Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 25, 2013, 08:22:38 PM
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Bush Administration and Wiretaps  (Read 2035 times)
Rocky
Ace

Posts: 7,349

Join Date: Jun, 2002


« Reply #125 on: January 04, 2006, 08:07:32 PM »

Terry Shiavio is representative of the conservative ideology?  Oh please I hope you guys keep saying that, Ive never seen the base turn on the party as fast as they did during that.
Logged
Reflex
Ace

Posts: 11,331

Join Date: Dec, 2001


« Reply #126 on: January 04, 2006, 08:17:22 PM »

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.

Why would I have to link them?  Most people here are not so stupid as to not realize that Libertarians are considered to be more conservative than Republicans, just as most people here know that Greens are more liberal than Democrats.  I'm sorry that you do not know our political system very well, but that is ultimatly your problem, not mine.

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.

No, they do not.  Libertarians are more conservative than Republicans.  Conservative as a term is a measure of a set of views, the Libertarian have more conservative points of view than the Republicans do, just as the Greens have more liberal points of view than the Democrats do.

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.

I feel we have been lied to.  You don't have to agree of course, but I and many others feel we are being lied to, and are willing to call Bush out on it.

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.

If you feel he is not a liar, show me the WMD's in Iraq.  I was promised before this war, in fact the entire world was promised that we would find large stores of WMD's.  I don't see them.  There is one explicit promise I have noticed that was broken.

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.

I have given plenty of reasoning that has nothing to do with the 'liberals' out there.  I doubt many Liberals are complaining about some of the things I am complaining about, like his massive increase in centralized education or boondoggle programs like medication coverage.  Show me liberals who are complaining about those liberal social programs.

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.

I have never shown fear of anything here.  I have, however, refused to play this game your way, and I will continue to do so.  You do not control the conversation or the form it takes, you participate in it.

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

Gay Marriage Ban - This is an unlawful attack on States Rights, definatly liberal in nature.  Conservatives believe states have the rights to set their own marriage laws.  Within each state conservatives and liberals can battle to decide what is right for their communities.

Tax Cuts - I have no problem with the tax cuts.  However they should have been combined with spending cuts.  My only complaint here is that the administration is piling up massive debt without regard for the lowered income.

Terry Schiavo - What about Tirhas Habtegiris?  This poor woman was put to death despite being conscious by a law Bush signed in during his time as Governor.  Hypocracy at work here.  As for Terry herself, this was a Liberal invasion of a private marriage and the Florida State court system.  Conservatives know better than to interfere in states rights or private marriage decisions.

Iraq War - I personally have no problem with knocking over tinpot dictators and installing democracies, I feel the citizens of this world have a duty to free their fellow humans.  My only issue with the war is how it was handled.

Christmas Controversy - This comes up every year and is simply an emotional appeal to the Christian base.  More a religious issue than anything else.  I personally don't care.

War on Terrorism - We have had this 'war' for decades at least for anyone not in a coma who can get news from a source other than Fox or CNN.  Most of it however has been domestic, from abortion clinic assassins to the Unabomber and Timothy McVeigh.  While our current administration is busy overseas, groups in the US may not be getting the scrutiny they used to.  I'd be more worried about what the Aryan Nations, Earth First or the Church of God Universal and Triumphant(military grade weaponry and compound with a few thousand people in Montana that wants to overthrow the government) are up to right now than Baathists in Iraq, but hey thats me.

Border Enforcement - Not a Conservative principle.  This nation was founded by immigrants and fueled through its greatest economic growth when immigrants were allowed to enter freely.  Conservatives generally do not see it as a high priority, although for some odd reason Republicans do.

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.

You are confusing a party platform with a political point of view(conservatism).

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.

These are the values of the Republican Party Platform.  They are not necessarily conservatism.  Just because the Republicans tell you an ideal is a conservative one does not make it true.  If the Republicans decided tommorrow that Socialism was their new party platform, would that automatically make Socialism a new conservative ideal?

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

Irrelevant to the founding fathers.  The federal government purposefully did not include legislation regarding marriage because it was considered a state issue.  The US at that time(and today) had many different cultural norms that had to be respected, from the Amish to the French(after the Lousiana Purchase made by Jefferson), and any federal regulations on this would hinder states rights on those issues(and the values of individual communities).  I agree with their point of view.

How about Taxes? Would they be for them?

They were for taxes to fund explicit government needs, not for the general populace.  I agree with this.  More importantly, they did not start programs that required continuing taxation as it was felt to be an onerous burden to the citizens.

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

More importantly, did they believe in a public schooling system in which this could be a problem?  The answer is no, they believed in private schools.  Libertarians believe in school vouchers and the privatization of schools, that way if you want your child to pray in school you send them to a religious school, if not, you send them to a non-religious one.

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.

It is hardly cowardly to demonstrate respect for the founding fathers of a great nation.  I respect their views and what they stood for.  Are you telling me that you have no respect for this nations founders or their views?  Should we toss the Constitution out and start over with a new one designed for the 'issues of the moment' that you are so concerned about?

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.

Where are the WMD's?  I smell another dodge coming...

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

Actually, what I admit is that Bush is not a Conservative.  And since he appears to me to be a Liberal, I simply cannot trust him or his motives.  Perhaps were he to actually be a Conservative, I would have more faith in him.

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.

Been on record here much longer than you.  Your the only person who does not seem to understand my political leanings.
Logged
Texmaster
Ace

Posts: 3,831

Join Date: Sep, 2003


« Reply #127 on: January 05, 2006, 11:14:53 AM »

Originally posted by: Rocky

Terry Shiavio is representative of the conservative ideology?  Oh please I hope you guys keep saying that, Ive never seen the base turn on the party as fast as they did during that.


Never said that Rocky.

What I said was the value she represented that conservatives rallied behind was right to life.  Read more carefully next time.
Logged
Rocky
Ace

Posts: 7,349

Join Date: Jun, 2002


« Reply #128 on: January 05, 2006, 11:28:44 AM »

"What I said was the value she represented that conservatives rallied behind was right to life. Read more carefully next time. "

And the right to die you also rally behind with capitol punishment?  The republican wheel of morality goes round and round.

None of that has anything to do with conservatism by the way.
Logged
Texmaster
Ace

Posts: 3,831

Join Date: Sep, 2003


« Reply #129 on: January 05, 2006, 01:40:35 PM »

Originally posted by: Reflex

Why would I have to link them?  Most people here are not so stupid as to not realize that Libertarians are considered to be more conservative than Republicans, just as most people here know that Greens are more liberal than Democrats.  I'm sorry that you do not know our political system very well, but that is ultimatly your problem, not mine.


LOL   Classic Reflex.   When you can explain yourself, label.

No, they do not.  Libertarians are more conservative than Republicans.
Conservative as a term is a measure of a set of views, the Libertarian have more conservative points of view than the Republicans do, just as the Greens have more liberal points of view than the Democrats do.



Liar Liar.   Libertarians have a live and let live policy which is clearly Liberal on all social issues.   They hate value judgments on any behavior.

So much for your bullshit analogy.

I feel we have been lied to.  You don't have to agree of course, but I and many others feel we are being lied to, and are willing to call Bush out on it.


Once again, you never said I "feel" we have been lied to, another liberal trait, you made absolute statements.    Its just impossible for you to admit your mistakes isn't it?

If you feel he is not a liar, show me the WMD's in Iraq.

Boy if this isn't verbatim out of the liberal handbook I don't know what is! LOL

I was promised before this war, in fact the entire world was promised that we would find large stores of WMD's.  I don't see them.  There is one explicit promise I have noticed that was broken.


I loved the way you combined the responses to 4 points.  lol

As far as WMDs are concerned, based on REAL evidence we have available the evidence points to a massive blunder by the CIA.  As Woodard said, Tenet walked into the office of the president and when asked about it he said  "Mr President, its a slam dunk.    Also, British Intelligence, French, Israeli, Russian, Egyptian, and a host of others reported the same thing.   Of course, Bush also brainwashed all of them as well right?

If Bush did the actual surveillance for the CIA, talked to the scientists and went undercover in Iraq, you might have a point.  But since he didn't you don't.  

Only someone with a severe liberal bias such as yourself would ever assume he lied without evidence to support it.   And your absolute statements removed all doubt on your "feelings" on the subject.

I have given plenty of reasoning that has nothing to do with the 'liberals' out there.


No you haven't.  Just another empty statement of yours without substance.

I doubt many Liberals are complaining about some of the things I am complaining about, like his massive increase in centralized education or boondoggle programs like medication coverage.  Show me liberals who are complaining about those liberal social programs.


Not a problem

Timothy Noah  a noted liberal slams Bush for spending

link

Being concerned about spending is a clear libertarian position.   No one is denying that on certain fiscal issues you fall right in line with Libertarian thinking.

The objection is to your claim of Conservatism since the beliefs you have spouted only lie in the Libertarian Conservative crossover and cover NONE of the conservative ideals not held by Libertarians.

I have never shown fear of anything here.


No, you just challenge me to find the quotes, I ask you to clarify your position before running off to get what I already know and you run away.   Perhaps you are just frustrated at being caught which is why you run.

I have, however, refused to play this game your way, and I will continue to do so.  You do not control the conversation or the form it takes, you participate in it.


Why don't you just stand up on the table and cry  "You're not the boss of me!"

Listen Reflex, when you make this claims and statements and then claim you are a Conservaitve,, I will go after you on them.   Count on it.   You can run all you want but the truth will come out on what you claim to believe and what you actually state.

Gay Marriage Ban - This is an unlawful attack on States Rights, definatly liberal in nature.  Conservatives believe states have the rights to set their own marriage laws.  Within each state conservatives and liberals can battle to decide what is right for their communities.


So, you are liberal on this.

Tax Cuts - I have no problem with the tax cuts.  However they should have been combined with spending cuts.  My only complaint here is that the administration is piling up massive debt without regard for the lowered income.


Libertarian at best here

Terry Schiavo - What about Tirhas Habtegiris?  This poor woman was put to death despite being conscious by a law Bush signed in during his time as Governor.  Hypocracy at work here.  As for Terry herself, this was a Liberal invasion of a private marriage and the Florida State court system.  Conservatives know better than to interfere in states rights or private marriage decisions.


I NEVER said I agreed with what they did but their actions were focused around the right to life, a conservative position.

You could easily argue that her parents had every right to take her home and care for her.   What was the point of killing her if someone was ready from her family to care for her?

Again, you took the liberal point of view here.   Nothing wrong with that at all, but it sure as hell doesn't support your conservative libertarian philosophy you claim to have.

Iraq War - I personally have no problem with knocking over tinpot dictators and installing democracies, I feel the citizens of this world have a duty to free their fellow humans.  My only issue with the war is how it was handled.


So you supported the war from the beginning?   Yes or No?   Be mindful here, I have your old postings.

Christmas Controversy - This comes up every year and is simply an emotional appeal to the Christian base.  More a religious issue than anything else.  I personally don't care.


Yet you cared enough to voice your liberal opinion on it.    Another liberal stance and again not a big deal that it is, only trying to get you to actually voice your opinion and know where you are coming from.

War on Terrorism - We have had this 'war' for decades at least for anyone not in a coma who can get news from a source other than Fox or CNN.  Most of it however has been domestic, from abortion clinic assassins to the Unabomber and Timothy McVeigh.  While our current administration is busy overseas, groups in the US may not be getting the scrutiny they used to.  I'd be more worried about what the Aryan Nations, Earth First or the Church of God Universal and Triumphant(military grade weaponry and compound with a few thousand people in Montana that wants to overthrow the government) are up to right now than Baathists in Iraq, but hey thats me.


So, another liberal position.   Understand.   This is exactly what liberals spout.   And I see you are still clinging to the bullshit premise that Christians terrorism and Islamic Terrorism are on the same level even though the number of attacks and people dead are 1000 to 1 in people killed and hurt.  

Border Enforcement - Not a Conservative principle.


Yes it is.

This nation was founded by immigrants and fueled through its greatest economic growth when immigrants were allowed to enter freely.  Conservatives generally do not see it as a high priority, although for some odd reason Republicans do.


This just shows you woefully misinformed you are.   Only one Republican politician  (Tom Tancredo) has taken a hard stance on the border.  Republicans don't want to hurt big business so they stay away from it.   This is a key difference between what Conservatives believe vs republicans in power.

This just proves you are not a Conservative which is FINE!   I don't expect a Liberal Libertarian to know this.

You are confusing a party platform with a political point of view(conservatism).


Spout that spin all you want.  Republicans point of view and conservatives point of view are not always eye to eye.

These are the values of the Republican Party Platform.  They are not necessarily conservatism.  Just because the Republicans tell you an ideal is a conservative one does not make it true.  If the Republicans decided tommorrow that Socialism was their new party platform, would that automatically make Socialism a new conservative ideal?


Then which ones are not conservative?  And how to you explain the republicans inaction on the border, a HUGE issue for conservatives but one rejected by Republican politicians?

Irrelevant to the founding fathers.


You were the one who claimed you would ask what some founding fathers would do when making your decisions.

The federal government purposefully did not include legislation regarding marriage because it was considered a state issue.  The US at that time(and today) had many different cultural norms that had to be respected, from the Amish to the French(after the Lousiana Purchase made by Jefferson), and any federal regulations on this would hinder states rights on those issues(and the values of individual communities).  I agree with their point of view.


I asked you a simple question what you think the founding father's reaction would be that you listed to gay marriage.   Instead of answering it, you argued their political philosophy.   Try being direct.

They were for taxes to fund explicit government needs, not for the general populace.  I agree with this.  More importantly, they did not start programs that required continuing taxation as it was felt to be an onerous burden to the citizens.


So they would be against all civilian tax.   Since that is impossible today in this government it just goes to show you can't hide behind the founding fathers instead of being direct in answering your personal opinion on current events.

More importantly, did they believe in a public schooling system in which this could be a problem?  The answer is no, they believed in private schools.  Libertarians believe in school vouchers and the privatization of schools, that way if you want your child to pray in school you send them to a religious school, if not, you send them to a non-religious one.


Another dodge.   This is just another example of your standard practices of hiding behind what the founding fathers would have thought blows up in your face.  They lived in a completely different time where current events cannot be formed to meet what their opinions might be on current events without taking into account the world they lived in.   Next time, be direct, don't hide behind others to protect yourself from scrutiny.

It is hardly cowardly to demonstrate respect for the founding fathers of a great nation.I respect their views and what they stood for.  Are you telling me that you have no respect for this nations founders or their views?  Should we toss the Constitution out and start over with a new one designed for the 'issues of the moment' that you are so concerned about?


HAHAHA  yet another hypocritical example of you doing what you always accuse me of, misrepresentation.

I never said it was cowardly to respect the founding fathers.   I said it was cowardly to hide behind what they would think instead of being direct in answering questions on current events especially since there are issues that don't even come close to relating the time they lived in.

Your cowardice is not being direct in answering questions.   That is the only instance I used for the term cowardice.   I never called the founding fathers cowards or said respecting them was cowardly.   Just another example of you trying to reshape the argument because you can't defend your own words.

Where are the WMD's?  I smell another dodge coming...


No dodge,  the CIA and other national intelligence agencies got it wrong.

Since you ran away from the question by lumping quotes in together, I'll repeat it

And if it is irrelevant that Bush is lying, why did you accuse him of it?

Answer the question.   Don't hide behind great men to deflect your unwillingness to give your own opinion on issues, answer it.

Actually, what I admit is that Bush is not a Conservative.
 And since he appears to me to be a Liberal, I simply cannot trust him or his motives.  Perhaps were he to actually be a Conservative, I would have more faith in him.


Another false statement but a really funny one. .
Bush is conservative on tax breaks, abortion, the school system (by enforcing tests to grade students on their progress) defense spending, war on terrorism, right to life, Christmas protection and the list goes on.    If you wanted to say he has been wreak less on spending, then you would have a point but a LIBERAL?   LOL!!!

Do you have any idea how stupid you look when you accuse Bush of being a liberal?   Ask Rocky if he thinks that.   Hell ask ANY liberal if they think that.   In fact go talk to the mirror and ask that question, I'll wait.
Been on record here much longer than you.  Your the only person who does not seem to understand my political leanings.


I do understand your political leanings.

And after this last post, you have made it much more clear.

You are no Conservative for the obvious reasons in your positions.   You are against banning gay marriage, against pro life, against defending Christmas, pro ACLU, and you have been proven to lean liberal and believe how they do when it comes to Bush including most importantly, their assumptions without evidence in absolute statements.

In fact, on the Libertarian website, it states categorically that Libertarians are not Conservatives and only share some conservative principles when it comes to fiscal policy.   That is as far as Libertarians go with Conservative Principles.

On all other social issues, they leans liberal just as you do.    And your absolute statements and accusations directed at Bush show without evidence to support them, show you take it a step further towards liberalism.  If you had been honest about your political leanings and actual statements you had made earlier, none of this would have been necessary.

Once again, there is NOTHING wrong with being a Liberal.    LP is a huge liberal and I respect him greatly.    But pretending you are a Conservative and then claiming Bush is a Liberal is the height of lunacy.
Logged
Texmaster
Ace

Posts: 3,831

Join Date: Sep, 2003


« Reply #130 on: January 05, 2006, 01:42:58 PM »

Originally posted by: Rocky

And the right to die you also rally behind with capitol punishment?  The republican wheel of morality goes round and round.


In Capitol Punishment, those people cimmitted crimes and have to be punished for those Crimes.   Simple existing like Terry isn't a crime Rocky.

None of that has anything to do with conservatism by the way.


I know you need to protect your buddy Rocky, but pretending right to life isn't a conservative issue is like saying hippies aren't liberals.
Logged
Reflex
Ace

Posts: 11,331

Join Date: Dec, 2001


« Reply #131 on: January 05, 2006, 02:12:52 PM »

Texmaster's argument: I define the word Conservative and neither you nor any political party or even common sense can redefine it, even for yourself.

Sure Tex, gotcha there buddy.  In your world I guess I'm a Liberal since you have chosen to redefine both words to meet your personal ideals rather than accepting the commonly accepted definitions.
Logged
Texmaster
Ace

Posts: 3,831

Join Date: Sep, 2003


« Reply #132 on: January 05, 2006, 02:29:00 PM »

Originally posted by: Reflex

Texmaster's argument: I define the word Conservative and neither you nor any political party or even common sense can redefine it, even for yourself.



Texmaster's real arguement:   You can't call yourself a Conservative Libertarian and be a social liberal with an inherrant belief that Bush lies without evidence.

You can however, be a Liberal Libertarian.

Sure Tex, gotcha there buddy.  In your world I guess I'm a Liberal since you have chosen to redefine both words to meet your personal ideals rather than accepting the commonly accepted definitions.


Hey, I'm not the one stupid enough to call Bush morel liberal than conservative.
   
That ignorance is all on you.
Logged
Rocky
Ace

Posts: 7,349

Join Date: Jun, 2002


« Reply #133 on: January 05, 2006, 03:12:45 PM »

"Rocky, but pretending right to life isn't a conservative issue is like saying hippies aren't liberals. "


You mean selectively protecting life. If shiavo was a conservative issue how come the republican base turned on their leaders after they tried to protect her?

And you realize that Bush signed a law that would allow what happened to Shiavo to happen. Bush isnt a conservative.  Hes a neo-con, which is totally different.
Logged
Texmaster
Ace

Posts: 3,831

Join Date: Sep, 2003


« Reply #134 on: January 05, 2006, 04:16:44 PM »

Originally posted by: Rocky

"Rocky, but pretending right to life isn't a conservative issue is like saying hippies aren't liberals. "

You mean selectively protecting life. If shiavo was a conservative issue how come the republican base turned on their leaders after they tried to protect her?


And your evidence of this is......Oh thats right, you have none.

And you realize that Bush signed a law that would allow what happened to Shiavo to happen. Bush isnt a conservative.  Hes a neo-con, which is totally different.


At least you wern't stupid enough to say he's more liberal than conservative.
Logged
Rocky
Ace

Posts: 7,349

Join Date: Jun, 2002


« Reply #135 on: January 05, 2006, 04:26:33 PM »

"And your evidence of this is......Oh thats right, you have none. "

You keep asking for evidence without posting any of your own. Your long rants of quotes and posts doesnt classify as evidence.  You want my evidence?  Its called watching hte floor of the house for 8 hours a day for a month during the event.  First hand experience Texmaster, something you know nothing about.
Logged
Texmaster
Ace

Posts: 3,831

Join Date: Sep, 2003


« Reply #136 on: January 05, 2006, 05:02:35 PM »

Originally posted by: Rocky

"And your evidence of this is......Oh thats right, you have none. "



You keep asking for evidence without posting any of your own. Your long rants of quotes and posts doesnt classify as evidence.  You want my evidence?  Its called watching hte floor of the house for 8 hours a day for a month during the event.  First hand experience Texmaster, something you know nothing about.


what do you want evidence of Rocky?   That conservatives are pro life?  LOL   Are you serious?

You made a specific statement.  
If shiavo was a conservative issue how come the republican base turned on their leaders after they tried to protect her?


I asked you to prove it and you ran away.   Shocking

But please, if you want evidence that Conservatives are pro life just let me know!  HAHAHAHA

BTW, your prowess of sitting and watching tv aint evidence Rocky.   If it was soo obvious you should at least be able to come up with some evidence of your bullshit claim.  but I wont hold my breath.
Logged
Rocky
Ace

Posts: 7,349

Join Date: Jun, 2002


« Reply #137 on: January 05, 2006, 05:11:48 PM »

"I asked you to prove it and you ran away. "

You see Tex, there are those of us who actually do more than talk about our beleifs, there are some of us that act on them. Your lame attempts to defend yourself with jokes and attacks doesnt hide your horrible lack of experience.  If theres not an internet site quote on it then it doesnt exist in your world.  Well for the rest of us that live with this stuff everyday, experience means something, watching and listening to people means something. Your weak attempts to belittle others on the internet shows nothing. You try to discredit many people on here, people who work and talk with congressmen and senators on a regular basis, get off your ***** and go do something take part in the topics we talk about here everyday. Then come back and try to hold your own, cause right now you cant keep up, you struggle for what little life your posts have by making them longer and personally attacking other people.
Logged
Reflex
Ace

Posts: 11,331

Join Date: Dec, 2001


« Reply #138 on: January 07, 2006, 02:00:16 AM »

It appears the nonpartisan commission looking into Bush's wiretapping does not agree with his interpretation of the law: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10741787/

The 44-page report said that Bush probably cannot claim the broad presidential powers he has relied upon as authority to order the secret monitoring of calls made by U.S. citizens since the fall of 2001. Congress expressly intended for the government to seek warrants from a special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before engaging in such surveillance when it passed legislation creating the court in 1978, the CRS report said.

The report also concluded that Bush's assertion that Congress authorized such eavesdropping to detect and fight terrorists does not appear to be supported by the special resolution that Congress approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which focused on authorizing the president to use military force.

"It appears unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has expressly or impliedly authorized the NSA electronic surveillance operations here," the authors of the CRS report wrote. The administration's legal justification "does not seem to be . . . well-grounded," they said.
Logged
Rocky
Ace

Posts: 7,349

Join Date: Jun, 2002


« Reply #139 on: January 07, 2006, 10:57:52 AM »

For those of you who dont know, the Congressional Research Service is the research arm of Congress that all members and staff use on a regular basis to get background information and expert analysis.  Thanks for finding that RC.
Logged
Texmaster
Ace

Posts: 3,831

Join Date: Sep, 2003


« Reply #140 on: January 09, 2006, 09:56:55 AM »

Originally posted by: Rocky

"I asked you to prove it and you ran away. "



You see Tex, there are those of us who actually do more than talk about our beleifs, there are some of us that act on them. Your lame attempts to defend yourself with jokes and attacks doesnt hide your horrible lack of experience.



HAHAHAHA    So, you run away from answering questions and then attack my experience?  LOL

Believe me Rocky, I have plenty of experience watching you run from tough questions Rocky.

If theres not an internet site quote on it then it doesnt exist in your world.  


Never said that once.  Just another lie by you Rocky..

Well for the rest of us that live with this stuff everyday, experience means something, watching and listening to people means something. Your weak attempts to belittle others on the internet shows nothing. You try to discredit many people on here, people who work and talk with congressmen and senators on a regular basis, get off your ***** and go do something take part in the topics we talk about here everyday. Then come back and try to hold your own, cause right now you cant keep up, you struggle for what little life your posts have by making them longer and personally attacking other people.


Yes Yes I know Rocky.   You've actually ran into real life politicans.  We are all so impressed.....no really.

This really is funny.   I believe you have spent a lot of time with real politicans Rocky, your inability to back up your own bullshit statements with real evidence is proof enough of that.

So please, keep sticking that snout of yours in the air preaching to everyone here how overqualified you are and at the same time, run away from backing up your bullshit statements with real evidence.
Logged
Texmaster
Ace

Posts: 3,831

Join Date: Sep, 2003


« Reply #141 on: January 09, 2006, 10:00:26 AM »

Originally posted by: Reflex

It appears the nonpartisan commission looking into Bush's wiretapping does not agree with his interpretation of the law: "><br ">http://....msn....d/10741787/




The 44-page report said that Bush probably cannot claim the broad presidential powers he has relied upon as authority to order the secret monitoring of calls made by U.S. citizens since the fall of 2001. Congress expressly intended for the government to seek warrants from a special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before engaging in such surveillance when it passed legislation creating the court in 1978, the CRS report said.

The report also concluded that Bush's assertion that Congress authorized such eavesdropping to detect and fight terrorists does not appear to be supported by the special resolution that Congress approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which focused on authorizing the president to use military force.

"It appears unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has expressly or impliedly authorized the NSA electronic surveillance operations here," the authors of the CRS report wrote. The administration's legal justification "does not seem to be . . . well-grounded," they said.


Back on topic,

Each one of these paragraphs began with   "probably cannot claim"    "does not appear "   and  "It appears unlikely "

which just goes to show no one really knows.  The courts will decide this.
Logged
Rocky
Ace

Posts: 7,349

Join Date: Jun, 2002


« Reply #142 on: January 09, 2006, 10:49:19 AM »

"The courts will decide this. "

Theres a novel idea, if only Bush would've thought of it we wouldnt be in this mess.  Congrats on coming the obvious solution Texmaster, im proud of you.
Logged
Texmaster
Ace

Posts: 3,831

Join Date: Sep, 2003


« Reply #143 on: January 09, 2006, 01:38:42 PM »

Originally posted by: Rocky

"The courts will decide this. "



Theres a novel idea, if only Bush would've thought of it we wouldnt be in this mess.


You mean if he thought it was necessary which it wasn't.

Congrats on coming the obvious solution Texmaster, im proud of you.


Since its the only solution available, it wasn't that difficult Rocky.   I know you would like nothing better than a linching but that pesky Supreme Court is going to have to rule on this.    Just like it had to when Gore tried to steal the election
Logged
Reflex
Ace

Posts: 11,331

Join Date: Dec, 2001


« Reply #144 on: January 09, 2006, 03:19:01 PM »

You mean if he thought it was necessary which it wasn't.

On what legal grounds do you think it wasn't?  It appears that the scholars believe it was...

Ignorance of something is no excuse in the eyes of the law, and if he broke the law here he should be run out of town.  If he did not break the law, then the law needs to be changed.
Logged
Rocky
Ace

Posts: 7,349

Join Date: Jun, 2002


« Reply #145 on: January 09, 2006, 04:05:17 PM »

"You mean if he thought it was necessary which it wasn't. "

But you think its necesary now?  Why should it go to the courts at all Tex?  If you beleive your President and dont think it was necessary why are you advocating for it now?
Logged
Texmaster
Ace

Posts: 3,831

Join Date: Sep, 2003


« Reply #146 on: January 09, 2006, 04:49:35 PM »

Originally posted by: Reflex

You mean if he thought it was necessary which it wasn't.


On what legal grounds do you think it wasn't?  It appears that the scholars believe it was...


I've already given two instances Reflex.   Are you incapable of reading back in this thread?

A FISA 2002 ruling

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


And

Under Section 4 of USSID 18, communications which are known to be to or from U.S. persons can't be intentionally intercepted without: (a) the approval of the FISA court...; OR (b) the approval of the Attorney General of the United States with respect to "communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside the United States...international communications" and other categories of communications including for the purpose of collecting "significant foreign intelligence information."

USSID 18 goes on to allow NSA to gather intelligence about a U.S. person outside the United States even without Attorney General sanction in emergencies "when securing the approval of the Attorney General is not practical because...the time required to obtain such approval would result in the loss of significant foreign intelligence and would cause substantial harm to national security."

This authorization clearly supported the war in Afghanistan. It also clearly justifies the use of force against Al Qaeda. In the Hamdi case, the Supreme Court added that the AUMF authorizes the detention of enemy combatants - notwithstanding 18 USC 4001(a), which requires an Act of Congress to support executive detention. In the Court's view, the AUMF stands as the relevant Act of Congress, authorizing detention. It is therefore reasonable to say that the AUMF, by authorizing the use of "all necessary and appropriate force," also authorizes surveillance of those associated with Al Qaeda or any other organizations that "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks" of September 11.

The reason is that surveillance, including wiretapping, is reasonably believed to be an incident of the use of force. It standardly occurs during war. If the President's wiretapping has been limited to those reasonably believed to be associated with Al Qaeda and its affiliates - as indeed he has said - then the Attorney General's argument is entirely plausible. (The AUMF would not permit wiretapping of those without any connection to nations, organizations, and persons associated with the September 11 attacks.)



Ignorance of something is no excuse in the eyes of the law, and if he broke the law here he should be run out of town.  If he did not break the law, then the law needs to be changed.


if if if if   And this is assuming he didn't already have the power to do it.
Logged
Texmaster
Ace

Posts: 3,831

Join Date: Sep, 2003


« Reply #147 on: January 09, 2006, 04:51:01 PM »

Originally posted by: Rocky

"You mean if he thought it was necessary which it wasn't. "



But you think its necesary now?  Why should it go to the courts at all Tex?  If you beleive your President and dont think it was necessary why are you advocating for it now?


LOL  Because Rocky.  There are instances where its actually necessary to go to the Supreme Court to settle federal disputes.

You do realize that FISA and the Supreme Court are different courts under different rules I hope.
Logged
Rocky
Ace

Posts: 7,349

Join Date: Jun, 2002


« Reply #148 on: January 09, 2006, 05:15:36 PM »

"LOL Because Rocky. There are instances where its actually necessary to go to the Supreme Court to settle federal disputes. "

And to run you in a full circle. You are correct, it would be nice if Bush wouldve realized the benefits of the court system too.
Logged
Reflex
Ace

Posts: 11,331

Join Date: Dec, 2001


« Reply #149 on: January 09, 2006, 05:31:59 PM »

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

Right, *foreign* intelligence...

"communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside the United States...international communications" and other categories of communications including for the purpose of collecting "significant foreign intelligence information."

Once again reffering to a US Citizen who is outside the borders of the US.

USSID 18 goes on to allow NSA to gather intelligence about a U.S. person outside the United States even without Attorney General sanction in emergencies

And again, a US person outside the borders of the US...

"when securing the approval of the Attorney General is not practical because...the time required to obtain such approval would result in the loss of significant foreign intelligence and would cause substantial harm to national security."

It allows the survellance, yes, however it does not free them from obtaining a warrant.  They simply have to do so after the survelliance operation(which is what ex-facto means).

The reason is that surveillance, including wiretapping, is reasonably believed to be an incident of the use of force. It standardly occurs during war.

This line of reasoning could be applied to any number of things.  Change 'wiretapping' with 'urinating' and the statement is still true.  Does that give the government the right to put spycams in urinals without a warrant?

And this is assuming he didn't already have the power to do it.

By my reading of what you posted, he does not.  Nor according to the congressional group that studied his actions.  Nor according to the Senators who drafted the legislation he is relying on...

I don't really see what leg he has to stand on.  And in this case he appears to me to have violated the trust of the citizens of the nation, which is extremely serious in my eyes.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: