Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 19, 2013, 08:26:03 PM
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Bush Administration and Wiretaps  (Read 1993 times)
Rocky
Ace

Posts: 7,349

Join Date: Jun, 2002


« Reply #100 on: January 03, 2006, 04:51:27 PM »

"Yet they voted on it. ALL of them including your people. If they had any real backbone or concerns, they never voiced them in their vote. "

Thanks for stating the obvious again Tex.  Thats why Im very in favor of the law requiring a timeline for passage of new laws.  I would think it would be a universal beleif that members of congress should have to read what they are voting on before they vote on it.  I guess if you dont feel that what I cant really argue against you, but I think thats the basis of an electorate.
Logged
ric
Ace

Posts: 2,664

Join Date: Jun, 2003


« Reply #101 on: January 03, 2006, 04:51:52 PM »

Originally posted by: Reflex

btw...never, EVER attack a President when his poll numbers start to climb cuz it means Americans are trusting his agenda...LOSERS like to attack when the President's numbers are going up...it's the worst time to be on the attack...


Why is this exactly?  What if some people do not feel they are 'attacking' but instead feel that they are 'disagreeing' in the true democratic style?  The public discourse, the 'agora' in ancient Greek terms, which was the ideal for any government 'of the people/for the people'.



What would make a person a 'LOSER' as you so eloquently put it for daring to speak up when the tide is against them?  Wouldn't it seem that those individuals are the ones who are truly brave since they are willing to stand against public opinion and for what they feel is right, even if you disagree with it?



Those are the people excercising the rights that many have died for in this nation, and in so doing, honoring those individual sacrifices.



Your basic kindergarden Politics (101)....Loser


So what are the 'Kindergarden Politics (101)' rules in your esteemed opinion?  Dare not speak against the Supreme Ruler lest ye be judged a 'loser' by people who cannot put more than a few words together and are incapable of fully forming a political or social point of view and so adopt those handed to them by seemingly more intelligent(yet simple enough to understand) individuals?




I'm not your fellow Mod where you tend to control, reign, manipulate and humiliate them...If you are going to throw stones, you better be able to take them too...take it like a man, wimp
Logged
Texmaster
Ace

Posts: 3,831

Join Date: Sep, 2003


« Reply #102 on: January 03, 2006, 04:52:10 PM »

Originally posted by: Reflex

Not sticking my nose in the air, I'm honestly curious because you do not understand the difference between a political party and political orientation which are two different things.


If it was the first time you had done it, I wouldn't have thought much of it but it is a repeated accusation of yours enough to know its nothing more than pure arrogance.   Don't act like this is the first time you have done this.  Lie to yourself, don't post it.

You keep denying that conservatives can have their own viewpoints politically without being a political party and this is why you couldn't be more wrong if you tried when you try to pretend that only political parties can have political ideas.

Nothing to defend, I am what I am whether you like it or not.


Yes you are.  A runner.  If you actually remembered how this particular point came about, I accused you of being a liberal with two main points.   You claimed they were bullshit so I challenged you to define those two positions and you decided to run away instead of sticking up for yourself.  That is you who are.

No, an Independant can be as conservative as they wish.


LOL  If they have more conservative ideas than independent they are conservative.   How you miss this is really quite amazing.   If your opinions are more conservative than independent, how can you claim to be an independent? LOL

The whole point of being independant is that you feel no political parties meet your own beliefs, there are very liberal independants and very conservative ones, and some who are moderates as well.


HAHAHA  What grand spin.   To pretend that someone can be 90% conservative or liberal and still be an overall independent is hysterical.   You keep assuming that only political parties can have political ideas which is where you are continually wrong.  .

Why?  In the deep south much of the Republican platform for many generations has been seen as liberal/progressive.  Erosion of state rights, forced policies like Reconstruction and such moved state leaders far from the Republican Party, the party that had crushed the secession.  Despite being Democrats, they certainly were(and some still are) as Conservative as a person can get.


To be Democrat there are still basic ideals they all hold.   Pretending there isn't a core value system to those in the party is sheer lunacy.

Yes, I am a Conservative Libertarian, as I have stated on these forums for years.  The first part states my political leanings, the second part the political party I tend to affilliate with.  I could also be a Conservative Republican, a Conservative Democrat, or a Conservative Reform Party member, but I have chosen the Libertarians since I feel their party platform more closely matches my point of view than those other parties.


You want to wear the multi colored hat?  Fine by me.   But you are no conservative on any grand scale or even beyond the Libertarian values you claim to have.  Even giving you the benefit of the doubt on the issues I don't know your real opinion, at best you are a libertarian with a heavy liberal bias.

Hell I could throw on the multi colored hat and pretend I'm something I'm not just because a few ideals I have clash with conservatives like abortion and the environment just to name a few.   But I don't play that pathetic game pretending that I can wear every political hat out there because I'm afraid of calling myself what I am.   Your trends are heavy anti conservative in the examples I defined.    And instead of confronting them, you ran away.   That is your typical response when you have been nailed.  That, or droning on and on about past historical events without any evidence to support your original claims.   You would make an excellent college professor.   You're arrogant enough to think you are smarter than everyone else and if you don't want to argue the point, you can fall into a mindless droning lecture on past issues that provide your original argument with no substance whatsoever.

And here is where you disconnect.  You confuse party platforms with political leanings.  The Republicans are not automatically all conservatives, you yourself accuse John McCain of being Liberal, but he has been a loyal Republican for decades.


Sigh.  I never said all Republicans are Conservatives.   Another lie on your end.  Try reading what I say and not interpreting what you would like it to say.

Supporting Bush is the same as supporting the Republican Party, I choose not to as I do not feel they support conservative ideals, most importantly state rights and freedoms.  


Your conservative ideals there are all Libertarian.   This is why you are not a conservative because you refuse to look past your libertarian ideals on these specific points.

And how do you explain your inherent mistrust of Bush no matter what he does?   Are you going to pretend that is a Libertarian trait too?

Choosing not to support Bush does not make me a liberal, in fact I find Bush to be far too liberal for my taste just as many Green party members felt Clinton was too conservative.


Not giving him the benefit of the doubt without evidence to support your suspicions is a liberal trait just as it would be if the roles were reversed.  That is your liberal bias slant.

Bush does not have a monopoly on the definition of conservative, and up until his election to president, most considered him to actually be relatively moderate if not slightly liberal when he was governor of Texas.


GROAN.  Never said he did.   Another mischaracterization on your part.   Remember the label you kept throwing at me?  Look in the mirror because you have already done it twice in this post.

Bush has many many bad traits.  And there are PLENTLY of actual examples of where he lied.    I'll even give you one.   He claimed a high number of border patrol officers would be hired and to this date, he hasn't even reached 25% of that number.  That was a lie.

Your contention that Bush lied WITHOUT evidence based on your own suspicion is a liberal trait, not a conservative one.  And that goes for all the other points I gave of you allowing your suspicions to convict Bush of things you have no evidence to back up.      These are the points you ran away from and for good reason.  You couldn't defend your accusations with evidence.

The terms Libertarian and Conservative are not mutually exclusive.  Thats what you do not seem to understand here, liberal and conservative are relative terms depending on other factors.


They are not mutually inclusive either.  The two are separate entities despite your attempt to separate them from political ideology to political party.   Each can stand on their own and each can have separate political beliefs.  You can be a rabid sheep for republicans and not be a conservative because you only follow the party line.   That is where the two separate and both can have their own beliefs.  If you had claimed your party was libertarian but you have conservative principles because some overlap you would have at least been correct in defining what you think you are..  

At best, you could claim you are a libertarian and by definition there will be some political ideological crossover but you are not a conservative.   You have a streak in you to believe the bad about Bush and more importantly, to assume he is guilty despite a severe lack of evidence.   That is what keeps you in the liberal category.

Its a pretty major point to a conservative.  I'll also add that state rights and personal liberty are pretty major conservative points of view that the Republicans are not supporting either.


Your interpretation of them in the Patriot Act is by no means reflective of Bush's overall look at state rights or individual rights.

There are going to be certain principles that override others in many political situations like the Patriot Act where protecting the people does infringe extremely slightly on an individual's rights and keeps anyone from being a perfect model for any political belief.   The same can be said of the airlines that now restrict what you can carry on a plane which limits your rights when you fly.   Your generalization of one act and implying that it is the only principle to weigh Bush's stance on state and individual rights  just shows once again you are no conservative.  Your generalizations are exactly what liberals have done debating the same issues.

Only to you.  I have been regularly praised by others on this forum, both conservative and liberal for my reasoned approach.


LOL  What perfect arrogance.   If you are as resoned as you claim to be you would never assume accusations to be true without evidence to support them.   This you have done and have even admitted to.    Your own arrogance blinds you from the fact that do you make mistakes.
 
And not only to me little buddy.   As I have praised by others from both parties as well not to throw my nose in the air higher than yours.   I'd have to get on a ladder for that.

You decided to run away when challenged by someone who doesn't back down and demands you explain yourself when you throw out wild and unsubstantiated accusations and can dig up your old posts to show your political tendencies.

If you want to pretend you are some sort of Independent thinker, go ahead.   Stay in that world of yours.    I could care less how others perceive you.   Your own lack of backbone to defend your accusations under scrutiny dictate your ideology and your political leanings.
Logged
Texmaster
Ace

Posts: 3,831

Join Date: Sep, 2003


« Reply #103 on: January 03, 2006, 04:52:34 PM »

Originally posted by: ric

I'm not your fellow Mod where you tend to control, reign, manipulate and humiliate them...If you are going to throw stones, you better be able to take them too...take it like a man, wimp


HAHAHAHA
Logged
Texmaster
Ace

Posts: 3,831

Join Date: Sep, 2003


« Reply #104 on: January 03, 2006, 04:54:22 PM »

Originally posted by: Rocky

"Remember Rocky before you scream domestic, you have no evidence whatsoever that any of these taps were not involving foreign intelligence surveillance no matter what shore they were on. "



Umm thats my point tex.  Now you understand.  The President continues to hide and tells secrets.  The president isnt above the law.  The constitution sets up checks and balances.  You can argue the constitution is wrong and youd rather have a dictatorship all you want. But once you realize that our country has laws youll be better off.  Id be more than happy if Bush would come out and show us the evidence we're wrong so we can move on.



You assume just as your political buddy Refex does that a crime has been committed when NO evidence WHATSOEVER has been shown to back you up.

I see you ducked my FISA court ruling.

Typical Rocky.
Logged
Texmaster
Ace

Posts: 3,831

Join Date: Sep, 2003


« Reply #105 on: January 03, 2006, 04:55:59 PM »

Originally posted by: Rocky

Thanks for stating the obvious again Tex.


I had an excellent teacher in you Rocky.

Thats why Im very in favor of the law requiring a timeline for passage of new laws.  I would think it would be a universal beleif that members of congress should have to read what they are voting on before they vote on it.  I guess if you dont feel that what I cant really argue against you, but I think thats the basis of an electorate.


If they don't read the law they are signing that is incompetance.   I haven't heard you utter a word about any Democrat on that topic.

But please feel free to prove me wrong and do so now.
Logged
Rocky
Ace

Posts: 7,349

Join Date: Jun, 2002


« Reply #106 on: January 03, 2006, 04:58:20 PM »

Your ruling claerly said international.  I have said repeatedly I dont care about international spying.


"You assume just as your political buddy Refex does that a crime has been committed when NO evidence WHATSOEVER has been shown to back you up. "

Its against the law for the president to be able to tap whoever he wants without regards to the law of the land.  Unfortunately I dont have evidence of it, you know why?  Cause our president is a "runner".
Logged
Reflex
Ace

Posts: 11,331

Join Date: Dec, 2001


« Reply #107 on: January 03, 2006, 05:06:33 PM »

ric - Still sniping?  Not up to the challenge of typing more than a sentence or two?  Not able to actually put your views on display due to your apparant inability to back them up yourself?  You can call me a wimp if you wish, however you appear to be a coward to me.  Keep on sniping buddy.  
Logged
Rocky
Ace

Posts: 7,349

Join Date: Jun, 2002


« Reply #108 on: January 03, 2006, 05:17:08 PM »

"If they don't read the law they are signing that is incompetance. I haven't heard you utter a word about any Democrat on that topic. "

You will notice I have uttered a word about any republicans on the topic either Tex.  Its because 98 senators voted for it, why do you bring up parties?
Logged
lightprocess
Ace

Posts: 2,379

Join Date: Jan, 2004


« Reply #109 on: January 03, 2006, 05:17:23 PM »

Tex I feel you're still misunderstanding what Reflex is saying. Liberal and conservative, or left and right, are relative leanings, while there are absolutes such as Democrat, Republican, Independant, Green, Libertarian, etc. (notice they're proper nouns)

As the political compass has shown, there is more than 1 dimension to the political system in this country, and every property (the most important- economic and social, among other things) has a spectrum. Granted most people align themselves with Democrats and Republicans, some out of convenience- like the handful of people I know who voted for Bush purely because of abortion- everyone is going to have slightly different ideals. Thus, a "conservative Independant" is simply someone who is more conservative on certain issues (economic, social, etc.) than most Independants.

Since Libertarians typically are very very socially liberal and very very economically conservative, Reflex can call himself a conservative Libertarian is he supports his party's economic platform or is more to the right of their social platform.
Logged
Reflex
Ace

Posts: 11,331

Join Date: Dec, 2001


« Reply #110 on: January 03, 2006, 05:32:17 PM »

Alright students, class is in.  I am going to, before addressing anything else, give a short lesson about the terms 'conservative', 'liberal', 'moderate', 'independant', 'political party', 'democrat', 'republican', 'libertarian' and 'green'.

There are several political parties in this nation, however the most Relevant are the following:

Green Party (minor)
Democrat Party (major)
Republican Party (major)
Libertarian Party (minor)

The list goes in order from their general affiliation to the 'left' or 'right' with Green's being the furthest to the left, and Libertarians being the furthest to the 'right'.

If a person has no party affiliation at all, they are labeled an 'Independant' which means that in elections they can vote for whoever they wish for in all non-Partisan offices(during primaries) and all offices during the final election(true for any party member).  Independants have no party and their political views can range anywhere on the spectrum, generally they stay Independant for either personal reasons/beliefs, or because they feel that there is no party that represents their point of view.

Now, the political orientations go like this:

Liberal
Moderate
Conservative

Liberals are generally considered 'left wing' and Conservatives are generally considered 'right wing'.  Cross referencing the chart above will show which groups are most common within each party, however since political parties are merely an agreed upon platform(generally open to debate and revision from party leaders and members) and a social standing, you can have disagreements within individual parties.  For instance I have met Conservatives who are members of the Green Party, and Liberals who are members of the Libertarian Party.  Moderates are those who accept some points of view on both sides, without enough towards one side to 'swing' them solidly in a camp, there are many moderates in the Republicans and Democrats, and a few in the Libertarians and Greens.  Independants are also often Moderates, but not necessarily.

Now, disagreeing with a 'liberal' leader does not make one automatically conservative.  For instance, President Clinton was considered by many on the right to be very liberal.  However on the left opinion was rather divided.  In general Democrats approved of his moderate/left leaning approach, however a huge portion of the left side of the Dems as well as most of the Green Party disagreed and felt Clinton was far too conservative.  They did not trust his motives or feel he represented their tradional liberal values.  As a result in 2000 they fielded their own candidate(Ralph Nader) and may have been what cost Gore the election(lots of debate on that).

Consequently disagreeing with a 'conservative' leader does not make one automatically a liberal.  Myself and many in the Libertarian Party, as well as many Republicans feel that Bush has been more 'left wing' than right, and as a result have abandoned support for him.  I personally backed him on these forums for several years before giving up as I have seen the results of his policies.  We feel he has intruded on personal rights(a strong issue for Jeffersonian Conservatives such as myself), states rights, and has created a massive beauocracy that would make Franklin Rooseveldt himself proud.  I started in 2001 by giving him the 'benefit of the doubt' but in the intervening five years that view has shifted.  You have not been around here long enough to have known my defenses of Bush, however Rocky certainly does.  After 5 years of things not being as they seemed, I have given up defending him, and I am not alone in this.  This does not make me liberal, it makes myself, and the rest of those conservatives who have given up on Bush, tired of being fed words he thinks we want to hear while he does something else we dislike.

Now that the difference between 'political parties' and 'political orientations' are clear, can we continue this discussion in a more intelligent manner?  Or will you continue to mistakenly label myself and anyone else a 'liberal' simply for disagreeing with the Bush Administration?
Logged
Reflex
Ace

Posts: 11,331

Join Date: Dec, 2001


« Reply #111 on: January 03, 2006, 05:37:16 PM »

Originally posted by: lightprocess
Tex I feel you're still misunderstanding what Reflex is saying. Liberal and conservative, or left and right, are relative leanings, while there are absolutes such as Democrat, Republican, Independant, Green, Libertarian, etc. (notice they're proper nouns)

As the political compass has shown, there is more than 1 dimension to the political system in this country, and every property (the most important- economic and social, among other things) has a spectrum. Granted most people align themselves with Democrats and Republicans, some out of convenience- like the handful of people I know who voted for Bush purely because of abortion- everyone is going to have slightly different ideals. Thus, a "conservative Independant" is simply someone who is more conservative on certain issues (economic, social, etc.) than most Independants.

Since Libertarians typically are very very socially liberal and very very economically conservative, Reflex can call himself a conservative Libertarian is he supports his party's economic platform or is more to the right of their social platform.

Libertarians would argue that their social platform is actually the conservative position since it is how things were prior to the 1920's and is closer to what the founding fathers set up initially.  That said, I am to the 'right' of their point of view by current definitions in that I disagree with their reasoning on drug policy, although there certainly does need to be some rethinking of the entire thing.  I am very in favor of their economic proposals(with a few minor tweaks) as well as their immigration and education ones.  Their environmental position is also admirable, there are a LOT of environmentalists in the Libertarian party, its one of the common reasons for joining(their website dosen't explain it very well unfortunatly).  All in all though, I am a conservative in the general sense, a Libertarian in the party sense(which is a right leaning party in general).
Logged
ScutMonkey
Ace

Posts: 7,449

Join Date: Dec, 2001


« Reply #112 on: January 03, 2006, 06:35:21 PM »

Well my two cents on the issue, I have yet to see a decent technical discussion on what Bush has done illegally.  What little I've been able to glean is that he had wiretaps on calls place out of the country and from out of the country into the US which skirts the law, but doesn't exactly break it (because almost all laws on wiretapping assume the call is between two points in the US).  If this is the case meaning it's not illegal and the AG said it was legal AND he did it to fight terrorists, Dems better give up on this one and let it go because otherwise they're going to be proven yet again that they don't take national security seriously.  

However, if Bush did break the law explicitly and not just skirt it, impeach him.  

And yes, I firmly believe Kerry when he said something to the effect of, if Congress was controlled by Dems, they would be drawing up the papers to impeach him right now.  I think the atmosphere is that poisonous in DC right now.


***EDIT***

And the reason why wiretaps assume both ends are Domestic is because those laws were framed around bringing down the Mafia and are now being applied to Terrorism.  What's ironic is that the Patriot Act was written up to mirror the laws which are used by the feds to convict....the Mafia.  From Teflon Don to Osama.
Logged
Rocky
Ace

Posts: 7,349

Join Date: Jun, 2002


« Reply #113 on: January 03, 2006, 08:12:26 PM »

Scut, good post, but you missed one point.  Well you sort of addressed it when you said "What little I've been able to glean", the reason for this is the President has been hiding it. I dont know if anyone can know if what Bush did was illegal or not, thats why we have courts to dewal with these things. Secret Courts set up so the President can get authroity without affecting national security.  I dont think you are asking the right questions, the question should be is why Bush didnt get approval, and why is he afraid to open up his documents to get approval?
Logged
Texmaster
Ace

Posts: 3,831

Join Date: Sep, 2003


« Reply #114 on: January 04, 2006, 12:33:27 PM »

Originally posted by: Rocky

Your ruling claerly said international.  I have said repeatedly I dont care about international spying.


That was the not the FISA 2002 ruling Rocky.

the president has "inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance."


Now where does it say the spying has to be located in an international location?


Its against the law for the president to be able to tap whoever he wants without regards to the law of the land.  Unfortunately I dont have evidence of it, you know why?  Cause our president is a "runner".


HAHAHA   Because you are too lazy to look up the law to see if you are right.   Don't blame someone else for your own faults.
Logged
Rocky
Ace

Posts: 7,349

Join Date: Jun, 2002


« Reply #115 on: January 04, 2006, 12:36:58 PM »

Sorry I dont trust your fragment of a sentance to be the whole law of the land.  At least post in complete sentances if you want anyone to take you seriously, chopping quotes out of laws isnt going to do you any good.

Again Tex, why is Bush running from this?  When it would be so easy to clear himself of any wrong doing
Logged
ScutMonkey
Ace

Posts: 7,449

Join Date: Dec, 2001


« Reply #116 on: January 04, 2006, 12:38:18 PM »

Originally posted by: Rocky

Scut, good post, but you missed one point.  Well you sort of addressed it when you said "What little I've been able to glean", the reason for this is the President has been hiding it. I dont know if anyone can know if what Bush did was illegal or not, thats why we have courts to dewal with these things. Secret Courts set up so the President can get authroity without affecting national security.  I dont think you are asking the right questions, the question should be is why Bush didnt get approval, and why is he afraid to open up his documents to get approval?



Well if the law doesn't say he has to get approval, then....

It will be investigated and things will come out.  Should be interesting.
Logged
Texmaster
Ace

Posts: 3,831

Join Date: Sep, 2003


« Reply #117 on: January 04, 2006, 12:44:56 PM »

Originally posted by: lightprocess

Tex I feel you're still misunderstanding what Reflex is saying. Liberal and conservative, or left and right, are relative leanings, while there are absolutes such as Democrat, Republican, Independant, Green, Libertarian, etc. (notice they're proper nouns)

As the political compass has shown, there is more than 1 dimension to the political system in this country, and every property (the most important- economic and social, among other things) has a spectrum. Granted most people align themselves with Democrats and Republicans, some out of convenience- like the handful of people I know who voted for Bush purely because of abortion- everyone is going to have slightly different ideals. Thus, a "conservative Independant" is simply someone who is more conservative on certain issues (economic, social, etc.) than most Independants.

Since Libertarians typically are very very socially liberal and very very economically conservative, Reflex can call himself a conservative Libertarian is he supports his party's economic platform or is more to the right of their social platform.


I'm not saying there isn't LP.   Reflex calls himself after 5 posts of dodging it a conservative libertarian.

My point is the only conservative values he has portrayed are libertarian and no other values has he displayed that are soley conservative and not libertarian.

And in the same token, I have him on record accusing Bush of breaking laws and lyingh even though he admits there is no evidence to support his accusations.   This is not the assumptions of a conservative or a libertarian.   This is a clear liberal leaning.

See Reflex likes to pretend he isn't a liberal yet when it comes to Bush and the republican leadership, he takes the same assumptions far left liberals have made without the evidence to support it.    Now of course being a true conservative or liberal, you are going to doubt the other side naturally without evidnce.  

However, Reflex considers himself a conservative libertarian yet he takes the assumptions of someone who follows the liberal banner when it comes to republican leadership and this administration.    If he truely was what he claimed to be, this would not be the case.  He would be giving the benifit of the doubt to a conservative president is that is where his loyalties truely lie.   But he doesn't.   Nor does he with the conservative leadship in power.

That is my point.   His conservative values are libertarian and he does not venture out father than that.

conservatives believe in many things libertarians do not and I have not seen a shred of evidence since he continues to run away from pinpoint questioning any evidence his values of conservatism go beyond libertarian.
Logged
Texmaster
Ace

Posts: 3,831

Join Date: Sep, 2003


« Reply #118 on: January 04, 2006, 12:45:48 PM »

Originally posted by: ScutMonkey


Well if the law doesn't say he has to get approval, then....



It will be investigated and things will come out.  Should be interesting.


Exactly.  Screaming he broke the law as Rocky and Reflex do without evidence is just liberal bias pure and simple.
Logged
Texmaster
Ace

Posts: 3,831

Join Date: Sep, 2003


« Reply #119 on: January 04, 2006, 12:54:46 PM »

Originally posted by: Reflex

Alright students, class is in.


More arrogance.   You must really get off on this.

Since you continue to run away from the specific points you make, I have but a few questions.   Lets see if you are able to answer them.

What part of your values of conservatism go beyond the shared values of libertarians and conservatives with government?  This includes the social issues of conservatism since you have never distingished your social and fiscal tendencies and only painted the brush as a conservative libertarian.

You keep claiming you aren't a liberal yet you assume Bush is lying on multiple items without evidence to support them.  

Is this Libertarian?   Is it Conservative?

These simple questions will go a long way if you answer them.
Logged
Rocky
Ace

Posts: 7,349

Join Date: Jun, 2002


« Reply #120 on: January 04, 2006, 01:00:52 PM »

"Well if the law doesn't say he has to get approval, then....

It will be investigated and things will come out. Should be interesting. "


The law isnt completely clear, everyone agrees on that. But what is known is that Bush asked congress include the words "in the United States" in his authorization bill after 9/11 which wouldve cleared things up.  Congress said NO, and took out that language.  Which i think the objective person would see that as Congress not wanting a President to have that total authority.

"It will be investigated and things will come out. "

Is correct. But instead of that HUGE governmetn waste of spending why doesnt Bush just present his case and then have it decided on. Shouldnt be a big deal if its all legit does it?  This shouldnt be news. But the arrogance and secrets of this administration continue their thoughts that they are above everything else.  Well they arent, the constitution makes it that way for a reason.
Logged
Reflex
Ace

Posts: 11,331

Join Date: Dec, 2001


« Reply #121 on: January 04, 2006, 02:11:17 PM »

I'm not saying there isn't LP. Reflex calls himself after 5 posts of dodging it a conservative libertarian.

Yes, I called myself the same thing I've called myself for nearly five years on this board.  A Conservative Libertarian.  Your apparantly the only person here who was not able to glean that from my conversations without me spelling out what a Libertarian is.

My point is the only conservative values he has portrayed are libertarian and no other values has he displayed that are soley conservative and not libertarian.

Once again, 'conservative' and 'libertarian' are not mutually exclusive, there is no 'conservative party' in the US and you do not have to belong to a party at all to be a conservative.  My father is about as conservative as they come, he'd make you Texans look like flaming lefty's, but he does not belong to the Republican or Libertarian parties, he considers them to be too 'liberal' for him.  Its all a matter of perspective.

And in the same token, I have him on record accusing Bush of breaking laws and lyingh even though he admits there is no evidence to support his accusations. This is not the assumptions of a conservative or a libertarian. This is a clear liberal leaning.

Strawman.  I am merely pointing out that there is circumstantial evidence, much as there was with Nixon and LBJ.  Short of reading his diary its impossible to prove he knew anything conclusively, just as its impossible to prove he did not.  Are you a mind reader who can prove he knew nothing he shouldn't have?  When his claims turn out false repeatedly over a five year peroid its reasonable to begin to have doubts about what he is saying, in my opinion.  This does not make one a liberal unless you would qualify those Green's and Democrats who lost faith in Clinton over his term to be 'conservatives' because they felt he wasn't telling them the whole truth due to some things not turning out like he said.

See Reflex likes to pretend he isn't a liberal yet when it comes to Bush and the republican leadership, he takes the same assumptions far left liberals have made without the evidence to support it. Now of course being a true conservative or liberal, you are going to doubt the other side naturally without evidnce.

Actually, my largest issue with the Bush administration is that its extremely liberal but has dressed itself in the rhetoric of conservatism.  They have expanded nationalized health care(prescription drug benefits, enhanced Medicaid/medicare), stripped states of their rights through various measures(RealID for instance), attempted to coerce the federal and state judiciary into becoming activist in nature regardless of the law(Terry Schiavo case), Invaded personal privacy of the citizens in the name of 'security'(Patriot Act), overspent their means by record amounts, centralized control of education(whatever happened to school vouchers and local control???) and become world police much like Clinton in Bosnia and Haiti.  Bush and the others think that as long as they give a few kind words to Pat Robertson and his ilk, talk up the military while cutting veterans benefits and occasionally bash gays that it covers up the fact that they are one of the most liberal administrations we've had since Kennedy.  And sadly, it seems to have fooled the Republican base quite well.  Like tossing a cheap coat of paint on an old car before you sell it to an unwitting customer.

However, Reflex considers himself a conservative libertarian yet he takes the assumptions of someone who follows the liberal banner when it comes to republican leadership and this administration. If he truely was what he claimed to be, this would not be the case. He would be giving the benifit of the doubt to a conservative president is that is where his loyalties truely lie. But he doesn't. Nor does he with the conservative leadship in power.

I have not seen much in the way of 'conservatism' among those in power.  Why should I not be suspicious of those who pander to conservative emotional issues but ignore the conservative ideals for running a government?

That is my point. His conservative values are libertarian and he does not venture out father than that.

Libertarian values are conservative in nature.  They are based on the ideals and writings of the founding fathers of this country, hence why I quote them so often(as well as correct common misconceptions).  You cannot really get more conservative than the founding fathers in terms of your political ideologies.

conservatives believe in many things libertarians do not and I have not seen a shred of evidence since he continues to run away from pinpoint questioning any evidence his values of conservatism go beyond libertarian.

No, Republicans believe in many things that Libertarian's do not.  Many things are debated among Conservatives, as Conservatism itself is relative to a person's frame of reference(our idea of Conservatism is not the same as Germany's for instance, or even California's).  This does not mean that the Republican definition of Conservatism is any more correct than the Libertarian definition, and while they have differences the core values are still very similiar.

More arrogance. You must really get off on this.

And you must do your research before posting ignorantly about conservatives, liberals, republicans, democrats and libertarians.  You had an obvious misconception, and your attitude justified my approach.

Since you continue to run away from the specific points you make, I have but a few questions. Lets see if you are able to answer them.

You rarely make points, you paraphrase other people and then go "yes or no?" as though thats making a point or even representing that person correctly.  If you have a point, make it, we're still waiting.

What part of your values of conservatism go beyond the shared values of libertarians and conservatives with government? This includes the social issues of conservatism since you have never distingished your social and fiscal tendencies and only painted the brush as a conservative libertarian.

This paragraph made little sense, however I'll attempt to address what I think you are asking.  My values basically go as follows: What would Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams and Ben Franklin think about a given situation?  WHy would they feel that way?  What can I read about their own lives and writings that would shed light on it?  I believe they had a very specific ideal for both this nation and humanity at large.  I test every issue of law in my mind against the Constitution.  If it does not pass muster, it is not Conservative by definition as it attempts to change the foundations the nation was laid upon.  It also is an insult to the founders, an implication that we are smarter than they could have been when they designed what is more or less a system of self-governance.

I believe in their ideals and their foundation, and I seek to both preserve it and spread it to other nations.

You keep claiming you aren't a liberal yet you assume Bush is lying on multiple items without evidence to support them.

If it looks like a fish, if it smells like a fish, if it swims like a fish....it is probably a fish.  At a certain point it is irrelevant whether or not Bush is lying, the simple fact is that he is wrong.  A lot.  Not a president I can have confidence in.

Is this Libertarian? Is it Conservative?

Both.  Expecting the president to uphold the values his party runs on seems a reasonable expectation.

These simple questions will go a long way if you answer them.

A long way towards what?  Making you feel better about yourself?
Logged
Rocky
Ace

Posts: 7,349

Join Date: Jun, 2002


« Reply #122 on: January 04, 2006, 02:49:53 PM »

Reflex if you could also please define the following words.

Deist, plexus, porgy, gasper, excoriator, and what would be the definition of a tinman and the lion?  And are you todo in this play?
Logged
Texmaster
Ace

Posts: 3,831

Join Date: Sep, 2003


« Reply #123 on: January 04, 2006, 07:36:33 PM »

Originally posted by: Reflex

Yes, I called myself the same thing I've called myself for nearly five years on this board.  A Conservative Libertarian.  Your apparantly the only person here who was not able to glean that from my conversations without me spelling out what a Libertarian is.


Sorry Reflex.  Not only have you only called yourself a Conservative in one post and only a Libertarian in another never linking the two, you dodged the question 5 times when I asked you.   Pretending you didn't is nothing more than another false statement.   If it was so easy for you to admit you shouldn't have had a problem declaring it the first time.

Once again, 'conservative' and 'libertarian' are not mutually exclusive, there is no 'conservative party' in the US and you do not have to belong to a party at all to be a conservative.  My father is about as conservative as they come, he'd make you Texans look like flaming lefty's, but he does not belong to the Republican or Libertarian parties, he considers them to be too 'liberal' for him.  Its all a matter of perspective.


How many times do I have to say this before you get it?   Conservatives have thoughts and values that libertarians do NOT have.   You are so wrapped up in whether or not a political party exists for the group and base that on whether or not that can have their own viewpoints, you continue to overlook that each group has its own values and judgments.   Stop pretending that this has some political party meaning and simply look at the different groups and what they believe.   It looks far more like another dodge than anything else.    I already said that conservatives and libertarians share some common traits but they do NOT share all traits.   I've said this twice before.   Try reading it this time.

Strawman.


HAHAHA   Here comes that pathetic label once again when you can't come to grips with your own statements.   So sadly predictable.

I am merely pointing out that there is circumstantial evidence, much as there was with Nixon and LBJ.  


That is a LIE.  You never said it was circumstantial evidence.  You listed it as a point to prove Bush's fascism.

Just another lie you have been caught making...again.

But please, dare me to produce the quotes where you made these absolute statements and get your tennis shoes laced up.


Short of reading his diary its impossible to prove he knew anything conclusively, just as its impossible to prove he did not.  Are you a mind reader who can prove he knew nothing he shouldn't have?  When his claims turn out false repeatedly over a five year peroid its reasonable to begin to have doubts about what he is saying, in my opinion.  


You NEVER said you had doubts.  You made absolute statements that he was a liar.  And anyone looking at the wiretap story knows there are defenses on both sides.   You NEVER said anything like it was possible, you made absolute statements.

Go ahead and deny it.  Please.    I have your direct quotes ready.

This is what you always try to do when you are loosing.   You either run, use a label, or in this case as with many others, try and reinvent what you originally said into something that fits your case better.

Well too bad.   Your absolute quotes speak for themselves.

This does not make one a liberal unless you would qualify those Green's and Democrats who lost faith in Clinton over his term to be 'conservatives' because they felt he wasn't telling them the whole truth due to some things not turning out like he said.


It absolutely shows you have serious liberal leanings since you not only spout their positions on these topics, you have the exact same bias towards accusations you assume are correct against Bush and Republican leaders even though the evidence is NOT there.

Actually, my largest issue with the Bush administration is that its extremely liberal but has dressed itself in the rhetoric of conservatism.  They have expanded nationalized health care(prescription drug benefits, enhanced Medicaid/medicare), stripped states of their rights through various measures(RealID for instance), attempted to coerce the federal and state judiciary into becoming activist in nature regardless of the law(Terry Schiavo case), Invaded personal privacy of the citizens in the name of 'security'(Patriot Act), overspent their means by record amounts, centralized control of education(whatever happened to school vouchers and local control???) and become world police much like Clinton in Bosnia and Haiti.  Bush and the others think that as long as they give a few kind words to Pat Robertson and his ilk, talk up the military while cutting veterans benefits and occasionally bash gays that it covers up the fact that they are one of the most liberal administrations we've had since Kennedy.  And sadly, it seems to have fooled the Republican base quite well.  Like tossing a cheap coat of paint on an old car before you sell it to an unwitting customer.


Dodge dodge dodge.  Try addressing the specific points you made earlier.

But let's be very clear on many of the points you try to mask what you said before since you are afraid to answer them directly.

In the Terry Shievo case, that was not Bush but Frist.  He took the action.  And it was on the right to life issue, clearly a conservative one.  Both Bush and Frist said this.   Your reinterpretation not withstanding.  And the Patriot act as you have brought up for the 200th time was designed to protect us from terrorism which true conservatives are willing to part with very few individual rights taken away from us in order to be more secure from terrorism. Funny how your arguments on this are also the same arguments liberals use.

More liberal tendencies come out with the always amusing "bashing gays" liberal accusation.   How has Bush done this?   Oh yes, you were attacking another conservative.

Funny how you look over the massive tax breaks.  Were you for these?   If not, you not only go against conservatives but libertarians as well.

How about gay marriage?   That has been on the forefront.   What is your stance there?

Or invading Iraq in the first place?   Were you against that from the beginning?   Careful, I have your original postings.

How about Christmas?   Do you believe Christmas has been under the attack of the ACLU?

How about affirmative action?  Are you for or against that?

See you like to cherry pick your accusations but so far, nothing you have pointed out isn't a libertarian position.

Where are you conservative positions that do NOT coincide with libertarian positions?

Note:  This is the second time I have asked this of you.

I have not seen much in the way of 'conservatism' among those in power.


Gay Marriage Ban
Tax Cuts
Terry (right to life)
Iraq War
Christmas controversy
The War on Terrorism
Border Enforcement

These are conservative principles that have been fought by conservatives including Bush and leading Republicans.  Funny how you only stick to what Libertarians share in common with Conservatives and never go beyond that.

Why should I not be suspicious of those who pander to conservative emotional issues but ignore the conservative ideals for running a government?


Suspicion and making absolute statements are two VERY different things.   What you claim you are doing now is not what you posted.   You can't rewrite your own history.

Libertarian values are conservative in nature.  They are based on the ideals and writings of the founding fathers of this country, hence why I quote them so often(as well as correct common misconceptions).  You cannot really get more conservative than the founding fathers in terms of your political ideologies.


Another dodge.   I love it.  Still think you can hide behind this?

No, Republicans believe in many things that Libertarian's do not.  Many things are debated among Conservatives, as Conservatism itself is relative to a person's frame of reference(our idea of Conservatism is not the same as Germany's for instance, or even California's).  This does not mean that the Republican definition of Conservatism is any more correct than the Libertarian definition, and while they have differences the core values are still very similiar.


That's right.  Conservatives do have core values which you still run away from answering
.
Just to name a few....

They are against overall:

Gay Marriage.
Abortion
Drug Legalization
The elimination of religion from schools

They are for:

Border Patrol
A Traditional America
Tax Cuts
More Conservative Judges

Now once again, these are values NOT in Libertarian thinking.  If you truly believe you are a Conservative outside the common traits shared by Libertarians, then lets see your positions on these topics.


And you must do your research before posting ignorantly about conservatives, liberals, republicans, democrats and libertarians.  You had an obvious misconception, and your attitude justified my approach.


Your ignorance is your belief that you can pretend to be conservative and never have a value that isn't shared by Libertarian views.

I hope you finally get down to quoting me where I actually asked you specific questions instead of replying to something I said to someone else..

You rarely make points, you paraphrase other people and then go "yes or no?" as though thats making a point or even representing that person correctly.  If you have a point, make it, we're still waiting.


Run run run away! LOL   Yes.   I misrepresent you so often you can't even respond or defend yourself on points you have made.   Damn I'm good

This paragraph made little sense, however I'll attempt to address what I think you are asking.  My values basically go as follows: What would Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams and Ben Franklin think about a given situation?  WHy would they feel that way?  What can I read about their own lives and writings that would shed light on it?  I believe they had a very specific ideal for both this nation and humanity at large.  I test every issue of law in my mind against the Constitution.  If it does not pass muster, it is not Conservative by definition as it attempts to change the foundations the nation was laid upon.  It also is an insult to the founders, an implication that we are smarter than they could have been when they designed what is more or less a system of self-governance.


HAHAHAHAHA  I knew you wouldn't do it.    Instead of being a man and listing your values you once again retreat to pretending to do what our founding fathers would do.

So, using your evading logic, lets take just a few conservative topics

Gay Marriage.   Do you think the founding fathers given the time they lived in, would be for it?

How about Taxes?  Would they be for them?

How about prayer in school?  Think they would be against that?

This is your cowardly attempt not to answer the question directly hiding behind men who lived over 200 years ago instead of being man enough to give your opinion on modern issues.  How pathetic.    Is the starch in your shirt the only thing keeping you upright?    Grow a backbone for once and quit hiding behind men who have been dead for over 200 years and answer current even questions.

I believe in their ideals and their foundation, and I seek to both preserve it and spread it to other nations.


Yet in all your beliefs you can't answer simple current event questions.   Pathetic but predictable.

If it looks like a fish, if it smells like a fish, if it swims like a fish....it is probably a fish.  At a certain point it is irrelevant whether or not Bush is lying, the simple fact is that he is wrong.  A lot.  Not a president I can have confidence in.


Looks like a liberal, smells, like a liberal, takes the same positions and assumptions as a liberal.... it is probably a liberal.

And if it is irrelevant that Bush is lying, why did you accuse him of it?
I smell another dodge coming.

Both.  Expecting the president to uphold the values his party runs on seems a reasonable expectation.


LOL  So you admit you assume a conservative president is lying without evidence.   That is the liberal bias shining through once again.

A long way towards what?  Making you feel better about yourself?


LOL  It goes a long way to you actually being honest about the positions you take.
The fact that you dodged the very questions of issues beyond what conservatives and libertarians share makes my point for me.

You simply don't have the backbone to put your beliefs out there because you know it wont hold up to the label you have given yourself.

99% of the people here have no problem admitting and being honest about their political leanings and points of view on specific subjects.

Only you run from specific questions designed to shed some light on your political biasness.

Lets see if you run away again from these specific points.
Logged
Texmaster
Ace

Posts: 3,831

Join Date: Sep, 2003


« Reply #124 on: January 04, 2006, 07:37:12 PM »

Originally posted by: Rocky

Reflex if you could also please define the following words.



Deist, plexus, porgy, gasper, excoriator, and what would be the definition of a tinman and the lion?  And are you todo in this play?


Did the Witch from the West scare you Rocky?   Its ok, you can tell us.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: