NationStates Jolt Archive

The time is nearing, only 2.5 years to go. Who do people think should be the next American President?

I want to be the first to nominate Eutrusca...

Me.

chuck norris

i have no idea

it would be quite good to have a black presedent

or a female one

i haven't seen either of those

are they banned?

Samuel L Jackson, motherfucker.

i have no idea

it would be quite good to have a black presedent

or a female one

i haven't seen either of those

are they banned?
what about a black woman

i have no idea

it would be quite good to have a black presedent

or a female one

i haven't seen either of those

are they banned?

Condy Rice; but she says she won't run.

As for me, Bill Frist.

oprah

oprah

That was Michael Moore's choice in 'Stupid White Men'.

President Jeb Bush 2008.

Howard the Duck.

That was Michael Moore's choice in 'Stupid White Men'.

Well, Michael Moore then.

*shudders*

Well, Michael Moore then.

hear hear

Condy Rice; but she says she won't run.

As for me, Bill Frist.
I was all for Bill Frist (after all, he's from my state), until his views on illegal immigration. Now I have no idea who I'll vote for in the next election.

i hate michael moore

Some sanity at last.

Some sanity at last.
that is the nicesest thing i have ever heard

i don't think we should have a president

i don't think we should have a president

Go on...

Christopher Walken!

http://www.walkenforpres.com/

i hate michael moore

as an australian with no interest in american politics, i say michael moore simply because i liked bowling for columbine.
i really am very ignorant of anything else.

Remember the Charlton Heston interview; that was heavily edited (watch the clock in the background).

Also when Heston said 'from my cold dead hands'; that was not in Denver (watch his tie color change).

Also Heston, did not go to the site of the Michigan shooting after it; it was nine months before.

Also the NRA couldn't not go to Denver, because as a NY based organization, they have to have one meeting a year and the location cannot be changed.

Remember the Charlton Heston interview; that was heavily edited (watch the clock in the background).

Also when Heston said 'from my cold dead hands'; that was not in Denver (watch his tie color change).

Also Heston, did not go to the site of the Michigan shooting after it; it was nine months before.

Also the NRA couldn't not go to Denver, because as a NY based organization, they have to have one meeting a year and the location cannot be changed.

So, he's a liar and a manipulater of the facts then?

Sounds perfect for politics if you ask me.

Ugh...looking at the poll options makes me want to vomit in terror.

If Russ Feingold makes it past the primaries, he's got my vote...otherwise I'm voting for the Libertarian candidate.

Remember the Charlton Heston interview; that was heavily edited (watch the clock in the background).

Also when Heston said 'from my cold dead hands'; that was not in Denver (watch his tie color change).

Also Heston, did not go to the site of the Michigan shooting after it; it was nine months before.

Also the NRA couldn't not go to Denver, because as a NY based organization, they have to have one meeting a year and the location cannot be changed.

hmmmm i shall have to watch it again.

So, he's a liar and a manipulater of the facts then?

Sounds perfect for politics if you ask me.

the ultimate leader
the people won't even know they're being screwed

hmmmm i shall have to watch it again.



the ultimate leader
the people won't even know they're being screwed
lying is what our government was built on

lying is what our government was built on

and ours is nobly following the example

Christopher Walken!

http://www.walkenforpres.com/
i agree christopher walking all the way

John McCain for Prez + Obama for VP.

hmmmm i shall have to watch it again.



the ultimate leader
the people won't even know they're being screwed

The second time I watched was with the book, 'Michael Moore is a big fat stupid white man'.

Also when Moore decided to have a special screening of Bowling for Columbine for the survivors and grieving parents. He charged them an admission fee. Of course Moore's response to people who question his wealth: 'there just pissed they're not sitting in this apartment' (the apartment being one worth $1,900,000 in Manhattan.

The Lockheed Martin plant near Columbine builds satellite carriers not weapons and in fact converts former Titan II missile launchers into the aforementioned satellite carriers.

The second time I watched was with the book, 'Michael Moore is a big fat stupid white man'.

Also when Moore decided to have a special screening of Bowling for Columbine for the survivors and grieving parents. He charged them an admission fee. Of course Moore's response to people who question his wealth: 'there just pissed they're not sitting in this apartment' (the apartment being one worth $1,900,000 in Manhattan.


Well, screwing 'em like that still makes him a much better man than Shrub.

and ours is nobly following the example
fuck u

fuck u

You are being reprehensible.
If you are lucky he won't report you.

You are being reprehensible.
If you are lucky he won't report you.
for one what does reprehensible mean
two dont care if he wants to he can report me it won't hurt my feelings

Queen Elizabeth the second.

With GWB2. it's been made clear you can't take care of yourselves ;)

for one what does reprehensible two dont care if he wants to he can report me it won't hurt my feelings

It could mean you get banned.
No effing around - nor any public recitation of Vogon poetry around here.
Understood?

It could mean you get banned.
No effing around - nor any public recitation of Vogon poetry around here.
Understood?if you are going to report me do already understood?

It could mean you get banned.
No effing around - nor any public recitation of Vogon poetry around here.
Understood?if you are going to report me do already understood?

It could mean you get banned.
No effing around - nor any public recitation of Vogon poetry around here.
Understood?if you are going to report me do already understood?

if you are going to report me do already understood?

You didn't say the F word to me.
*shrug*
Now, watch the poetry - please.

Queen Elizabeth the second.

With GWB2. it's been made clear you can't take care of yourselves ;)

I thought we settled this back in 1776

Incidentally

It's George Herbert Walker Bush and his son George Walker Bush, so there's no GWB II

I thought we settled this back in 1776

Save your Imperial money, the Empar will rise again.
Salud!

:p

You didn't say the F word to me.
*shrug*
Now, watch the poetry - please.

then shut up about it
please

That was Michael Moore's choice in 'Stupid White Men'.
LOLOLOLOLOL

In fact it may have been 'Dude where's my country', I'm checking now.

It is 'dude where's my country'.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: (to Michael Moore) 'DUDE WHERE'S YOUR INTEGRITY?'

Incidentally

It's George Herbert Walker Bush and his son George Walker Bush, so there's no GWB II

He'll always be 'junior' to me.

Or asshole. But junior is at least as demeaning and much less provocative. :)

Who do I think should be President? Definitely not me. I wouldn't last a month. But what a month it would be! :D

Right now, I can't think of a single republican or democratic candidate that is likely to run and I'd be likely to vote for. Right now, unless I'm surprised with a candidate like Colin Powell or Jesse Ventura, I will have to assume that any major party candidate is going to be a slimy prick that I would never vote for.

But then again, as I have voted for neither a Republican nor a Democrat in any previous election, I am not in the least surprised. :)

I've always voted GOP.

I've always voted GOP.

I don't vote for political parties. I vote for qualified individuals. So far, they have been mutually exclusive. :)

I don't vote for political parties. I vote for qualified individuals. So far, they have been mutually exclusive. :)
christopher walking dang it

So you'd want just a decent guy/gal?

None of the above. Everyone in that list is only interested in their own personal gain. I'll vote for the Libertarian candidate.

christopher walking

The people who made the list were the people who got the biggest response in nationwide polls.

Libertarian Party
Actively pursuing or interested in candidacy

Lance Brown, Libertarian activist; candidacy announced in 1994.
George Phillies, Libertarian activist, physics professor; 1996 candidate for U.S. Senate, 1998 candidate for U.S. House, from Massachusetts
Potential candidates

Michael Badnarik, 2004 Libertarian Party Presidential nominee, 2006 Congressional candidate for the Texas 10th district near Austin.
Karen Kwiatkowski, Lt. Col, USAF, Ret.
Gary Nolan, Radio host and 2004 Libertarian Party Presidential candidate.
Mary Ruwart, pharmaceutical scientist and author, Libertarian Party 1984 Presidential and 1992 Vice-Presidential candidate, and a candidate from Texas for the U.S. Senate in 2000

The people who made the list were the people who got the biggest response in nationwide polls.

Libertarian Party
Actively pursuing or interested in candidacy

Lance Brown, Libertarian activist; candidacy announced in 1994.
George Phillies, Libertarian activist, physics professor; 1996 candidate for U.S. Senate, 1998 candidate for U.S. House, from Massachusetts
Potential candidates

Michael Badnarik, 2004 Libertarian Party Presidential nominee, 2006 Congressional candidate for the Texas 10th district near Austin.
Karen Kwiatkowski, Lt. Col, USAF, Ret.
Gary Nolan, Radio host and 2004 Libertarian Party Presidential candidate.
Mary Ruwart, pharmaceutical scientist and author, Libertarian Party 1984 Presidential and 1992 Vice-Presidential candidate, and a candidate from Texas for the U.S. Senate in 2000


you know this how

That guy from The West Wing.

you know this how
:upyours: ur such a fag oprah and chuck would suck
u need a life bitch

It must be summer, the n00bs are about.

I would be the best prez for the U.S.:)

stay on topic

stay on topic
what do you mean

That guy from The West Wing.

I think it was Ann Coulter who said he's the only Democrat who's going to be in the Oval Office for quite a while.

I would be the best prez for the U.S.:)



your such a noob

It must be summer, the n00bs are about.

Not so long ago...Join Date: Jun 2005

So you'd want just a decent guy/gal?

Well, over the years as I have grown more cynical about politics, my standards have gone down significantly.

I'll settle for a corporate puppet with hard to see strings.

In that sense, Reagan and Clinton were far better presidents than either Bush. The control of their corporate masters wasn't out in plain sight. :p

your such a noob

You never know, 'mike and hannah' might be posting that from his office in the Senate Hart Office Building.

Not so long ago...Join Date: Jun 2005
Jun 2006, ie today. Otherwise they're an ultra lurker, who broke their cover for no real reason. :p

You never know, 'mike and hannah' might be posting that from his office in the Senate Hart Office Building.

no he is my friend he hasn't had that name for more than an hour

Worth a shot...

no he is my friend he hasn't had that name for more than an hour
Thanks for making my name for me, My last Nation States Name got canceled because I didnt get on it enough but it was almost at the top of the world!

But now I havent been on here in about a year so...What do you expect

But lets get back to teh topic now and I would just like to say that maybe a Female, or Afriacan American President would be good for the U.S.!

Thanks for making my name for me, My last Nation States Name got canceled because I didnt get on it enough but it was almost at the top of the world!

But now I havent been on here in about a year so...What do you expect

But lets get back to teh topic now and I would just like to say that maybe a Female, or Afriacan American President would be good for the U.S.!


that is why i said oprah she is both

that is why i said oprah she is both
Of course, That is a very reasonable person for President!, Many think she is powerful, Plus she would already have enough publicity to do it. All she needs is to run for president then tell about it on her show and she would have millions of votes from just the airing of the show.

exactly

I think Vagonsphere should be President, If he were old enough i mean!

35 is the age, isnt it, if so I really think Mr. Rodney Davis should run in a couple of years!

Been there done that, we couldn't decide between Condy Rice and Oprah Winfrey.

Go Rodney

Been there done that, we couldn't decide between Condy Rice and Oprah Winfrey.
GOOD POINT

i'm sticking with christopher walking

i'm sticking with christopher walking
NO!!! I do not see how that would help the U.S.A. I do think he is worse than Bush, And people worse than Bush are EXTREMELY hard to come by!

Walken

NO!!! I do not see how that would help the U.S.A. I do think he is worse than Bush, And people worse than Bush are EXTREMELY hard to come by!

BUSH IS GREAT

Ok so if you are going to run Oprah, then you need to run Dr Phil against her. If you are going to run Michael Moore you need to run Rush Limbaugh against him. :p

In a straw poll on AOL, McCain soundly beat Hillary, hey even Gore beat Hillary and then Dems were all over themselves trying to explain that one.

For my part I dont' like any of these, but Newt or McCain as the lesser of evils I guess. Frist no way, he blew it on Schiavo. None of them are great imo. But sadly great may be a thing of the past.

Christopher Walken might be the most fun...lol.

BUSH IS GREAT

*waits for the punchline*

The time is nearing, only 2.5 years to go. Who do people think should be the next American President?

Letila.

Why?

Shits and giggles.

No punchline, I voted George W Bush four times.

*waits for the punchline*
:D ^Thats^ good enough.

Seriously though, maybe we should vote for Bush?!?!?!

No punchline, I voted George W Bush four times.

It takes a lot of courage to admit that. Acknowledging that you have a problem is the first step to getting well. :)

http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/kaercher/kaercher2.html

One of the reasons I didn't vote John Kerry was because he was a lawyer; same with Edwards, I mean you've got to have some nerve suing doctors for millions and then writing healthcare reform.

One of the reasons I didn't vote John Kerry was because he was a lawyer; same with Edwards

I didn't vote for John Kerry because he was the Democratic version of George W. Bush. :p

And his wife...miserable $£%@%$@

Ugh...the poll sucks. None of those people deserves to be in politics, much less president.

I'll say Ralph Nader.

Ugh...the poll sucks. None of those people deserves to be in politics, much less president.

I'll say Ralph Nader.

I like Ralph Nader. I voted for him twice. There's just one thing I'd like to see him do:

Smile. Just to prove to me he can. Not too long, I suspect his smile would creep the hell out of me. But I just want proof that he is, in fact, capable of emotion. :p

bush is a lying cheating prick and kerry is well not much better

Ugh...the poll sucks. None of those people deserves to be in politics, much less president.

I'll say Ralph Nader.

The people on the poll came in top on a nationwide poll.

and i hate Dr.Phil

bush is a lying cheating prick

Justify.

The people on the poll came in top on a nationwide poll.Oh, I know, I wasn't saying that the person who made the poll was wrong for picking them, but rather that the people picked are unpalatable.

and i hate Dr.Phil

LOL, of course he would tell you to 'own' that emotion. Hate is very self defeating emotion.

I don't like Oprah.:p

it is true

i would choose a dead puppy over Bush

Newt Gingrich was one of the top choices in a poll?!? :eek:

Has America already forgotten what a triple-decker scumbag he was?!?

LOL, of course he would tell you to 'own' that emotion. Hate is very self defeating emotion.

I don't like Oprah.:p
Fuck you

Oprah would be an excellent president.

Go fuck yourslef with a broom stick, up your ass bitch!!
:upyours:

I'd like either Russ Feingold (if he get's the vote), Al Gore, or I'm voting Green.

i guess so

i like al gore

Newt Gingrich was one of the top choices in a poll?!? :eek:

Has America already forgotten what a triple-decker scumbag he was?!?

Newt Gingrich 8%

I'd like either Russ Feingold (if he get's the vote), Al Gore, or I'm voting Green.

Feingold's a nutcase; he wants to impeach Bush.

Feingold's a nutcase; he wants to impeach Bush.

Which, considering that President has violated the Constitution and the law during the course of his presidency, is normally considered to be the sane and rational choice.

I think all this talk is way overblown (in the words of James Baker).

Feingold's a nutcase; he wants to impeach Bush.
if he wanted to impeach bush he is smart enough run for president

Feingold's a nutcase; he wants to impeach Bush.Why wouldn't he want to impeach Bush? Bush should be impeached.

Bush should get impeached

Bush is just doing his job; if you're not some crackpot al-Qaeda operative, you've nothing to fear.

[QUOTE=The State of Georgia]Bush is just doing his job;

yeah his job he couldn't be president for five minutes without going to war
'

Bush is just doing his job; if you're not some crackpot al-Qaeda operative, you've nothing to fear.

Doubleplus good, Mr O'Brian.

Hillary Clinton or Ale Gore I suppose, leaning more towards Gore, but I know him running for president is unlikely. If not these 2 quite possibly John Kerry?

Bush is just doing his job; if you're not some crackpot al-Qaeda operative, you've nothing to fear.His violations of the law and of the Constitution aren't things to fear?

How has he violated the Constitution?

Fuck you

Oprah would be an excellent president.

Go fuck yourslef with a broom stick, up your ass bitch!!
:upyours:

Tsk tsk all that anger. DP would have a load of fun with you!! So would Oprah for that matter.

Bush is just doing his job; if you're not some crackpot al-Qaeda operative, you've nothing to fear.

But of course, we can't see proof that we have nothing to fear because the proof is classified. So rather than having a system of checks and balances to protect us from government misuse of power, we'll just have to trust everything Bush says and nod obediently. Because presidential administrations never engage in improper activities. :)

How has he violated the Constitution?

you don't know

Bill Clinton should have classified his dick.

Bush is just doing his job; if you're not some crackpot al-Qaeda operative, you've nothing to fear.

You do realize where that argument comes from, right?

Everyone has something to fear from the degradation of Constitutional rights, the increasing imbalance in the "balance of powers", and the gradual devaluing of personal rights that this President has practiced.

Well, Michael Moore then.

Because what America needs is another four years of pompous, rich, white guy, who doesn't mind bending the facts to support his position.

And, that would be different than now, how?

How has he violated the Constitution?


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

How has he violated the Constitution?

He authorized wiretaps without warrants.

<Deleted because LG posted the 4th Amendment already.>

Bill Clinton should have classified his dick.

Monica had clearance. :)

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

Because what America needs is another four years of pompous, rich, white guy, who doesn't mind bending the facts to support his position.


That is Michael Moore.

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

It is always upon probable cause.

That is Michael Moore.

That is politicians. They may as well be clones of one another.

It is always upon probable cause.

Keep telling yourself that

It is always upon probable cause.

Read it again. Basic reading comprehension reveals that it says "No warrants shall be issued without probable cause". If no warrants are issued, there certainly is no probable cause involved.

Keep telling yourself that

I can't say anything else, my phone has been wire tapped. :p

It is always upon probable cause.
Even if there is probable cause to do the wiretapping, the warrants weren't issued to do it; ergo, it is a violation of the Constitution.

Read it again. Basic reading comprehension reveals that it says "No warrants shall be issued without probable cause". If no warrants are issued, there certainly is no probable cause involved.

Technically the USA PATRIOT Act is one giant warrant.

Technically the USA PATRIOT Act is one giant warrant.

It wasn't issued by a member of the judicial branch, so it isn't a valid one.

Nor has it been overturned by a member of the Judicial Branch.

Legal status
Telephone tapping is officially strictly controlled in many countries to safeguard an individual's privacy; this is the case in all developed democracies. In theory, telephone tapping often needs to be authorised by a court, and is, again in theory, normally only approved when evidence shows it is not possible to detect criminal or subversive activity in less intrusive ways; often the law and regulations require that the crime investigated must be at least of a certain severity. In many jurisdictions however, permission for telephone tapping is easily obtained on a routine basis without further investigation by the court or other entity granting such permission. Illegal or unauthorised telephone tapping is often a criminal offence. However, in certain jurisdictions such as Germany, courts will accept illegally recorded phone calls without the other party's consent as evidence.

In the United States, federal agencies may be authorized to engage in wiretaps by the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a court with secret proceedings, in certain circumstances.

Under United States federal law and most state laws there is nothing illegal about one of the parties to a telephone call recording the conversation, or giving permission for calls to be recorded or permitting their telephone line to be tapped. However, several states (i.e., California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington) require that all parties consent when one party wants to record a telephone conversation. Michigan has a similar rule: anyone who is a party to the conversation can record it himself, but a third party wishing to record the call must get the permission of all parties to the conversation.

Many businesses and other organizations record their telephone calls so that they can prove what was said, train their staff, or monitor performance. This activity may not be considered telephone tapping in some, but not all, jurisdictions because it is done with the knowledge of at least one of the parties to the telephone conversation. It is considered better practice to announce at the beginning of a call that the conversation is being recorded.

Year Modified requests
2000 1 request modified
2001 2 requests modified
2002 2 requests modified (both modifications later reversed)
2003 79 requests modified (out of 1724 granted)
2004 94 requests modified (out of 1758)

Nor has it been overturned by a member of the Judicial Branch.

That's not the way a warrant works. A warrant has to be issued by a member of the judcial branch. The "PATRIOT" act was passed by the legislative branch, and is therefore not a warrant at all.

See above.

See above.

What about the above? It doesn't disproove what I posted. Hell, it's barely even relevant to the discussion at hand. We all know how the legal system works (except for those of us who don't know how a warrant is issued, apparently).

The warrants are apparently issued by this US Federal Court that holds secret hearings.

The warrants are apparently issued by this US Federal Court that holds secret hearings.

No, they aren't. If that was happening then it wouldn't be an issue, but they aren't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy


The NSA warrantless surveillance controversy is a dispute about an eavesdropping and data mining program carried out by the National Security Agency (NSA) that the administration now refers to as the Terrorist Surveillance Program, and that conducts surveillance on international and domestic phone calls, without F.I.S.A. court authorization, which the text of F.I.S.A. defines as a felony.

Myth: The NSA program is illegal.
Reality: The President's authority to authorize the terrorist surveillance program is firmly based both in his constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief, and in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress after the September 11 attacks.

Myth: The NSA program is a domestic eavesdropping program used to spy on innocent Americans.
Reality: The NSA program is narrowly focused, aimed only at international calls and targeted at al Qaeda and related groups. Safeguards are in place to protect the civil liberties of ordinary Americans.

Myth: The NSA activities violate the Fourth Amendment.
Reality: The NSA program is consistent with the Constitution’s protections of civil liberties, including the protections of the Fourth Amendment.

Myth: The NSA program violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Reality: The NSA activities described by the President are consistent with FISA.

Myth: The Administration could have used FISA but simply chose not to.
Reality: In the war on terrorism, it is sometimes imperative to detect—reliably, immediately, and without delay—whether an al Qaeda member or affiliate is in contact with someone in the United States. FISA is an extremely valuable tool in the war on terrorism, but it was passed in 1978 and there have been tremendous advances in technology since then.

Myth: FISA has "emergency authorizations" to allow 72-hour surveillance without a court order that the Administration could easily utilize.
Reality: There is a serious misconception about so-called "emergency authorizations" under FISA, which allow 72 hours of surveillance without a court order. FISA requires the Attorney General to determine in advance that a FISA application for that particular intercept will be fully supported and will be approved by the court before an emergency authorization can be granted, and the review process itself can and does take precious time

I think this explains everything:

Myth: The NSA program is illegal.
Reality: The President's authority to authorize the terrorist surveillance program is firmly based both in his constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief, and in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress after the September 11 attacks.

Myth: The NSA program is a domestic eavesdropping program used to spy on innocent Americans.
Reality: The NSA program is narrowly focused, aimed only at international calls and targeted at al Qaeda and related groups. Safeguards are in place to protect the civil liberties of ordinary Americans.

Myth: The NSA activities violate the Fourth Amendment.
Reality: The NSA program is consistent with the Constitution’s protections of civil liberties, including the protections of the Fourth Amendment.

Myth: The NSA program violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Reality: The NSA activities described by the President are consistent with FISA.

Myth: The Administration could have used FISA but simply chose not to.
Reality: In the war on terrorism, it is sometimes imperative to detect—reliably, immediately, and without delay—whether an al Qaeda member or affiliate is in contact with someone in the United States. FISA is an extremely valuable tool in the war on terrorism, but it was passed in 1978 and there have been tremendous advances in technology since then.

Myth: FISA has "emergency authorizations" to allow 72-hour surveillance without a court order that the Administration could easily utilize.
Reality: There is a serious misconception about so-called "emergency authorizations" under FISA, which allow 72 hours of surveillance without a court order. FISA requires the Attorney General to determine in advance that a FISA application for that particular intercept will be fully supported and will be approved by the court before an emergency authorization can be granted, and the review process itself can and does take precious time

I think this explains everything:

Myth: The NSA program is illegal.
Reality: The President's authority to authorize the terrorist surveillance program is firmly based both in his constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief, and in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress after the September 11 attacks.

Facts are good. A blatant statement that "This is false" prooves nothing. It just shows that there is no real basis for the argument. The SCOTUS ruled that the AUMF is not a blank check for the Administration. Nowhere in the Constitution is the President given the right to monitor domestic calls without a warrant.

Myth: The NSA program is a domestic eavesdropping program used to spy on innocent Americans.
Reality: The NSA program is narrowly focused, aimed only at international calls and targeted at al Qaeda and related groups. Safeguards are in place to protect the civil liberties of ordinary Americans.

Once again. When they back this up with evidence and facts, I'll beleive them, but the NYT origional article states that Americans were having their conversations tapped, which kinda disprooves this.

Myth: The NSA activities violate the Fourth Amendment.
Reality: The NSA program is consistent with the Constitution’s protections of civil liberties, including the protections of the Fourth Amendment.

Myth: The NSA program violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Reality: The NSA activities described by the President are consistent with FISA.

Because I write something it MUST be true. Once again, facts, arguments, or even logic would be good. Blatant statements by an unverified, unknown source are worthless.


Myth: The Administration could have used FISA but simply chose not to.
Reality: In the war on terrorism, it is sometimes imperative to detect—reliably, immediately, and without delay—whether an al Qaeda member or affiliate is in contact with someone in the United States. FISA is an extremely valuable tool in the war on terrorism, but it was passed in 1978 and there have been tremendous advances in technology since then.

Oh bullcrap. The administration could have used FISA. It chose not to, because obviously it had something to hide about these wiretaps (that or the President knew they were unjustified). There is absolutely no good reason not to get a warrant.

Myth: FISA has "emergency authorizations" to allow 72-hour surveillance without a court order that the Administration could easily utilize.
Reality: There is a serious misconception about so-called "emergency authorizations" under FISA, which allow 72 hours of surveillance without a court order. FISA requires the Attorney General to determine in advance that a FISA application for that particular intercept will be fully supported and will be approved by the court before an emergency authorization can be granted, and the review process itself can and does take precious time

Proof in the statute would be nice. Besides which, I have no doubt that any AG would approve a reasonable wiretap being asked for in emergency circumstances within less than 2 hours of receiving the request.

General Wesley Clark would be a good one IMO.

Myth: The President expects us to accept his word that these wiretapping programs are constitutional without oversight from congress or the courts and without investigaion into the veracity of his claim.

Fact: Um... oh yeah. SOme myths are based in truth. :p

So, he's a liar and a manipulater of the facts then?

Sounds perfect for politics if you ask me.




:D :D just put your candidate in perspective :D :D

the terminator (Arnold) ofcourse

the terminator (Arnold) ofcourse

He's not eligible to run for President.


At least, not without a constitutional amendment.

Jeb!

He's not eligible to run for President.


At least, not without a constitutional amendment.
Pfft, like the government will ever grant a constitutional amendment.

Facts are good. A blatant statement that "This is false" prooves nothing. It just shows that there is no real basis for the argument. The SCOTUS ruled that the AUMF is not a blank check for the Administration. Nowhere in the Constitution is the President given the right to monitor domestic calls without a warrant.



Once again. When they back this up with evidence and facts, I'll beleive them, but the NYT origional article states that Americans were having their conversations tapped, which kinda disprooves this.



Because I write something it MUST be true. Once again, facts, arguments, or even logic would be good. Blatant statements by an unverified, unknown source are worthless.




Oh bullcrap. The administration could have used FISA. It chose not to, because obviously it had something to hide about these wiretaps (that or the President knew they were unjustified). There is absolutely no good reason not to get a warrant.



Proof in the statute would be nice. Besides which, I have no doubt that any AG would approve a reasonable wiretap being asked for in emergency circumstances within less than 2 hours of receiving the request.



Fact:
despite protest and bullshit sessions and legal challenge the progam exist still...

so ergo sum...I would say your arguments hold no water .

if its so illegal as you claim ....where are the legal reprocussions ?
Where is the congressional commitee and the vote to codemn the practice ?
The Democrats COULD if they wish all by themselves force a vote...

So where is it ????? In fact besides alot of hot air.. and positioning for elections...where do they stand ???:D :D :D :D


The fact is as soon as polls came out overwhelmingly in support of the program...all except the most extreme from both partys just backed off and made believe it never happened.

so whats that tell you ? Aside from the fact they have no onions ?

Pfft, like the government will ever grant a constitutional amendment.

I'd be amazed if they did. It would require both parties and what Democrat in his right mind would vote to allow another Republican Candidate onto the field? :p

It would require a large enough congressional majority to allow the republicans to make their own constitutional amendments. And the day EITHER political party gets THAT much power, I'm on the first plane out. :p

I chose Edwards because he's the most likely non-conservative to win. However, lately I've been thinking that a celebrity might make an interesting president. Maybe an ex-boxer, like George Foreman. He seems like a nice guy, and he can be a tough guy when he needs to be.

I can't read faster than you guys are posting, so I'll just go ahead and say it now: John Edwards.

Did you see the VP debate between him and Cheney? Love. He smacked the fatty down hard.

Donald Frickin Rumsfield

if its so illegal as you claim ....where are the legal reprocussions ?Impeachment would be a legal repercussion, which is what we were talking about when this subject began.

i have no idea

it would be quite good to have a black presedent

or a female one

i haven't seen either of those

are they banned?
Condi is black AND a chick!

Allthough, having a Floridian in the White House would be cool....(Go Jeb!)

I can't read faster than you guys are posting, so I'll just go ahead and say it now: John Edwards.

Did you see the VP debate between him and Cheney? Love. He smacked the fatty down hard.

Edwards is a chiselling, cheating, flim flamming attorney who bankrupted doctors to 'earn' his millions.

Donald Frickin Rumsfield

I'd like to see him as the Secretary of Defense, oh wait...

Edwards is a chiselling, cheating, flim flamming attorney who bankrupted doctors to 'earn' his millions.
Everybody hates lawyers until they need one.

If a doctor does something stupid and ends up crippling you for life you deserve to get paid for your disability and the doctor deserves to face some consequences.

It's often not that simple.

Edwards is a chiselling, cheating, flim flamming attorney who bankrupted doctors to 'earn' his millions.

Good for him. It's capitalism, that's how it works. Besides, don't blame the attorney, blame the person he's representing.

I blame them both.

I blame them both.

Then I blame you. You live in the US, yet you can't stand how the system works, yet you do nothing about it, yet you bitch about it when someone succeeds through it and comes out a good person that would make a good president and decide to slander him for it.

Bastard.

Do you have any idea what insurance premiums cost? There are very expensive and what's funny is that you end up paying more for health insurance because of these frivolous law suits. Years ago, people had to work for their money, not sue for mindless inane things.

Do you have any idea what insurance premiums cost? There are very expensive and what's funny is that you end up paying more for health insurance because of these frivolous law suits. Years ago, people had to work for their money, not sue for mindless inane things.

Yeah. Too bad people are suing for mindless inane things. Notice, "people". The lawyers aren't doing anything. They're protecting rights just as much as they are helping people sue - I'm sure there were just as many cases of him defending someone justly.

I'm sure there were some cases, but there were many others. Mind you I'm biased (I'm a MD).

All this health insurance hoopty sounds like a strong argument for higher income tax to fund a national health service...you know, like they have all over europe. BUt, we don't want to be too sane.

Oh, and in response to the Pres question, Barrack Obama. All the way. He's just a little too green right now

Then I blame you. You live in the US, yet you can't stand how the system works, yet you do nothing about it, yet you bitch about it when someone succeeds through it and comes out a good person that would make a good president and decide to slander him for it.

Bastard.

Lets not turn this into a colonial flame thread
"Europe is teh suckz0r0z"
"Is n0t u y4/\/k33 b!tch!"

My brother lives in Britain and let me tell you; the National Health Service is in serious debt; there are thousands of layoffs currently happening; there are waiting lists so long (months and years) that they are driving people to seek private health care overseas.

well, obviously the system isn't perfect. But, Europe does not mean Great Britain. It also means a whole conglomerate of countries that people forget about. The most successful socialist systems appear in Scandinavia. Just because National Health Service fails in one situation, doesn't mean it will in all.

Okay, away from hospitals to family doctors.

30% pay rise over the last three years (so now bigger pensions), in the next five years almost 33% of family doctors are retiring.

Dentistry: Less than half of Brits have NHS cover because of a gross national shortage; all dentists are going private because in short; they can earn twice as much.

Nationalized health care systems would take billions out of the American economy; millions of jobs would be lost as all the health care companies would need less staff, investors would lose out, everything would go 'ka boom'.

If you impliment drastic change like that all at once, then yes...KA BOOM. But, there was a very wise Englishman at one point, Edmund Burke, that said only allow change as it is needed and allow it to change slowly. The French Revolution is a perfect example of KA BOOM. Clearly there is a need for change with all of the frivolous law suits and insurance premiums that you mentioned earlier. So, why not implement the new system slowly, so as not to shock the existing system? And don't forget, SCANDANAVIA!!!!! Take a look at their welfare system...It works.

Oh yeah, And what about Obama?

Okay, away from hospitals to family doctors.

30% pay rise over the last three years (so now bigger pensions), in the next five years almost 33% of family doctors are retiring.

Dentistry: Less than half of Brits have NHS cover because of a gross national shortage; all dentists are going private because in short; they can earn twice as much.

Nationalized health care systems would take billions out of the American economy; millions of jobs would be lost as all the health care companies would need less staff, investors would lose out, everything would go 'ka boom'.

Obama, too Democratic for me

Sorry, I think I said something with a little too much foresight. I forgot that America has a mindset that anything that takes more than 5 years to turn a profit is too risky and not worth it.

That's not true, for example, I'm an advocate of scrapping social security completely.

Yes the NHS may be in debt, but it is still a unique and magnificent concept, of curse it has its flaws, as any health service does. But it provides about 60 million people with decent healthcare, free at the point delivery, regardless of how rich you are. Right to healthcare should not be judged on ability to pay.

If you impliment drastic change like that all at once, then yes...KA BOOM. But, there was a very wise Englishman at one point, Edmund Burke, that said only allow change as it is needed and allow it to change slowly. The French Revolution is a perfect example of KA BOOM. Clearly there is a need for change with all of the frivolous law suits and insurance premiums that you mentioned earlier. So, why not implement the new system slowly, so as not to shock the existing system? And don't forget, SCANDANAVIA!!!!! Take a look at their welfare system...It works.

Resource-rich (at least in Norway and Denmark's case) countries with small populations that are ethnically/racially/linguistically/religiously homogeneous. Yes their welfare systems do work for the reasons listed above. A large heterogenous country like the US that imports a million new people each year cannot repeat what the Nordics do since the demographics are wildly different. What the US can copy from the Nordics (particularly the Finns) is top-class education systems that enable lower income people to obtain the knowledge/skills they need to get out of the lower-class.

Al Gore :p

Fact:
despite protest and bullshit sessions and legal challenge the progam exist still...

so ergo sum...I would say your arguments hold no water .

if its so illegal as you claim ....where are the legal reprocussions ?
Where is the congressional commitee and the vote to codemn the practice ?
The Democrats COULD if they wish all by themselves force a vote...

So where is it ????? In fact besides alot of hot air.. and positioning for elections...where do they stand ???:D :D :D :D


The fact is as soon as polls came out overwhelmingly in support of the program...all except the most extreme from both partys just backed off and made believe it never happened.

so whats that tell you ? Aside from the fact they have no onions ?

That very few Dems have the balls to stand up to the way that the Busheviks have been trampling on civil liberties in America. Why do you think I oppose the Clinton/Lieberman/pick-your-favorite-sellout side of the party, and would prefer Russ Feingold? Impeachment, if the dems had the backbone would be exactly the legal reprocussions to get rid of these abuses of liberty and justice.

But I suppose that American politicians would rather build a police-state instead. :rolleyes:

You did not include the choices from each party that I favor.

I favor Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska from the Republican side.

I favor former Governor Mark Warner of Virginia from the Democratic side.

The only options I consider viable on your list are Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Al Gore.

I would sooner eat barbed wire than vote for Senator McCain, and I would rather shove red hot bamboo shoots under my fingernails than vote for Senator Clinton. I have had enough of political dynasties and I will NOT vote for anyone named Clinton or Bush for President. Period.

Ralph Nader, all the way.

I don't know if he is running but I would vote for Colin Powell for President. I hope he's running.

I would personally love to see Colin Powell as our next President, but he doesn't seem interested....

Ralph Nader, all the way.

A thoroughly insane and ghastly man. Completely selfish and what good I respected him for (and there was a great deal to be thankful for Ralph Nader as a consumer advocate in the 1960's, 70's and 80's) is long in the rear view mirror.

Another choice where I would choose torture over voting for the person.

Dennis Kucinich, 2008 - VEGAN POWER! (Despite my carnivorous, junk-food-loving tendencies.) Feingold can be his VP.

And no, national health care wouldn't work too well in the U.S. in its current state for one reason - health care prices are through the roof here. There is so much overhead and stuff; health care is far more expensive in the U.S. than elsewhere. That said, if the U.S. would clean up its act and pledge to be financially responsible, a national health care system would work. Overhead would kill a U.S. NHS, just as irresponsibility seems to be killing Britain's.

As for my ideal candidate for real? My cat, of course.

CRUISER IN '08! CATNIP FOR ALL!

I can just picture it - bumper stickers that say "Rrowwll!"...the only thing is, she's definitely a Republican, and all my other animals are Democrats, so she would have trouble gettign a running mate.

I would vote for Fiengold (I know his cousin, heehee).

I'd vote for Pat Robertson if he ran.
If not him, then Pat Buchanan would be my next choice.

McCain is not a true conservative, so absolutely not.
I'd prefer Frist for Prez and Giuliani for VP.
Giuliani seems to be a good conservative on economics and national policy, and I don't give a shit about "religous" issues.
(Goddamn Religous Left is screwing the friggin party)

Of that list, I'd say McCain. He's just about the only Republican that doesn't make me wanna rip my hair out. But I don't think McCain's conservative enough for the Republicans, so I doubt he'll get the nomination. So, I'm just gonna sit here and hope that the Democrats are stupid enough to nominate Hillary.

Not that I necessarily dislike Hillary, but she's so wildly unpopular that there ain't a chance in hell that she'll get elected.

Ron Paul, with Tam Tancredo as Vice-President.

Too bad that would never happen...

I'd vote for Pat Robertson if he ran.
If not him, then Pat Buchanan would be my next choice.

How about President...Jerry Falwell.

Condi is black AND a chick!


No she isn't:

Condi Rice is a muppet.

I'm serious! She's an animatronic construct controlled from behind the curtain by Dick Cheney. *nod*

I'd vote for Pat Robertson if he ran.
If not him, then Pat Buchanan would be my next choice.

What, was Fred Phelps unavailable? :p

Condy Rice; but she says she won't run.

As for me, Bill Frist.
That'd be mine. Unfortunatly I don't turn 18 till the month after the election. I mean I know the vote doesn't count and everything but it still make me feel bad...

No she isn't:

Condi Rice is a muppet.

I'm serious! She's an animatronic construct controlled from behind the curtain by Dick Cheney. *nod*

I couldn't vote Condi because she's not anti-abortion.

A thoroughly insane and ghastly man. Completely selfish and what good I respected him for (and there was a great deal to be thankful for Ralph Nader as a consumer advocate in the 1960's, 70's and 80's) is long in the rear view mirror.

Another choice where I would choose torture over voting for the person.

I'm certainly not knocking your opinion, but those are three words I would never have thought to describe him: insane, ghastly and selfish.

If I had to come up with three harsh adjectives for him they'd be; emotionless, naive and stubborn.

He's the Mr. Spock of the political spectrum. :p

Colin Powell.

How about President...Jerry Falwell.


I agree.

That would be great.

It would be the only time ever that God himself would come down and smite the President.

The clouds would part, and a booming voice would say:

"Oh HELL no!"

*smite*

Why don't you guys import Manu Chao & hand him the presidency?

I agree.

That would be great.

It would be the only time ever that God himself would come down and smite the President.

The clouds would part, and a booming voice would say:

"Oh HELL no!"

*smite*

I am a Falwell supporter, but I think even I would want him on a trial basis first.

I agree.

That would be great.

It would be the only time ever that God himself would come down and smite the President.

The clouds would part, and a booming voice would say:

"Oh HELL no!"

*smite*

YAY! :D

I am a Falwell supporter, but I think even I would want him on a trial basis first.


I tell you this:

If God truly exists, he is no friend of Jerry Falwell's.

I am a Falwell supporter, but I think even I would want him on a trial basis first.Are you serious?!

EDIT: Reminding myself of some of the things I've seen you post in the "faith" thread, I think I conclude you were joking.

- At least, if you weren't, keep in mind that Faldwell would prolly burn you at the stake if given half a chance.

I am a Falwell supporter, but I think even I would want him on a trial basis first.

You support Falwell?

"His message of peace and reconciliation under almost all circumstances is simply incompatible with Christian teachings as I interpret them. This 'turn the other cheek' business is all well and good but it's not what Jesus fought and died for. What we need to do is take the battle to the Muslim heathens and do unto them before they do unto us." -Jerry Falwell (speaking of former President Jimmy Carter) March 2002.

How can we not support him? He's so cute and cuddly! And he certainly understands Jesus' message which apparently was; "Kill The Heathens!!!"

:)

"His message of peace and reconciliation under almost all circumstances is simply incompatible with Christian teachings as I interpret them. This 'turn the other cheek' business is all well and good but it's not what Jesus fought and died for. What we need to do is take the battle to the Muslim heathens and do unto them before they do unto us." -Jerry Falwell (speaking of former President Jimmy Carter) March 2002.

How can we not support him? He's so cute and cuddly! And he certainly understands Jesus' message which apparently was; "Kill The Heathens!!!"

:)

'Dem's Fightin' Words!

You support Falwell?

I think he's great; a devout Christian.

I think he's great; a devout Christian.

And an idjet too...blaming homosexuals, pagans, and civil libertarians for 9/11? Strikes me as awfully similar to another "devout Christian" by the name of Fred Phelps, who's frankly so obnoxious that he actually got a law passed against him...signed by ANOTHER "devout Christian." That plus I recall him one time saying that, because Disney supported homosexuals by hosting some sort of "gay day" at Disney World, that a natural disaster was going to strike the Orlando area as a result of God's wrath. (I think it was Falwell; might have been Pat Robertson. I get the two confused sometimes because both like to say loony things like that.)

Id say the leader of Iran should be the next U.S. president, he kick ass and is kinda psychotic, now just give him enough nukes and the apocalypse is sure to happen sooner than we think

And an idjet too...blaming homosexuals, pagans, and civil libertarians for 9/11? Strikes me as awfully similar to another "devout Christian" by the name of Fred Phelps, who's frankly so obnoxious that he actually got a law passed against him...signed by ANOTHER "devout Christian." That plus I recall him one time saying that, because Disney supported homosexuals by hosting some sort of "gay day" at Disney World, that a natural disaster was going to strike the Orlando area as a result of God's wrath. (I think it was Falwell; might have been Pat Robertson. I get the two confused sometimes because both like to say loony things like that.)


Well in many ways he's right in stating that homosexuals, abortionists, pagans and feminists caused 9/11; because it was an act of Satan and these types of people commit Satanic acts empowering him.

Well in many ways he's right in stating that homosexuals, abortionists, pagans and feminists caused 9/11; because it was an act of Satan and these types of people commit Satanic acts empowering him.So because I don't think & act like you, I'm a devil worshipper?

Man... Please don't ever have children, TSoG.

Just because you don't worship the true God, it does not mean you are a devil worshipper (unless you do in fact worship Satan).

By the way, I have a daughter.

Well in many ways he's right in stating that homosexuals, abortionists, pagans and feminists caused 9/11; because it was an act of Satan and these types of people commit Satanic acts empowering him.

Oh, hell no!

I'm not going to let a nincompoop like you stand by something as crap as that.

9/11 happened because Osama bin Laden hates western society and thinks it is a plague upon the face of the nations of Islam. He hates western society because it sees reactionist Muslims for what they are, tired religious oligarchs who have not had a much needed religious reformation. He is afraid that if any HINT of secularism enters Middle Eastern society, the grip of the mullahs and muezzins will be loosened. He's right, he's scared and he is wealthy and he can do something about it.

Homosexuals, abortionists, feminists and pagans did not cause 9/11, either indirectly or directly unless you subscribe to the same kooky theories that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell do.

You see different as bad, and that's not unusual considering I grew up in the rural South and I've seen that mentality before. But you would have to have the political sophistication of a slug to think that you're little statement is nothing more than a mean spirited little dig on people who do not believe or act as you do.

Choosing between the current iteration of the mainstream churches, I choose none. I would pick pagans over them simply because they have only ONE HARD RULE. Do as ye will, and do ye no harm. Pagans tend to be much more accepting of people for who they are, and they do not exclude non-pagans, nor do they try to proselytize.

You have the right to live your life and raise your daughter as you see fit and I wish you well. But remember this, meeting in a building with a cross on it no more qualifies you for salvation than the people who do not go to church. Salvation goes to those who honestly live their life and try to do good things, who do not judge others, and who live their lives modestly, abiding with Faith, Hope and Charity.

That is the essence of Christianity. Sounds like a good way to live a life, don't you think?

McCain...although he is losing my support, Feingold, Gore, or Dean...Mays Gilliam...