NationStates Jolt Archive

...thanks to the Republicans.

The last issue of Time Magazine had an article about the state of the Bush administration and how it is preparing for the upcoming elections. It quotes a White House strategist on the possibility of the Dems sweeping Congress. Here is that section in full:

In fact, when it comes to deploying its Executive power, which is dear to Bush's understanding of the presidency, the President's team has been planning for what one strategist describes as "a cataclysmic fight to the death" over the balance between Congress and the White House if confronted with congressional subpoenas it deems inappropriate. The strategist says the Bush team is "going to assert that power, and they're going to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court on every issue, every time, no compromise, no discussion, no negotiation."

So basically, if the Democrats make any attempt to place limits on the expansive, nigh-limitless powers claimed by the President, he's going to throw a legislative temper tantrum, resisting all inquiry and investigation no matter how appropriate it is. I'm sure he'll then blame the resulting deadlocks on the Democrats.

What say you?

I say that this is just more evidence of the pitfalls of the position itself.

It needs to be done away with as soon as possible.

I'll start stocking up on the popcorn. Should be fun to watch from this side of the pond.

What say you?

I'll say that I hope there's a drafty cold cell in George's future.

Sorry Bush, even the SCOTUS you've created wont save you from all the abuses that you've committed. Of course, thats entirely dependent upon the democratic congress having the balls to challenge him. I for one, hope they do.

there are two vital questions:

1) will the democrats have the stones to actually bring about the constitutional crisis the bush movement has actively sought?
and
2) what are we going to do about it when he refuses to blink first?

I'll start stocking up on the popcorn. Should be fun to watch from this side of the pond.

Let me get drunk and I'll join you.



What am I saying, like you could stop me ;)

I'll say that I hope there's a drafty cold cell in George's future.

i'm looking forward to the war crimes tribunals - it'd be nice to find out the full extent of the shit they've been up to. and then maybe we can make kissinger pay for his crimes too.

It is the correct course of action to take -- justice must be served, which means that every fact and assumption must be questioned. We must not run amok with vengeance.

It is the correct course of action to take -- justice must be served, which means that every fact and assumption must be questioned. We must not run amok with vengeance.
Say wha? Did MTAE just side with the Dems? :eek:

I'll start stocking up on the popcorn. Should be fun to watch from this side of the pond.

Yay for this side of the pond!

Let me get drunk and I'll join you.



What am I saying, like you could stop me ;)
I'm not getting drunk with you, not now you want to have my babies...;)

It is the correct course of action to take -- justice must be served, which means that every fact and assumption must be questioned. We must not run amok with vengeance.

Huh?

Say wha? Did MTAE just side with the Dems? :eek:

No. He was clearly siding with the Time Magazine quote on this one. Read it over again.

It stands to reason, of course --- he's a troll, simple as that. But, is he a puppet, or an original? The world may never know...

No. He was clearly siding with the Time Magazine quote on this one. Read it over again.

It stands to reason, of course --- he's a troll, simple as that. But, is he a puppet, or an original? The world may never know...

Ah...Well, he needs fewer pronouns.

Say wha? Did MTAE just side with the Dems? :eek:

No, I am saying that what the Bush administration is planning is the correct course of action to take. They want to better serve the interests of justice by mounting a vigorous defense against each charge. Without the right to an adequate defense, our justice system would crumble into nothingness. Bush is simply asserting that he loves our justice system and will utilize it to its utmost.

Sorry Bush, even the SCOTUS you've created wont save you from all the abuses that you've committed. Of course, thats entirely dependent upon the democratic congress having the balls to challenge him. I for one, hope they do.

I for one, don't think they will. Nancy Pelosi doesn't have balls, period, (heh heh) let alone the cajones to tangle with anyone. And then theres Joe Lieberman (feh!) John Kerry (double feh!) and Harry "Don't Ask About My Real-Estate" Reid (triple feh!!!). Even if the Dems win, they have no united plan, they don't have the guts to stand up to Dubyah, they are nincompoops, ninnies, and malcontents.

We need a third party!!!

Bush is simply asserting that he loves our justice system and will utilize it to its utmost.
Heh.

No, I am saying that what the Bush administration is planning is the correct course of action to take. They want to better serve the interests of justice by mounting a vigorous defense against each charge. Without the right to an adequate defense, our justice system would crumble into nothingness. Bush is simply asserting that he loves our justice system and will utilize it to its utmost.
Whatever...

If he really loved the justice system, he wouldn't utterly ignore it when it suited him. If Kerry'd given himself complete immunity to everything other than AIDs and bird 'flu, you'd be up in arms about this one, no?

Heh.

I don't find it amusing. Dissent is not necessarily patriotic, but maintaining justice for all is. Bush is demonstrating that he cares for everybody's civil rights by showing that a proper defense must be given to anyone and everyone; it forms the foundation of our entire justice system, in fact. Do you dispute this?

politics is practically monkey buisiness in America right now, which makes me so glad I don't live there. then again, Kaczynski is starting to mess Poland up now.

I don't find it amusing. Dissent is not necessarily patriotic, but maintaining justice for all is. Bush is demonstrating that he cares for everybody's civil rights by showing that a proper defense must be given to anyone and everyone; it forms the foundation of our entire justice system, in fact. Do you dispute this?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061104/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terrorism_detainees

If the Democrats seize control and turn the tables on Bush then we might be able to fix things.
Buy if Congress is in Gridlock then they won't make anymore of his laws! Sounds like a win win.

I don't find it amusing. Dissent is not necessarily patriotic, but maintaining justice for all is. Bush is demonstrating that he cares for everybody's civil rights by showing that a proper defense must be given to anyone and everyone; it forms the foundation of our entire justice system, in fact. Do you dispute this?
If he believes that everyone should have the right to a proper defense, why is he trying to stop people who have been in the hands of the CIA from retaining a lawyer?

It couldn't be that you're talking rubbish, could it?

Edit: Eh, beaten to it. Never mind.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061104/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terrorism_detainees

I meant every American. All terrorists who are plotting to destroy our country do not merit trials -- the only thing they deserve is excruciating torture.

I meant every American. All terrorists who are plotting to destroy our country do not merit trials -- the only thing they deserve is excruciating torture.

What about American terrorists?

I meant every American. All terrorists who are plotting to destroy our country do not merit trials -- the only thing they deserve is excruciating torture.
Of course, not all the detainees are proven terrorists. Some are innocent civilians. In that case, whoopsie! Sorry about the excruciating torture.

Now, if we'd only give them fair trials, we could actually determine who is guilty and who is innocent. Too bad Bush's magnanimous sense of justice only spreads as far as the poorly-guarded US borders...

I meant every American. All terrorists who are plotting to destroy our country do not merit trials -- the only thing they deserve is excruciating torture.
Seeing as he has not been proven to be a terrorist, why should he not be allowed a trial? The cornerstone of the legal system in any supposedly democratic country allows everybody the right to a fair trial, and that all suspects are innocent until proven guilty, whether or not they are a citizen of that country. By not giving them this right, America would be no better than a dictatorship.

If the Democrats seize control and turn the tables on Bush then we might be able to fix things.
Buy if Congress is in Gridlock then they won't make anymore of his laws! Sounds like a win win.

except that bush has not so far felt the need for laws at all. the only way we're fixing this is to chase the entire bush movement from power and put them all up on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity. preferably using an international court, just to drive the point home.

If the Democrats seize control and turn the tables on Bush then we might be able to fix things.
Buy if Congress is in Gridlock then they won't make anymore of his laws! Sounds like a win win.

Thanks for underscoring the silver lining in all of this. That observation alone should spur Democratic voters onward to victory, sir. I doff my hat to you.

By not giving them this right, America would be no better than a dictatorship.

They are given trials by ad hoc military tribunals, if you can call them that. Their guilt is proven prior to their being apprehended.

They are given trials by ad hoc military tribunals, if you can call them that. Their guilt is proven prior to their being apprehended.
Really? How so?

Really? How so?

A preponderance of evidence must be gathered prior to detaining a terrorist, and the military must review all the data prior to drawing a conclusion. Nonetheless, that is tangent to the main topic of this thread.

A preponderance of evidence must be gathered prior to detaining a terrorist, and the military must review all the data prior to drawing a conclusion. Nonetheless, that is tangent to the main topic of this thread.

In other words, by the High Court of Circular Logic.

It is the correct course of action to take -- justice must be served, which means that every fact and assumption must be questioned. We must not run amok with vengeance.

Unless, of course, it is the Republicans, in which case we must accept what they say fully and unquestionably.

Gotchya.

Sorry Bush, even the SCOTUS you've created wont save you from all the abuses that you've committed. Of course, thats entirely dependent upon the democratic congress having the balls to challenge him. I for one, hope they do.

Oh, trust me. They're gonna be so far up his ass they'll be peaking out his mouth.

Unless, of course, it is the Republicans, in which case we must accept what they say fully and unquestionably.

I disagree with the Republicans on many points of policy -- to cite the most egregious example, they do not believe in the re-colonization of the Middle East. However, I seldom disagree with them on factual matters -- any statement they make, when stripped of all opinion, is the unquestionable truth.

I disagree with the Republicans on many points of policy -- to cite the most egregious example, they do not believe in the re-colonization of the Middle East. However, I seldom disagree with them on factual matters -- any statement they make, when stripped of all opinion, is the unquestionable truth.

How can you still wonder why people think you're a troll?

How can you still wonder why people think you're a troll?

What did I say that was trollish? Usually, when any statement (liberal or conservative) is stripped of any opinion, it is true. This also applies to Republican declaration. I bet that you cannot name three instances of the administration lying. Why? Because, although their announcements may be biased, they are also true.

What did I say that was trollish? Usually, when any statement (liberal or conservative) is stripped of any opinion, it is true. This also applies to Republican declaration. I bet that you cannot name three instances of the administration lying. Why? Because, although their announcements may be biased, they are also true.

in that case any statement liberals make when stripped of opinion is the absolute truth, no?

In other words, the Busheviks are preparing for a political insurgency in the event of a Democratic takeover of one or both Houses.

Gee, ironic isn't it?

in that case any statement liberals make when stripped of opinion is the absolute truth, no?

Usually, yes. However, many of their economic ideals are irredeemably flawed, so my statement does not extend to those principles.

...thanks to the Republicans.

The last issue of Time Magazine had an article about the state of the Bush administration and how it is preparing for the upcoming elections. It quotes a White House strategist on the possibility of the Dems sweeping Congress. Here is that section in full:



So basically, if the Democrats make any attempt to place limits on the expansive, nigh-limitless powers claimed by the President, he's going to throw a legislative temper tantrum, resisting all inquiry and investigation no matter how appropriate it is. I'm sure he'll then blame the resulting deadlocks on the Democrats.

What say you?


Well, he, and other Republicans, currently blame Democrats for everything when they have no power. Just imagine how much worse it will get when Democrats are only unwilling to stand up to the president and not just unable.

I meant every American. All terrorists who are plotting to destroy our country do not merit trials -- the only thing they deserve is excruciating torture.
You are 100% incorrect in this assumption.
Even citizens of other countries, when they are accused of crimes in the United States, are entitled to a fair trial.
Because none of the alleged terrorists have been given a trial how can you, or anyone else, assume that they are in fact guilty of anything more than being in the wrong place (Afghanistan or Iraq) at the wrong time (after we invaded these countries)?
And torture is always wrong even if someone has been convicted or a heinous crime.

I disagree with the Republicans on many points of policy -- to cite the most egregious example, they do not believe in the re-colonization of the Middle East. However, I seldom disagree with them on factual matters -- any statement they make, when stripped of all opinion, is the unquestionable truth.

You can't be serious... I'm all for re-colonization of the Mid-east, but Bush, Cheney and the Republican leadership are idiots.

Hopefully the Democrats will also take control of the senate which will put more pressure on Bush.

What say you?
Required items:

1 tall tree

1 wild horse

1 short rope

1 guilty man

Texas style? :D








j/k I really don't condone lynching

Congress should enact the BushWacker Tax

The Bush family will have to pay everything they own back to America to help defray the cost of the Bush War (Iraq).

Actually, I think this is the best thing I've heard in years.

The Administration has been assembling powers to itself that it has no real right to for more than a century - Bush hasn't really done anything unusual or new in that regard, he's just USED those powers more often than previous Presidents. If the Administration and Congress get into a pissing match over them, SCOTUS will FINALLY be able to rule on the constitutionality of many of those powers, most of which they have never had a chance to review (remember that SCOTUS can only rule on things people complain to them about). I suspect that many "powers" of the Presidency will come crashing down.

We probably needed a more powerful Presidency during WWII and the Cold War. Now, in all honesty, we don't. Time to throttle it back.

...thanks to the Republicans.

The last issue of Time Magazine had an article about the state of the Bush administration and how it is preparing for the upcoming elections. It quotes a White House strategist on the possibility of the Dems sweeping Congress. Here is that section in full:



So basically, if the Democrats make any attempt to place limits on the expansive, nigh-limitless powers claimed by the President, he's going to throw a legislative temper tantrum, resisting all inquiry and investigation no matter how appropriate it is. I'm sure he'll then blame the resulting deadlocks on the Democrats.

What say you?

Clinton is the one who showed that the President can trump Congress.

I hate Bush and his power need to be limited by a democartic victory.

Usually, yes. However, many of their economic ideals are irredeemably flawed, so my statement does not extend to those principles.

Of course you believe a person on a minimum wage can be a millionaire by the time they're 80, so your opinions on what economic ideals are "irredeemably flawed" count for exactly zip.

Congress should enact the BushWacker Tax

The Bush family will have to pay everything they own back to America to help defray the cost of the Bush War (Iraq).

Agreed!