Is this accurate?

POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 3, 2006 21:33
VIEWED: 7022
PAGE 2 of 6

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE

ONETOOMANY

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 5:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
In this case Bush is acting as President and Commander-in-Chief and Chief Executive and Senior Big Guy, etc. Liberals, unable to cope with or accept the 2000 election have attacked his legitimacy and intentions from day one, even in the wake of 9/11.

Based on some of your comments HERO It's hard to tell what side your on, but if you think that the outcry against bush is just "Liberals, unable to cope or accept the results of the 2000 election" then go back to sleep, cuz you aren't awake enough to be paying attention.

Notice anythig particular 'bout our luck these past few days, any kind'a pattern'. You depend on luck you end up on the drift no fuel, no prospects, beggin for alliance make work getiin' towed off to the scrap out THAT AIN'T US NOT EVER

JMB9039

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 5:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
We support the President because we agree with his actions (I note for the record that there are also disagreements about what actions he did or did not take, I can fully support the actions I know of and reserve judgement for those I do not...as for those he didn't do but is often accused of, I neither support nor deny those actions) and we disagree that they are unconstitutional.

For the love of all things holy, stop. You are embarrasing yourself. Basically, what you've said it you chose not to acknolwedge what he may have done wrong and only to support what you think he did right...

Quote:
Its all political. In the early days of Clinton a lot of the right-wing fringe had similar misgivings about Clinton and how he was going to suspend the Constitution and refuse to step down. Sure, Clinton sabotaged the Gore campaign and the economy in a blatent attempt to propel Hillary to power in 2004, but he were not the evil dictator the militia types feared.

Hey you made a funny! Nice conspiracy theory. I'm sure you feel Fahrenheit 911 was all conspiracy but your thoughts on Clinton are fact. That’s how you refer to opinion, right HERO? As fact? And suspend the Constitution? Step Down? The entire impeachment was a show. Face it. Even the republicans didn't give a rat's behind if Clinton lied or not; they wanted to embarrass him publicly.

Quote:
In this case Bush is acting as President and Commander-in-Chief and Chief Executive and Senior Big Guy, etc. Liberals, unable to cope with or accept the 2000 election have attacked his legitimacy and intentions from day one, even in the wake of 9/11.

Right, that's why we are upset with Bush, because we lost the election. It couldn't be his blatant disregard for the Constitution, his shoot first mentality with foreign relations, his inablity to understand complex issues, his imposing of Christian beliefs on America, his "stay the course" attitude that disregards facts, his choice to put business over environment and health... shall I continue?

You said it right at the end though "he'll go off to the ranch" To Bush, this is just a job, he makes his money, enjoys his power and in the end just goes home. He doesn't care about the people of this country or the future of our society. And yes, that's an opinion just so you don't get the two confused again.

Don't follow a leader just because you voted for him or he is of your party. Follow a leader because they are a good leader. Be open to change your mind.

JMB9039

ONETOOMANY

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 6:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jmb9039:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
We support the President because we agree with his actions (I note for the record that there are also disagreements about what actions he did or did not take, I can fully support the actions I know of and reserve judgement for those I do not...as for those he didn't do but is often accused of, I neither support nor deny those actions) and we disagree that they are unconstitutional.

For the love of all things holy, stop. You are embarrasing yourself. Basically, what you've said it you chose not to acknolwedge what he may have done wrong and only to support what you think he did right...

Quote:
Its all political. In the early days of Clinton a lot of the right-wing fringe had similar misgivings about Clinton and how he was going to suspend the Constitution and refuse to step down. Sure, Clinton sabotaged the Gore campaign and the economy in a blatent attempt to propel Hillary to power in 2004, but he were not the evil dictator the militia types feared.

Hey you made a funny! Nice conspiracy theory. I'm sure you feel Fahrenheit 911 was all conspiracy but your thoughts on Clinton are fact. That’s how you refer to opinion, right HERO? As fact? And suspend the Constitution? Step Down? The entire impeachment was a show. Face it. Even the republicans didn't give a rat's behind if Clinton lied or not; they wanted to embarrass him publicly.

Quote:
In this case Bush is acting as President and Commander-in-Chief and Chief Executive and Senior Big Guy, etc. Liberals, unable to cope with or accept the 2000 election have attacked his legitimacy and intentions from day one, even in the wake of 9/11.

Right, that's why we are upset with Bush, because we lost the election. It couldn't be his blatant disregard for the Constitution, his shoot first mentality with foreign relations, his inablity to understand complex issues, his imposing of Christian beliefs on America, his "stay the course" attitude that disregards facts, his choice to put business over environment and health... shall I continue?

You said it right at the end though "he'll go off to the ranch" To Bush, this is just a job, he makes his money, enjoys his power and in the end just goes home. He doesn't care about the people of this country or the future of our society. And yes, that's an opinion just so you don't get the two confused again.

Don't follow a leader just because you voted for him or he is of your party. Follow a leader because they are a good leader. Be open to change your mind.

JMB9039

HOOORAHHH!!!!
for clear thinkers, you said what I didn't have time to.
Peoples if your going to have an opinion make sure you state it as such,(OPINION) but be prepared for a fight if your are a supporter of an oligarchical aristocracy, cuz that's really what we have here in the U.S.(/OPINION) I challenge any one to contend that using known deffinitions of political structures

Notice anythig particular 'bout our luck these past few days, any kind'a pattern'. You depend on luck you end up on the drift no fuel, no prospects, beggin for alliance make work getiin' towed off to the scrap out THAT AIN'T US NOT EVER

SASSALICIOUS

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 6:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jmb9039:
Right, that's why we are upset with Bush, because we lost the election. It couldn't be his blatant disregard for the Constitution, his shoot first mentality with foreign relations, his inablity to understand complex issues, his imposing of Christian beliefs on America, his "stay the course" attitude that disregards facts, his choice to put business over environment and health
JMB9039

That's exactly my position. And I also think a lot of Republicans are starting to feel that way except for the real hardliners. My stepdad voted for Bush and now he completely regrets it and even referred to him as a "fascist" at one point.

RAZZA

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 7:12 PM

Signym:

Can you provide some origin or citation for this news article? Thanks in advance!

-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

---Napoleon Bonaparte

SIGNYM

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 7:18 PM

Zero, the Commander in Chief has the authority to do a LOT of things related to the military, but one of the things he CANNOT as CiC is sign a bill that was not passed by both House and Senate. (BTW this particular bill had nothing to do with the military. ) Now, I don't expect the Prez to be on top of $2billion details but his staff certainly is, and the signature was done knowingly and with malice.

As far as Bush being "politics as usual": If you have to go back to Truman/ FDR to find a comparison (or in the case of detentions and internal spying some people have referenced Lincoln) then clearly you are treading beyond the "usual" of the past 50- 140 years. And altho Bush is/was facing a real problem (terrorism) he created his very own fiscal and policy crisis by ignoring terrorists and focusing on hapless Iraq. What he responded to was the crisis in his head.

And now he wants the authority to change mileage standards? The guy who f*cked up everything wants to be rewarded with the power to f*ck up more things? I'm snickering as I write this, actually.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 7:22 PM

Dang! I thought I had posted a link... but apparently not! Here it is.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060310.html

I heard about this on radio and found it by googling bush + signed + "not passed" + house + senate. There are a lot of other articles on the topic so you might want to google them up too.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

RAZZA

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 7:42 PM

Thanks for the cite Sig!

You stated in your earlier post

Quote:
"I don't know how Bush supporters justify his actions to themselves, let alone how they justify it to others. It's really NOT "politics as usual", it's a naked and wholly unconstitutional (and I don't mean that metaphorically, Bush is breaking the law as set forth in the Constitution) power grab that could only be clearer if Bush refused to step down at the end of his term."

I think you may be placing an inordinate amount of blame at the President's feet. The article is very disturbing to say the least, but I think most of the unconstitutional behavior took place in Congress. The President only signed what he was assured was a properly passed bill. I think the GOP leadership in Congress has much more to answer for than the President. It will be interesting to see how the court case turns out.

-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

---Napoleon Bonaparte

RAZZA

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 7:50 PM

Signym,

Is 1994 recent enough for a domestic spying case?

Quote:
Paper: Washington Post
Title: ADMINISTRATION BACKING NO-WARRANT SPY SEARCHES
Author: R. Jeffrey Smith
Date: July 15, 1994
Section: A SECTION
Page: a19

The Clinton administration, in a little-noticed facet of the debate on intelligence reforms, is seeking congressional authorization for U.S.spies to continue conducting clandestine searches at foreign embassies in Washington and other cities without a federal court order.

The administration's quiet lobbying effort is aimed at modifying draft legislation that would require U.S. counterintelligence officials to get a court order before secretly snooping inside the homes or workplaces of suspected foreign agents or foreign powers.

The legislation grew out of a legal debate surrounding the government's secret surveillance of CIA official Aldrich H. Ames, who pleaded guilty in April to charges of spying for the former Soviet Union. Key evidence in the case was collected during secret searches of Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

The Constitution's Fourth Amendment guarantees "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" unless the government obtains a warrant based on probable cause of criminal activity. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), that made the search of Ames's house -- and other secret searches by the government -- probably illegal.

But government officials decided in the Ames case that no warrant was required because the searches were conducted for "foreign intelligence purposes," a goal of such vital national security interest that they said it justified extraordinary police powers.

Government lawyers have used this principle to justify other secret searches by U.S. authorities, including "black bag jobs" long conducted at foreign embassies. The number of such secret searches conducted each year is classified, but knowledgeable sources say only a handful involve U.S. citizens such as Ames and a dozen or so involve foreigners or foreign establishments.

The principle has never been rigorously tested in court, however, and in the aftermath of the Ames case, Justice Department lawyers started worrying that such warrantless searches of private homes could be held unconstitutional. Their concerns were exacerbated when Ames's lawyer, Plato Cacheris, threatened to litigate the issue.

The government's remedy was to help draft legislation giving physical searches for "foreign intelligence purposes" a stronger legal underpinning, by requiring approval from a special court established in 1978 under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The court consists of seven district court judges who now only authorize federal electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens.

As approved by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in June, however, the bill's requirements extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen."

Places such as foreign embassies, for example. So the Justice Department, acting on behalf of the FBI, told Capitol Hill it wants these searches to continue with Attorney General Janet Reno's approval, rather than that of the special seven-judge court.

The government also wants to narrow the definition of a physical search, now given in the draft bill as an "examination of the interior of a property by technical means." Its preferred alternative would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order.

The ACLU argues that giving warrantless physical searches a stronger legal underpinning will promote their wider use. "Black bag jobs were one of the worst civil liberties abuses of the Cold War," ACLU official Kate Martin told the House Permanent Select Committee on Intellige

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME