 (relating to chemical weapons); or sections 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332d, 2339A, or 2339B of this title (relating to terrorism)

This is from the Patriot Act. Which was renewed, just recently.

Like I said. No. Crime.
Wrong. I've already disproven it with my posts on Executive Order 12333's correlation. Go read that and weep after you do the math.
I may just repost it for the 3rd time.

I would like him to be impeached just for the chance for him to gaffe that into

"I'm being Im-pear-ed"

:)
For some reason, this post REALLY amused me this far into the thread!

Let me share something they taught us when I was in the army. It pertained specifically to the UCMJ, but I was in Intel at the time, and security was constantly drilled into our heads. It is NEVER a crime to report criminal activity. EVER.

This is way different than the UCMJ Maegi. And don't start quoting the UCMJ to me either.

I'll leave you to be the antagonizing pain in the ass, I only have the patience to do it for so long. Anybody who says that Bush is free and clear to do whatever he wants isn't going to change their mind anyway.

Who says that he is free in clear? Not me. In fact I want it investigated.

There is no war. There is no declared state of war.

Just because there ins't a declared war doesn't mean its not a war.

Bush probably committed a crime. Wire-tapping the calls of American citizens is illegal. (Contracting foreign governments to do the same is not, however.)

I'm going to catch merry hell for this, but Bill Clinton did exactly the samething. Illegal wiretapping isn't just a Bush Admin doing.

This isn't about Republicans. I was one. Until the party left me. (Which occured, by the by, around the time that Bush entered office.)

Nice to know.

And I've got two legs to stand on, supported by a moderate arsenal of democracy.

We all have a moderate arsenal of democracy.

[qoute]Bush has, again, violated the tenents of our Constitution. What should happen to him, I won't put to words due to the fact that my saying such a thing is illegal. However, he should be tried. If he's innocent, then he has nothing to fear, does he?[/QUOTE]

Before he can be tried, what he did deserves to be investigated. Before any trial there is an investigation. So far no investigation.

The Constitution trumps that and the President is sworn to uphold the Constitution, not ignore it (or worse, piss on it) when it isn't politically viable.

Has the court ruled this part unconstitutional yet?

done and done. dear god, people's heads should roll for merely thinking that writing like that makes sense as a way to write laws.

Free Soviets, I agree with you.

This is way different than the UCMJ Maegi. And don't start quoting the UCMJ to me either.

I wasn't quoting the UCMJ, I was quoting a lesson we were taught about it. Although technically, since Bush is the CIC of the military, he should be subject to the UCMJ.

Before he can be tried, what he did deserves to be investigated. Before any trial there is an investigation. So far no investigation.

Well, so long as there isn't any argument against having that investigation, I don't see a major problem. The problem arises from the people who refuse to have said investigation(though technically, for the warrantless wiretapping an investigation isn't needed, as he did confess, and state that he intends to continue). As an aside, is there any evidence that Clinton's wiretapping was done without warrants? I'm sure FISA has some kind of recordkeeping going on.

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 pro list, even though I think it's unlikely to happen.

George Bush is a war criminal, and should be impeached. This will never happen. Every president since WW2 should be hung for war crimes, although it is obvious that never happened.

I wasn't quoting the UCMJ, I was quoting a lesson we were taught about it. Although technically, since Bush is the CIC of the military, he should be subject to the UCMJ.

Actually, he's a civilian and is not punishable under the UCMJ.

Well, so long as there isn't any argument against having that investigation, I don't see a major problem. The problem arises from the people who refuse to have said investigation(though technically, for the warrantless wiretapping an investigation isn't needed, as he did confess, and state that he intends to continue). As an aside, is there any evidence that Clinton's wiretapping was done without warrants? I'm sure FISA has some kind of recordkeeping going on.

We'll never know will we? Point is, Bush ins't the first one to do authorize warrentless wiretappings.

I find this to be quite funny, it seems the idiots who voted him in are now thinking this over, notice his recent approval rating (Lowest rating for a president ever I belive it was said) Still dont you find it strange that as soon as he made a mistake the people were all of a sudden agenst him. Least we only have till 2008 then there is no way we`ll get another Bush for president, and everyone knows that there are to many sexist people in the US to get one of his daughters elected.

(Lowest rating for a president ever I belive it was said)

This is inaccurate. Truman had a lower rating while he was president. Come to think of it. No one thought he would win re-election either.

I find this to be quite funny, it seems the idiots who voted him in are now thinking this over, notice his recent approval rating (Lowest rating for a president ever I belive it was said) Still dont you find it strange that as soon as he made a mistake the people were all of a sudden agenst him. Least we only have till 2008 then there is no way we`ll get another Bush for president, and everyone knows that there are to many sexist people in the US to get one of his daughters elected.

His brother, the governor of Florida, could be elected.

Actually, he's a civilian and is not punishable under the UCMJ.

Never said he was, I said he should be. It stands to reason that someone at the top of a power structure is part of that structure, but reason seems to be wildly unpopular.

His brother, the governor of Florida, could be elected.


Jebidiah for President

I can picture the rally stickers now.

This is inaccurate. Truman had a lower rating while he was president. Come to think of it. No one thought he would win re-election either.

Well, if we're talking recent presidents, Carter and Nixon both had lower end of term approval ratings, but just think what would happen to Bush's numbers if there was an investigation and a trial. Carter had the hostage crisis going on at the end of his term, and Nixon of course had Watergate before his resignation.

Never said he was, I said he should be. It stands to reason that someone at the top of a power structure is part of that structure, but reason seems to be wildly unpopular.

if he was subject to the UCMJ then we might as well have the president be a general or admiral in the military.

Well, if we're talking recent presidents, Carter and Nixon both had lower end of term approval ratings, but just think what would happen to Bush's numbers if there was an investigation and a trial. Carter had the hostage crisis going on at the end of his term, and Nixon of course had Watergate before his resignation.

Yep and carter really blew the hostage thing. If he hadn't had blown it, he might've actually gotten re-elected.

Before he can be tried, what he did deserves to be investigated. Before any trial there is an investigation. So far no investigation.
All other asinine bilge aside, that you may or may not have posted, i insist you stop repeating bullsh*t about this particular topic until you're educated about it.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10236051&postcount=543
Punch it up. And don't bring it up again until you do unless you expect EVEN LESS RESPECT.

Yep and carter really blew the hostage thing. If he hadn't had blown it, he might've actually gotten re-elected.

Actually he did get the hostages released the last day he was in office.

Actually he did get the hostages released the last day he was in office.
Ka-POW! :mp5:
Corny, you're just NOT getting it.
It could be that the shoes you're toeing around in aren't just old and smelly and rotten, you haven't even gotten outta yer booties yet.

expect EVEN LESS RESPECT.

Where to go when you're already at the zero mark?

*edit: No wait, it's Idaho, isn't it?

Where to go when you're already at the zero mark?

*edit: No wait, it's Idaho, isn't it?
Hahaha
*FLORT*
Corny might be an AI. It would explain a lot ... the threads, the lack of coordination or logical conclusions, the inability to react to factual stimuli.
Oh well, i sorta love my computer so i can't feel too mad at him. He's trying, in his way, i guess ...

Hahaha
*FLORT*
Corny might be an AI. It would explain a lot ... the threads, the lack of coordination or logical conclusions, the inability to react to factual stimuli.
Oh well, i sorta love my computer so i can't feel too mad at him. He's trying, in his way, i guess ...

Even if Corny is the product of technology, I really can't accept calling him (it,) an artificial intelligence.

Hahaha
*FLORT*
Corny might be an AI. It would explain a lot ... the threads, the lack of coordination or logical conclusions, the inability to react to factual stimuli.
Oh well, i sorta love my computer so i can't feel too mad at him. He's trying, in his way, i guess ...

Naw, AI requires memories and processing power. Neither of which is a symptom of your average Bushevik.

Yep and carter really blew the hostage thing. If he hadn't had blown it, he might've actually gotten re-elected.

If you replace the noun "Carter" with the noun "military", you'd have it right.

Not that I blame the military for screwing it up. Well, not the guys who were gonna be going in to get the hostages, but definately everyone from the Quartermaster-General (or whatever the hell he's called) down to the man on the carrier who thought we could pull it off.

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 side wot wants to see Mr. Bush shut away without counsel in a dog kennel with all the other enemies of the State, in perpetuity.

All you democrats and libertarians who keep chanting "pro impeachment", is that all yall do is wine, gripe, complain about anything and everything. This country and its government can never make yall happy, because no matter whats happening, you gotta protest and bitch about it. If Bush wouldn't have taken action against the terrorists during September 11th, you would have griped about that too "Oh our president wouldn't even defend us". If you notice though, when once have you seen in the media or anywhere else has a conservative republican or anyone from the party complain or protest about something your party has done. Take for example, a man hired by Kerry and the democratic party hired a man to go into the archives and his job was to take any files our of the archives that were incriminating against the democratic party. He got out with them and was then later CAUGHT! CAUGHT on VIDEO CAMERA! He didn't even go to jail, the gave him a slap on the hand and let him go. What the hell is that, but you know what, thats the way life goes and no matter how much you bitch and protest it isn't going to change. Bush was elected because he is and was the best choice, one of the best this country has seen along with Ronald Reagon. Bush makes choices everyday, going to war and what he does there is one of them. It is his job to go with what he thinks is right, hence him being called president, he hasn't broken any laws, he has only made choices that you disagree with only for the sake of disagreeing, therefore, what is done is done and you can't nor will change that, Bush won't get impeached because one, he is far from deserving, two, again, he is a great president, and if there were a third term, I would support him there too. So suck it up and open your narrow minds, or just shut the hell up!

Bush won't get impeached because*drum roll please*one, he is far from deservingThat's a value judgement. two, again, he is a great presidentTwo value judgements.and if there were a third term, I would support him there tooSure, why not. But y'see, you haven't presented any factual judgements to back up any of your value judgements as yet.So suck it up and open your narrow minds, or just shut the hell up!And so we conclude this heartfelt endorsement of Mr. Bush by first telling non-supporters they must yield ("suck it up") then castigating them for supposedly having closed minds, terminating in a demand they silence themselves.

Nice.

But it's not a persuasive argument as to why Mr. Bush won't be impeached, however much you might wish it were.

All you democrats and libertarians who keep chanting "pro impeachment", is that all yall do is wine, gripe, complain about anything and everything. This country and its government can never make yall happy, because no matter whats happening, you gotta protest and bitch about it. If Bush wouldn't have taken action against the terrorists during September 11th, you would have griped about that too "Oh our president wouldn't even defend us". If you notice though, when once have you seen in the media or anywhere else has a conservative republican or anyone from the party complain or protest about something your party has done. Take for example, a man hired by Kerry and the democratic party hired a man to go into the archives and his job was to take any files our of the archives that were incriminating against the democratic party. He got out with them and was then later CAUGHT! CAUGHT on VIDEO CAMERA! He didn't even go to jail, the gave him a slap on the hand and let him go. What the hell is that, but you know what, thats the way life goes and no matter how much you bitch and protest it isn't going to change. Bush was elected because he is and was the best choice, one of the best this country has seen along with Ronald Reagon. Bush makes choices everyday, going to war and what he does there is one of them. It is his job to go with what he thinks is right, hence him being called president, he hasn't broken any laws, he has only made choices that you disagree with only for the sake of disagreeing, therefore, what is done is done and you can't nor will change that, Bush won't get impeached because one, he is far from deserving, two, again, he is a great president, and if there were a third term, I would support him there too. So suck it up and open your narrow minds, or just shut the hell up!


I always love it when Bush defenders respond to specific criticisms about what Bush IS doing with imaginary scenarios about what people not in favor of Bush would do in an alternate universe.

I guess you mid-rant tangent there involves Sandy Berger, a man caught removing COPIES from the archives (meaning NO information was lost, as they were merely copies, and all the material contained therein had already been reviewed by the 9/11 panel...but I guess making shit up is a valid argument, from your persepctive,) who plead guilty and recieved a hefty fine and probation.

I suggest you open your mind and instead of bitching about dissent, you actually look at the whys and wherefores of the criticism. You might learn something. After all, our country was founded on dissent and distrust of power. Our Constitution is a document designed, first and foremost, to limit the powers of those who would lead us.

How, exactly, is Bush a great President?

snip

I also suggest you look at my thread here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=463422

To see a very non-partisan take on why, exactly, Bush's domestic spying program isn't just risking our civil liberties but is actually making us LESS safe, all in order to persue some undefined agenda.

I always love it when Bush defenders respond to specific criticisms about what Bush IS doing with imaginary scenarios about what people not in favor of Bush would do in an alternate universe.

I guess you mid-rant tangent there involves Sandy Berger, a man caught removing COPIES from the archives (meaning NO information was lost, as they were merely copies, and all the material contained therein had already been reviewed by the 9/11 panel...but I guess making shit up is a valid argument, from your persepctive,) who plead guilty and recieved a hefty fine and probation.

I suggest you open your mind and instead of bitching about dissent, you actually look at the whys and wherefores of the criticism. You might learn something. After all, our country was founded on dissent and distrust of power. Our Constitution is a document designed, first and foremost, to limit the powers of those who would lead us.

How, exactly, is Bush a great President?

Yes, information was lost, get off your ass and pay attention to the media, as misleading as it can be (except for Fox News). Bush is a great president because he stands for moral standpoints to bring ethics back into this country, for example:

Defends the Marriage Act (ie. Gay [faggot] marriages should be outlawed and nonexistent]
Expanding Child Tax Credit
He nominates Judicial Conservatives of which don't legislate from the f**king bench, but actually interpret the law
Banning Tax Payer funded abortions.


Is that enough reasons, or do you still need more?

Yes, information was lost, get off your ass and pay attention to the media, as misleading as it can be (except for Fox News). Bush is a great president because he stands for moral standpoints to bring ethics back into this country, for example:

Defends the Marriage Act (ie. Gay [faggot] marriages should be outlawed and nonexistent]
Expanding Child Tax Credit
He nominates Judicial Conservatives of which don't legislate from the f**king bench, but actually interpret the law
Banning Tax Payer funded abortions.


Is that enough reasons, or do you still need more?
You're a puppet account; so, sock or string?

Wow, so he'll bring ethics back to this land if he has to break every law in the book to do it. Great, that's right up there with granting Iraqis greater freedoms than he'll allow his own citizens to have at home.

You're a puppet account; so, sock or string?

What the hell is a "puppet account"?

Shadow puppet.

Definitely shadow puppet.

Yes, information was lost, get off your ass and pay attention to the media, as misleading as it can be (except for Fox News). Bush is a great president because he stands for moral standpoints to bring ethics back into this country, for example:

Defends the Marriage Act (ie. Gay [faggot] marriages should be outlawed and nonexistent]
Expanding Child Tax Credit
He nominates Judicial Conservatives of which don't legislate from the f**king bench, but actually interpret the law
Banning Tax Payer funded abortions.


Is that enough reasons, or do you still need more?

No, you're wrong, no information was lost. Sandy Berger removied copies, nothing more. Even Fox mentions that they were copies. Stop lying.

Interesting to see that you're a homophobe. Was the phrase "faggot" really necessary?

Ah, the Child Tax credit. So, you support welfare, as long as a conservative proposes it?

Judicial Conservatives legislate just as much from the bench as Judicial Liberals. They just legislate in a manner more to your liking. Hypocrisy is fun for the whole family!

Bush has banned tax-payer funded abortions? Really? Hmmm, can you perhaps reference the legislation that did that?

A poor start Lindlira. Lots of assertions. No factual support. Next!

No, you're wrong, no information was lost. Sandy Berger removied copies, nothing more. Even Fox mentions that they were copies. Stop lying.

Interesting to see that you're a homophobe. Was the phrase "faggot" really necessary?

Ah, the Child Tax credit. So, you support welfare, as long as a conservative proposes it?

Judicial Conservatives legislate just as much from the bench as Judicial Liberals. They just legislate in a manner more to your liking. Hypocrisy is fun for the whole family!

Bush has banned tax-payer funded abortions? Really? Hmmm, can you perhaps reference the legislation that did that?

A poor start Lindlira. Lots of assertions. No factual support. Next!

No, I am not a homophobe, I just understand the sanctity of marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN. And no, Judicial Conservatives interpret the law as they are supposed to. And Bush OPPOSES Tax payer funded abortions. There is no hypocrisy here, you just to ignorant and narrow mindidly biased.

No, I am not a homophobe, I just understand the sanctity of marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN. And no, Judicial Conservatives interpret the law as they are supposed to. And Bush OPPOSES Tax payer funded abortions. There is no hypocrisy here, you just to ignorant and narrow mindidly biased.

Oh please, anyone who calls gays "faggot" cannot cop out with the "I am not a homophobe" defense. Sort of like how BARF-COM said "Islamists=sand monkeys=hadjis" etc etc. yet claimed he was only referring to Jihadists

:rolleyes:

There is no hypocrisy here, you just to ignorant and narrow mindidly biased.

An interesting statement from someone with poor spelling capacity and claims sanctity of a convention that is little more than a social contract. Narrow minded indeed. Hello Pot, see that kettle over there?

So, who is your puppetmaster mister muppet?

No, I am not a homophobe, I just understand the sanctity of marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN. And no, Judicial Conservatives interpret the law as they are supposed to. And Bush OPPOSES Tax payer funded abortions. There is no hypocrisy here, you just to ignorant and narrow mindidly biased.

No, Judicial Conservatives interpret the law as YOU'D like them to. If there was only one way to interpret a law, there'd be no need to have judges.

Judicial Liberals interpret the law (generally. I'm not much of one for lockstep thought,) as I'D like them to.

There is no hard and fast correct way to interpret laws. We all have our preferences. For you to proclaim your preferences as some kind of absolute show just how immature you are, and how unable you are to participate in rational and open discussion.

Again, thanks for playing. I'll wait for a more astute conservative to argue with next time.

No, I am not a homophobe, I just understand the sanctity of marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN.
You're going to need a bigger broom if you want to sweep 'divorce' under the rug.

You're going to need a bigger broom if you want to sweep 'divorce' under the rug.

Not to mention the awe inspiring sanctity of Anna Nicole Smith's marriage to a billionaire octegenarian. God smiles on that one.

blah blah blah ... So suck it up and open your narrow minds, or just shut the hell up!
This is EXACTLY the kind of go-get'm attitude that'll reclaim dignity and integrity for the Bush Administration supporters! That's right, all or nothing! It'll sure thin out the ranks of "thinkers" and "constitutional supporters" and even those "civil rights" whiners!!!!
Way to show 'em!

Yes, information was lost, get off your ass and pay attention to the media, as misleading as it can be (except for Fox News). Bush is a great president because he stands for moral standpoints to bring ethics back into this country, for example:

Defends the Marriage Act (ie. Gay [faggot] marriages should be outlawed and nonexistent]
Expanding Child Tax Credit
He nominates Judicial Conservatives of which don't legislate from the f**king bench, but actually interpret the law
Banning Tax Payer funded abortions.


Is that enough reasons, or do you still need more?
As far as your first "Marriage Act" ... punch up Clinton. Either you're ignorant of his legislation in that regard or you're being disingenuous for political bias reasons.
As far as expanding Child Tax Credit ... by golly i'd be nice if it weren't compared to corporate tax exemptions and cuts.
As far as him nominating Judicial conservatives and all that bl@her... you're again either ignorant or disingenuous, punch up Harriet Miers.
As far as banning taxpayer funded abortions, he'd moved right up to supporting tax payer funded murder of foreign citizens, and even makes you feel bad, treasonous and unpatriotic for thinking it's wrong!

You're a puppet account; so, sock or string?Hmmm... FireAntz/Sick Nightmares?

Yes, information was lost, get off your ass and pay attention to the media, as misleading as it can be (except for Fox News).So you say FAUX News is not misleading because it is a right-wing media?
Bush is a great president because he stands for moral standpoints to bring ethics back into this countryOK

for example:

Defends the Marriage Act (ie. Gay [faggot] marriages should be outlawed and nonexistent]
Expanding Child Tax Credit
He nominates Judicial Conservatives of which don't legislate from the f**king bench, but actually interpret the law
Banning Tax Payer funded abortions.

- Gay "faggot" marriage? Wow, you really hate gay people aren't you? You must be a Nazi. Plus, does banning gay marriages make you country freer?

- Child Tax Credit - no arguement here

- OMG, they legalized "ID" in school!

- Equals stripping women's right to manage her own body and health.

Is that enough reasons, or do you still need more?

How about a duct tape troll.

How about a duct tape troll.
THIS thread's turning just a smidge sexy ...

More CURRENT info regarding one of the main issues on this thread ...

*ahem*

Judges Just Briefed on Surveillance Plans

By MARK SHERMAN
The Associated Press
Monday, January 9, 2006; 9:25 PM

WASHINGTON -- The federal judges who were bypassed when the Bush administration ordered warrantless wiretaps in the United States received a secret briefing Monday on details of the surveillance. Separately, a former FBI director and other lawyers questioned whether the surveillance is legal.

The classified briefing at the Justice Department had been requested by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, presiding judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court. Established by Congress in the late 1970s, the court oversees the government's handling of espionage and terrorism investigations.
U.S. District Judge James Robertson last month resigned from the FISA court and other judges voiced concerns about the National Security Agency's electronic surveillance program, which President Bush authorized after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.

Gen. Michael Hayden, the principal deputy director of national intelligence, was among administration officials who attended the briefing. Hayden served as NSA director when the electronic surveillance program was launched and has since become the government's No. 2 intelligence official.

Details of the program remain highly classified.

Justice Department and NSA spokesmen refused to confirm that a meeting took place. A spokesman for Kollar-Kotelly likewise declined comment and the nine other FISA court judges did not return telephone calls Monday.

But two government officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, confirmed the briefing and Hayden's presence.

According to an account in the Washington Post, U.S. District Judge Dee Benson of Utah, a member of the special panel, has asked why the special court was not used in conducting the surveillance.

"If you've got us here, why didn't you go through us? They've said it's faster (to bypass FISA), but they have emergency authority under FISA, so I don't know," Benson was quoted by the newspaper as saying.

The existence of the program was first reported last month by the New York Times. Bush later acknowledged he approved the warrantless surveillance and, along with senior lieutenants, has stoutly defended it.

In a letter Monday to congressional leaders, 13 legal scholars said the Justice Department's written justification for the NSA monitoring program "fails to offer a plausible legal defense."

In a five-page letter to House and Senate intelligence committee leaders, Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella on Dec. 22 outlined a detailed defense for the warrantless surveillance.

He argued that Bush under a congressional resolution passed after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attack, had the authority to order such electronic surveillance as part of his responsibility as commander-in-chief to protect the nation.

But the former government officials and constitutional law experts said Congress did not authorize domestic spying as part of the 2001 resolution. Lawmakers, they wrote, also "indisputably" have the authority to regulate electronic surveillance inside the United States.

The 13 experts said it is "beyond dispute that, in (our) democracy, the president cannot simply violate criminal laws behind closed doors because he deems them obsolete or impracticable."

Legal analysts at the Congressional Research Service last week raised similar questions, and lawmakers have called for hearings on the NSA program.

The group included former federal judge William S. Sessions, who served as FBI director from 1987 to 1993 under President Reagan and President George H.W Bush.


Well, let the character assassination continue unabated!
Oh sh*t, i didn't get this from CNN!!! Woe is me! :rolleyes:

Naw, AI requires memories and processing power. Neither of which is a symptom of your average Bushevik.
Amen to that. We're looking for a few good aberrations....

Actually he did get the hostages released the last day he was in office.

HAHA!! Nice Myth. While Reagan was being sworn in, the hostages where being freed. So was it so much Carter or was it something else?

If you replace the noun "Carter" with the noun "military", you'd have it right.

THis is pure unadultered bullshit. I suggest you actually go back and read up on this a tad more before spouting bs. My father would have something to say about this as does the military.

Not that I blame the military for screwing it up. Well, not the guys who were gonna be going in to get the hostages, but definately everyone from the Quartermaster-General (or whatever the hell he's called) down to the man on the carrier who thought we could pull it off.

And guess what? Carter decided to do something else and killed people in the process, including a friend of my father's.

THis is pure unadultered bullshit. I suggest you actually go back and read up on this a tad more before spouting bs. My father would have something to say about this as does the military.

I didn't know you were a Pentagon official, Corny. Care to show certified proof that the military explicitly faults Carter for that botched rescue attempt?

And guess what? Carter decided to do something else and killed people in the process, including a friend of my father's.

When Carter sends a few troops into a military operation and they die, he killed them. But when Shrub sends lots more troops into a military operation and they die, it's not his fault they're killed right?

:rolleyes:

I didn't know you were a Pentagon official, Corny. Care to show certified proof that the military explicitly faults Carter for that botched rescue attempt?

Ask anyone in the military who was in during that time. I had 2 family members in during that time.

When Carter sends a few troops into a military operation and they die, he killed them. But when Shrub sends lots more troops into a military operation and they die, it's not his fault they're killed right?

:rolleyes:

Again, I suggest you go back and read up on this issue a tad more. Apparently you slept through it.

And guess what? Carter decided to do something else and killed people in the process, including a friend of my father's.

And what did he decide to do?

The copter crashes was just dumb bad luck.....

HAHA!! Nice Myth. While Reagan was being sworn in, the hostages where being freed. So was it so much Carter or was it something else?

So, you are saying that since Reagan was officially the President, it must have been his administration that, ultimately, deserves the credit? This is what you're saying, correct? Or are you saying something else? Please expand upon what you said if this is so.

And what did he decide to do?

The copter crashes was just dumb bad luck.....

that it may have been but I suggest u go back and read up on Desert One a tad more.

And guess what? Carter decided to do something else and killed people in the process, including a friend of my father's.

...and if you extend that same line of reasoning to Bush...

Ask anyone in the military who was in during that time. I had 2 family members in during that time.

Actually a guy that was involved in all levels of planning of the rescue wrote a book about it and paints a different picture the out right blame.....

that it may have been but I suggest u go back and read up on Desert One a tad more.

Actually I have. A planner wrote a book about it. Can't remember the title at the moment but I have it somewhere at home....

There is no way President Bush will be impeached. The Republican Party controls both the house and the senate, there is no way it would even come up for debate. Congress can do that, just never bring unfavorable topics up for debate they do it often. Clinton was unable to be impeached and the balance between republicans and democrats was a lot more even than it is now. I think the president can relay of good job security till the end of his term.

Ask anyone in the military who was in during that time. I had 2 family members in during that time.

Bushevik, please. I asked for certified proof in the Government Findings category. Not testimonials from a nameless "anyone in the military" that sounds like Joe McCarthy bullshit.

Again, I suggest you go back and read up on this issue a tad more. Apparently you slept through it.

You're the one who needs the No-Doze Corny. You're blaming Carter for tragedy that was a result of poor insufficient intelligence. Sound familiar Bushevik? That's the same reason you give for Shrub being not held accountable for the WMD Lie. Except in the case of Operation Eagle Claw (http://www.specwarnet.com/miscinfo/eagleclaw.htm), it was true.

Little surprise, PEOPLE DIE IN WAR!!!!!!!!!!!
Liberals need to realize that, and each individual death is NOT the President's fault. Using that line of logic, the liberals might as well blame EVERYTHING on the President of the US, as he is the ruler of the only remaining super-power. Look, if you dont like it hear, leave.

NOTE: As for the spying thingy, if we could have stopped 9-11 by spying on a few suspicious individuals, don't you think that it would be worth it? Look into the eyes of a 9-11 victim's loved ones and tell them "Your husband could have lived, but we didn't want to infringe on some suspicious guys privacy, because God forbid we offend some one!"

Unless you couldnt tell, I vote NO

Actually I have. A planner wrote a book about it. Can't remember the title at the moment but I have it somewhere at home....


Found it.....

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/034544695X/qid=1137024171/sr=8-7/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i7_xgl14/104-8446227-1364705?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

You're the one who needs the No-Doze Corny. You're blaming Carter for tragedy that was a result of poor insufficient intelligence. Sound familiar Bushevik? That's the same reason you give for Shrub being not held accountable for the WMD Lie. Except in the case of Operation Eagle Claw (http://www.specwarnet.com/miscinfo/eagleclaw.htm), it was true.

and where were your precious democrats when this intelligence came out? Where they saying, wait, we need to think about this, or this war is wrong, or I don't belive this intelligence. No they were not, beaucse they want to be popular, and the people were for the war, so they were too, now that the war has proved a little harder they are agaisnt it claiming they always were. the democrats are like 13 yr old girls changing their minds with whatever happens to be popular and claiming they always felt that way. That is bullshit, if the war were to suddenly become popular, they would be all for it. What a load of assholes

Little surprise, PEOPLE DIE IN WAR!!!!!!!!!!!
Liberals need to realize that, and each individual death is NOT the President's fault. Using that line of logic, the liberals might as well blame EVERYTHING on the President of the US, as he is the ruler of the only remaining super-power. Look, if you dont like it hear, leave.

NOTE: As for the spying thingy, if we could have stopped 9-11 by spying on a few suspicious individuals, don't you think that it would be worth it? Look into the eyes of a 9-11 victim's loved ones and tell them "Your husband could have lived, but we didn't want to infringe on some suspicious guys privacy, because God forbid we offend some one!"

Question: Have you served?

Also, "Liberals" aren't the only ones upset with the casualities.

and where were your precious democrats when this intelligence came out? Where they saying, wait, we need to think about this, or this war is wrong, or I don't belive this intelligence. No they were not, beaucse they want to be popular, and the people were for the war, so they were too, now that the war has proved a little harder they are agaisnt it claiming they always were. the democrats are like 13 yr old girls changing their minds with whatever happens to be popular and claiming they always felt that way. That is bullshit, if the war were to suddenly become popular, they would be all for it. What a load of assholes

Actually if you remember your loyalty was questioned if you questioned the intelligence.....

The intelligence community is an easy scapegoat since they can't defend themselves.

Again. Has the Presidentual Daily Briefs been released or are they still held under "national security"

No!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe he should be impeached. But he definately shouldn't be kicked out.

In the same way a possible arguement could be made for Clinton's impeachment, actually removing him from Office out of the question and should always be reserved for th emost serious offences.

The major difference here, though, is the attack on civil liberties that Bush has made. But let's keep in mind every Republican President since and including Lincoln has waged war on civil liberties.

The major difference here, though, is the attack on civil liberties that Bush has made. But let's keep in mind every Republican President since and including Lincoln has waged war on civil liberties.

Just a nit pick. The Repub party of today is vastely different then Lincolns time so linking the two is not exactly right.

If you do not agree with the politics thats one thing, but to follow blindly democrats that are clearly crooked and tainted that's all together another.a.k.a. Hillary,Kennedy,Keery. With leaders that those How could you not LOSE? Their conduct is that of spoiled children, and they are traitors to their nation. They should be arrested and be in prison for the turncoat politics.Don't use the war in iraq as a platform to get reelected when you don't care about the outcome either way.

If you do not agree with the politics thats one thing, but to follow blindly democrats that are clearly crooked and tainted that's all together another.a.k.a. Hillary,Kennedy,Keery. With leaders that those How could you not LOSE? Their conduct is that of spoiled children, and they are traitors to their nation. They should be arrested and be in prison for the turncoat politics.Don't use the war in iraq as a platform to get reelected when you don't care about the outcome either way.

Psssst Hey buddy. Haven't read the news lately? The repubs aren't exactly looking too pure these days.

Little surprise, PEOPLE DIE IN WAR!!!!!!!!!!!
Liberals need to realize that, and each individual death is NOT the President's fault. Using that line of logic, the liberals might as well blame EVERYTHING on the President of the US, as he is the ruler of the only remaining super-power. Look, if you dont like it hear, leave.

NOTE: As for the spying thingy, if we could have stopped 9-11 by spying on a few suspicious individuals, don't you think that it would be worth it? Look into the eyes of a 9-11 victim's loved ones and tell them "Your husband could have lived, but we didn't want to infringe on some suspicious guys privacy, because God forbid we offend some one!"

Yes, Bush is not responsible for every individual death. As the Commander in Chief though, he not only has the power, but the responsibility of leadership.

Yes, we can't blame him for every single occurrence. But we can blame him for the big picture and the overall stragtegy. As far as "spying on a few suspicious individuals," we all know it wasn't lack of intelligence sources that blinded us to 9/11, it was the basic inability to first translate, then organize and compile the intel sufficiently. "Al Qaeda determined to attack the U.S." "Saudi citizens taking flight lessons in the U.S., they don't seem too concerned about taking off and landing." and on and on and on.

Adding MORE sources of intel, when we already have a backlog and another layer of beaurocracy on top of that (homeland security,) makes the problem worse, but that's usual government-think. If a program isn't working, make it bigger. Exactly what good conservatives are supposed to be against.

By skipping over the one piece of oversight (created specifically and solely for issuing warrants for wire taps...even retroactively,) in order to bloat yet another program into stunning inefficiency, Bush is jeopardizing our civil liberties in an incompetent and chilling (what if we're still in Iraq and a Dem is Pres...or a "gasp" 3rd party?) way.

Everyone who has paid attention to the intelligence hearings knows that the most attributed failings of U.S. intelligence is a shortage of translators and a shortage of covert, on the ground, face to face operatives. How in the world does it make sense to expand DRASTICALLY the amount of electronic surveillance?

Do the hard core Busheviks get it yet? This surveillance program is doomed to be horribly ineffective, costly, controversial and dangerous to our civil liberties...unless it's design is primarily political...in which case it's only hugely dangerous to our civil liberties.

If you do not agree with the politics thats one thing, but to follow blindly democrats that are clearly crooked and tainted that's all together another.a.k.a. Hillary,Kennedy,Keery. With leaders that those How could you not LOSE? Their conduct is that of spoiled children, and they are traitors to their nation. They should be arrested and be in prison for the turncoat politics.

Wow. Labelling political opposition traitors is the first step to everyone wearing mandatory armbands. Not to mention typical Bushevik rhetoric.

Don't use the war in iraq as a platform to get reelected when you don't care about the outcome either way.

Courtesy of IDrewThis.org (http://www.idrewthis.org/2005/sheehan.html)

Oh yes, I apologize for forgetting that only Bush is allowed to use Iraq as a platform for getting re-elected.

:rolleyes:

Courtesy of IDrewThis.org (http://www.idrewthis.org/2005/sheehan.html)

Oh yes, I apologize for forgetting that only Bush is allowed to use Iraq as a platform for getting re-elected.

:rolleyes:

Oh yea! How many times did 9/11 and terrorists get mentioned at the repub convention? ;)

Little surprise, PEOPLE DIE IN WAR!!!!!!!!!!!
Liberals need to realize that, and each individual death is NOT the President's fault. Using that line of logic, the liberals might as well blame EVERYTHING on the President of the US, as he is the ruler of the only remaining super-power. Look, if you dont like it hear, leave.

NOTE: As for the spying thingy, if we could have stopped 9-11 by spying on a few suspicious individuals, don't you think that it would be worth it? Look into the eyes of a 9-11 victim's loved ones and tell them "Your husband could have lived, but we didn't want to infringe on some suspicious guys privacy, because God forbid we offend some one!"



Here's a rather obvious fact but I'll spell it out in really big and easy-to-read letters for you:

No War is almost always better than War. Also, Bush has f*cked our country up so much, that we will not likely be a superpower for much longer. Also, I'm sure that you would approve of Bush monitoring you, your friends, and you family's: phones, cell phones, computers, e-mails, rooms, purchases, whereabouts, searching your house and taking things without telling you/ getting a warrant, knowing where you are at all times, recording all of your phone calls/ text messages/ letters/ etc., or having federal agents keeping tabs on you 24/7, after all, they could connect the dots on some big terrorist plot and your rights of privacy are trivial.

Oh, let's not forget that Bush can indefinately detain anyone without trial wherever he so chooses. I think that Siberia might match your intellect.

Just a nit pick. The Repub party of today is vastely different then Lincolns time so linking the two is not exactly right.Using a war to justify cutting civil liberties? It's the same where it counts

Bushevik, please. I asked for certified proof in the Government Findings category. Not testimonials from a nameless "anyone in the military" that sounds like Joe McCarthy bullshit.



You're the one who needs the No-Doze Corny. You're blaming Carter for tragedy that was a result of poor insufficient intelligence. Sound familiar Bushevik? That's the same reason you give for Shrub being not held accountable for the WMD Lie. Except in the case of Operation Eagle Claw (http://www.specwarnet.com/miscinfo/eagleclaw.htm), it was true.
Corny has professed that he has a family member in every single line of work in the country, and not only that, they're all experts, and so is he since he's a student and he's done lots of "studying".
:rolleyes:
That alone is a withdrawl from rational conversation about anything unless you just like to hear someone add to the din while providing NO substance whatsoever.

God forbid we offend some one!"
Keep up the yawningly imbeciling posts and you'll really regret having posted this.
The other bilge wasn't even worth reprinting in a post with my name on it.

THis is pure unadultered bullshit. I suggest you actually go back and read up on this a tad more before spouting bs. My father would have something to say about this as does the military.

You can tell your father for me that the military fucked up. Not him. Not his friend. The military. The 'brass' as they're called.

And guess what? Carter decided to do something else and killed people in the process, including a friend of my father's.

Yes. Not because of Carter, but because of the asshole who thought that you wouldn't need to put sand filters over the air intakes on jet engines that have a nasty tendoncy of shutting off when sand gets in them.

If something happened like that, today, I'd bet you'd be yelling very loudly for the Marines to go storming in. In the exact same way as Carter wanted to. Or maybe you'd prefer that we give in to the demands being made on us?

No, I am not a homophobe, I just understand the sanctity of marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN.

The sanctity of marriage. What sanctity?

Oh, and tell me how homosexual marriage could possibly affect any marriage you're in. If you can. I mean, unless you or your significant other is a closet homosexual (entirely plausible, given how out-spoken you seem to be about it)....

I'd also love to hear your reasoning for why we should put an amendment that explicitly takes away the rights of the People, in complete contradiction to every other amendment which either limits the governments' rights or grants more to the People.

And no, Judicial Conservatives interpret the law as they are supposed to.

Er... no. Judicial Conservatives interpret the law as they see fit. Just as every other justice has done, does, and will continue to do.

If you think that there's something magical about the word 'conservative' that makes them pure and uncorruptable, then you're either incredibly stupid (and biased) or incredibly naive.

And Bush OPPOSES Tax payer funded abortions.

He also opposes allowing the single mothers who are forced to raise those children alone to draw on welfare. Being conservative means caring about a child... until it's born.

Right after WWII, Japan had a population crisis. They, like every other nation on earth that survived that war, went into a baby boom. Because of Japan's then shitty economy, abortion was supported by the Japanese tax payers. Thanks to that, Japan's economy recovered much faster than it otherwise would have. I also believe that that legislation passed during the occupation, but I'm not entirely sure....

There is no hypocrisy here, you just to ignorant and narrow mindidly biased.

Of course. You reek of it. You're smelling yourself.

Oh, and tell me how homosexual marriage could possibly affect any marriage you're in. If you can. I mean, unless you or your significant other is a closet homosexual (entirely plausible, given how out-spoken you seem to be about it)....

I'd also love to hear your reasoning for why we should put an amendment that explicitly takes away the rights of the People, in complete contradiction to every other amendment which either limits the governments' rights or grants more to the People.

Busheviks and Fundies all seem to believe there's a Homosexual Virus that's present in all homosexuals that can be spread by bodily contact and turns God-fearing White Anglo-Saxon Protestant men and women into Hellbound Flaming Fags and that allowing them to marry would result in a Dawn of the Gay where homosexuals infect every straight people they can touch.

The sanctity of marriage. What sanctity?

Oh, and tell me how homosexual marriage could possibly affect any marriage you're in. If you can. I mean, unless you or your significant other is a closet homosexual (entirely plausible, given how out-spoken you seem to be about it)....

I'd also love to hear your reasoning for why we should put an amendment that explicitly takes away the rights of the People, in complete contradiction to every other amendment which either limits the governments' rights or grants more to the People.
(If i may ....)
What i think he's getting at is that he's demonstrating an ACCEPTABLE case of JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, something he says clearly that is good that the president isn't in support of. :rolleyes:

and where were your precious democrats when this intelligence came out?
They sure as hell weren't in charge of the media, so where do you think they were? FauX "News"?
You're guilty of EXACTLY what you're bitching about here. There were plenty of instances of intelligence that contradicted the administration's agenda, ALL ALONG, but it's been drawn out over an amount of time given investigations and administrative media timing-rigging so that it lessens the blow.
I implore an example:
What EXACTLY was happening with the administration during Michael Jackson's trial coverage?
Hmmm?
Bet you don't know. Go ahead and look it up and make us all the wiser.

I haven't been able to catch up on every post of this thread (I had to stop at page 14), so I am sorry if I end up repeating anything that has been said before.

While I hope very strongly that Bush has used the very best of intentions in all that he has done and chosen (even if they have proven to be unwise) nevertheless, I would like to offer some thoughts.

1) Someone said earlier that if you have nothing to hide then there should be no fear of it being known. If this is the case, then why was the administration afraid of letting FISA perform their oversight duties? It is a secret court so national security would not be threatened using it. Also, the 72 or 75 hour grace period provided by it allows for the immediate emergency spying that one may feel necessary before they report it. The reporting is to be there to prove that all was done for the right reasons.

2) The importance of oversight to me is so that people cannot accuse you dishonesty. I like to use the metaphor of a bank teller. A bank teller is hired for their honesty yet no single bank teller is allowed in the vault without another present. That way, if something did happen, each bank teller can witness for each other that neither is responsible for whatever happened.

3) If a precendent is set or accepted that a president secretly spy without any oversight to verify the proper use of the spying, then how would the more conversative citizens of this nation feel if an extreme socialist was someday elected (people have been known to cover up their true characters for elections) and then spying was secretly used to undermine the democracy and capitalist society that America has created for itself? Imagine all the fighting during the Cold War being for nothing?

4) We must all remember that we are human and falliable and therefore laws are necessary to create boundaries of behavior to minimize our falliablities so that they do not impinge on others or worse hurt others. Leaders, as the ultimate role models of society, must behave to an even higher standard. That is why I was personally unhappy that Clinton was able to get off so scot free from lying under oath (even though the whole situation itself was ridiculous to me). As a result, if a leader goes out of his or her way to bypass, ignore, or deliberately break a law, then society's whole fabric of law is threatened.

5) I just want to say, as an independent, that I am tired of all the lemming talk. Too many Conservatives on the news shows say things like, "Clinton did it, Reagan did it", or any some such. Or with the lobbying, "well the Democrats do it too." Morals and honor have always been very important to me, and no one else's wrong should ever justify another's.

Either way, despite that Bush has admitted to his actions, everyone is entitled to be considered innocent until proven guilty. The law is very important to me if you hadn't figured that out already.

Thank you very much for letting me add my two cents in to the matter. :)

I dislike Cheney and the neo-con element.. but I believe Bush should be impeached for this offense. Its a Constitutional ammendment for crying out loud. To hell if Cheney assumes control. The Constitution is very clear about this.

I haven't been able to catch up on every post of this thread (I had to stop at page 14), so I am sorry if I end up repeating anything that has been said before.

While I hope very strongly that Bush has used the very best of intentions in all that he has done and chosen (even if they have proven to be unwise) nevertheless, I would like to offer some thoughts.

1) Someone said earlier that if you have nothing to hide then there should be no fear of it being known. If this is the case, then why was the administration afraid of letting FISA perform their oversight duties? It is a secret court so national security would not be threatened using it. Also, the 72 or 75 hour grace period provided by it allows for the immediate emergency spying that one may feel necessary before they report it. The reporting is to be there to prove that all was done for the right reasons.

2) The importance of oversight to me is so that people cannot accuse you dishonesty. I like to use the metaphor of a bank teller. A bank teller is hired for their honesty yet no single bank teller is allowed in the vault without another present. That way, if something did happen, each bank teller can witness for each other that neither is responsible for whatever happened.

3) If a precendent is set or accepted that a president secretly spy without any oversight to verify the proper use of the spying, then how would the more conversative citizens of this nation feel if an extreme socialist was someday elected (people have been known to cover up their true characters for elections) and then spying was secretly used to undermine the democracy and capitalist society that America has created for itself? Imagine all the fighting during the Cold War being for nothing?

4) We must all remember that we are human and falliable and therefore laws are necessary to create boundaries of behavior to minimize our falliablities so that they do not impinge on others or worse hurt others. Leaders, as the ultimate role models of society, must behave to an even higher standard. That is why I was personally unhappy that Clinton was able to get off so scot free from lying under oath (even though the whole situation itself was ridiculous to me). As a result, if a leader goes out of his or her way to bypass, ignore, or deliberately break a law, then society's whole fabric of law is threatened.

5) I just want to say, as an independent, that I am tired of all the lemming talk. Too many Conservatives on the news shows say things like, "Clinton did it, Reagan did it", or any some such. Or with the lobbying, "well the Democrats do it too." Morals and honor have always been very important to me, and no one else's wrong should ever justify another's.

Either way, despite that Bush has admitted to his actions, everyone is entitled to be considered innocent until proven guilty. The law is very important to me if you hadn't figured that out already.

Thank you very much for letting me add my two cents in to the matter. :)
If I may give props,
Gymoor II The Return
has a good thread along these lines, it might be worth your while to peruse it.

Good post. *bows*

Well, i did have this on another thread, but it's definitely pertinent.

*ahem*

Jan. 11, 2006, 11:34PM
President welcomes wiretap hearings
Bush repeats his anti-terror reasons for surveillance


By DAVID E. SANGER
New York Times

LOUISVILLE, KY. - President Bush said Wednesday that he would welcome a congressional investigation of whether he had the authority to order the National Security Agency to monitor communications in the United States without warrants.

Until now, the White House had opposed public hearings, which are scheduled to begin next month in the Senate. (Like HOW MANY other investigations they were against ....)

But on Wednesday, answering questions from a friendly crowd in Louisville in a conference center decorated with signs that said "Winning the War on Terror," Bush appeared ready to make the best of a political necessity.

In his campaign-style meeting, he was repeatedly applauded for authorizing the wiretaps, a decision that some of his political aides said they believed would ultimately help rebuild his approval ratings by demonstrating the lengths to which he will go to prevent another terrorist attack inside the United States.

Asked whether his administration was going to "go after the media" for revealing operations like the domestic wiretapping, Bush sidestepped the question of the leak itself and instead defended his decision to authorize the surveillance.

"I did so because the enemy still wants to hurt us," he said. "And it seems like to me that if somebody is talking to al-Qaida, we want to know why."

Bush's order enabled the NSA to monitor the international phone calls and e-mail of people inside the United States suspected of links to al-Qaida terrorists.

Singling out Americans and others in the United States for such surveillance would normally require a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, although the act also allows the attorney general to authorize a wiretap if it is reported to the court within 72 hours for retroactive approval.

"Now, I — look, I understand people's concerns about government eavesdropping," Bush said. "And I share those concerns, as well. So obviously I had to make the difficult decision between balancing civil liberties and, on a limited basis — and I mean limited basis — try to find out the intention of the enemy."

The president never directly addressed the question of why he avoided the existing system, although his legal advisers and intelligence aides have said it was too cumbersome.

"There will be a lot of hearings to talk about that, but that's good for democracy," Bush said. "Just so long as the hearings, as they explore whether or not I had the prerogative to make the decision I made, doesn't tell the enemy what we're doing. See, that's the danger." :rolleyes: (...just so long as I'm the dictator ...)

Bush said key members of Congress had been briefed on the program years ago and "we gave them a chance to express their disapproval or approval."

The president's statement that he was willing to see public hearings go forward marked a change from his stance just before Christmas.

At that time, he said: "Any public hearings on programs will say to the enemy, 'Here's what they do — adjust.' "

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has scheduled open hearings, and the Senate Intelligence Committee has said it plans closed hearings.

The president's legal justification for the NSA program has gotten mixed legal reviews, ranging from enthusiastic to skeptical to scathing, including one from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service that questioned the reasoning offered by Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the Department of Justice.

This week, Rep. Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, released a 14-page legal analysis she had requested from a former CIA general counsel, Jeffrey Smith.

Although recognizing the president's assertion that his power as commander in chief justifies warrantless surveillance, Smith called that case "weak" in light of the language and documented purpose of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which requires warrants.

I would say yes, but if he was then cheney would be presedent and thats probably worse.

there are really only a couple reasonable alternatives at this point:

1) impeachment of the entire administration followed by sending some of them off to the icc and the rest to face trial here (along with some of their significant allies in the legislative branch).


2)
http://img281.imageshack.us/img281/6378/mussolini2ks.jpg

How about impeaching the lot of them, and then sending them to the Guantanamo Bay "facility" for an indefinite time? I know it won't quite be justice, since they'll have had due process first, but I figure the conditions in that place should be a real chance for some re-education of their sense of compassion.

Or maybe they could be sent on "extraordinary rendition" somewhere. Let's see now, maybe Iran?

I thought he stopped using cocaine. :p

I doubt it, unless he's discovered crack.

Should President Bush be Impeached?
By Michelle Goldberg


Now that's an annoying question, Michelle.
(Glad she didn't post it anonymously.)

Constitunionals better watch their step, though ... :

http://news.com.com/2102-1028_3-6022491.html?tag=st.util.print

I dislike Cheney and the neo-con element.. but I believe Bush should be impeached for this offense. Its a Constitutional ammendment for crying out loud. To hell if Cheney assumes control. The Constitution is very clear about this.

I believe impeachment is in Article 2 of the Constitution and is not an amendment.

And if you read up on how impeachment is done, you would know that it would require a special prosecutor to investigate. So far, that hasn't happened.

I would say yes, but if he was then cheney would be presedent and thats probably worse.

To be technical, impeachment is done in the House. Conviction and removal is done in the Senate.

Now that's an annoying question, Michelle.
(Glad she didn't post it anonymously.)

Constitunionals better watch their step, though ... :

http://news.com.com/2102-1028_3-6022491.html?tag=st.util.print

This happens all the time in General :D

Why should he be impeached? only wrong-doers need be worried when surveyed...

So may we assume you never lick the flaps on envelopes when you send mail or better yet, you only use postcards? And when you have sex, it's always open air? Your bathroom is enclosed in glass? And you have a loudspeaker attached to your phone line and broadcasting on the street, for those awkward moments when the phone tap has a glitch?

It's called "privacy". I'm sure you've heard of it, even if President Weed hasn't. I have yet to see why we should be made to submit to the presumption of surveillance conducted against all the relevant laws of the land.

It sounds as though you might not know it, so I'll tell you: we have laws in the USA forbidding such things as wire-tapping without specific court permission being given after a case has been made to a judge in order to prove there is just cause to over-ride the law in that individual instance. Similarly, mail is not supposed to interfered with unless a similar case can be made. These are federal laws and carry with them penalties that include penitentiary time. These are the laws Prez Weed has broken. Presidential authority does not allow him to sweep the law aside in the way he's done. At the very least, there is a case for making him prove there was reasonable cause to have violated the civil rights of so many people.

On top of that, a primary Constitutionally-imposed duty of a president is to protect the Constitution. Over-riding the Constitution by brushing it aside raises questions about his fitness to continue being president. It could be seen as an act of treason. The way to decide is an impeachment trial, but I'd agree that it's time to consider amending the Constitution so that such trials would be more independent of party politics. The days of people voting against their own partisan interests if it was the right thing to do are gone (if they ever existed).

Impeach the Weed!

i'm 100% pro impeachment. I kind of wish cheney would hurry up and have a heart attack or something too. clinton was impeached for less than this doucheface .-.

i'm 100% pro impeachment. I kind of wish cheney would hurry up and have a heart attack or something too. clinton was impeached for less than this doucheface .-.

Clinton lied under oath during an investigation. That was what he was impeached on.

Clinton lied under oath during an investigation. That was what he was impeached on.


Yes.

He lied about getting head from a fat girl, in the oval office.

Bush has broken the law, by illegally tapping phones without a warrant.

Wich one is the more severe crime?


Also, I might add, the only reason Bush has recieved the same treatment, is becuase he refuses to testify under oath.

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

Oh dear! FreedUtopia, you're wasting your time. The man has just said he's a 10 year vet of the USMC. He's long past the stage where reasoning will work. To remind you, a Marine is someone who has gotten past the urge to think for himself. "Thinking" is why he has a chain of command over him. Do not ask a Marine to step out of the chain of command.

And as more than one buddy has said to me, "you're never an ex-Marine.

Cygnus A, full props to you if you really are a Marine and that's not just part of your NS persona, but after 10 years in the Corps I wouldn't expect you to regard the word "privacy" or the concept of Constitutional rights as higher than the chain of command. I respect your dogged loyalty, but I respectfully suggest you keep in mind that loyalty can be betrayed. Setting aside the mad dogs of both extremes who just like having a pit-fight, some people here are seriously concerned that our President has betrayed the loyalty of the country by repeatedly abusing his position and by forgetting that his authority is given to him to serve, not to subjugate.

"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.

Basically, it means that citizens' rights are not restricted only to those rights mentioned in the Constitution. The original spirit of the document is more along the lines of a tendency to default rights to citizens rather than away from them, as was the case in Britain at that time (and still, to a large extent, now).

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

The Supreme Court interprets it that way, and the various laws that ocasionally have been referred to in this thread are based on it. The laws requiring court orders for wire-tapping, for example, were enacted to apply the Constitutional Bill of Rights to the then "new technology" of telephony.

Why should he be impeached? only wrong-doers need be worried when surveyed...

Then Bush shouldn't worry about an inpeachment investigation...if he's done nothing wrong.

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.

Please. If they still voted for him after the big steamy pile of bullshit called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" then nothing will stop these people for voting for what you refer to as Bush's type. Makes me ashamed to call myself an American.

So where's the investigation at? Until there's an investigation he can't be guilty of anything. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! Does that mean anything to anyone anymore?

Just following president Dubya's lead. He obviously doesn't apply it to the people he's incarcerated without trial, without hearing, and without due process, in Guantanamo. And he wasn't even thinking about it when he decided to invade Iraq for 9/11 even though they didn't do it, and then he decided to keep on invading Iraq even when he couldn't pretend anymore that they did.


"He who lives by the sword will die by the sword."