Is this enough for impeachment? - Page 13 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-21-2005, 12:50 PM   #181
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 09:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
In the wake of 9-11 and War On Terror most Americans will give GW a pass and consider him and his actions honorable based the circumstances he was thrust into.

Shrill, negative, naysayers will only be exposed for who they are, and what their agendas include.

The majority of the country figuatively rolls their eyes, acknowledges who is complaining, and the work presses forward.

Peace,
db9
You can't be serious. Give him a pass? If this is true he broke the fucking law. You don't give the leader of the country a pass. If we allow the president of the country to break the law then we compromise democracy. You know that thing we're trying to spread? You can't spread democracy if your own is compromised.

Please get a clue.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 12:56 PM   #182
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 03:27 PM
Why don't we just sign up for a dictatorship while we're at it...everything Dubya says and does must be just purely good, right?

Screw checks and balances, the law, the constitution, congress. Damn the democrats for trying to keep our leader in line...they're such a hindrance and ought to burn in hell.

__________________

__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 01:03 PM   #183
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 08:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


You can't be serious. Give him a pass? If this is true he broke the fucking law. You don't give the leader of the country a pass. If we allow the president of the country to break the law then we compromise democracy. You know that thing we're trying to spread? You can't spread democracy if your own is compromised.

Please get a clue.
condescending posts laced with profanity will not win many people over, and will actually add to one's demise.

db9
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 01:05 PM   #184
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 10:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
In the wake of 9-11 and War On Terror most Americans will give GW a pass and consider him and his actions honorable based the circumstances he was thrust into.
So we should throw out everything this country supposedly stands for because of 9/11 and the "war on terror"? I'd say the terrorists really win if we do that. They don't even have to win, we defeat ourselves.

People are treading on dangerous territory when they use September 11th to bend and maybe even break the law and ethical standards. And when they prey on peoples' fears in order to gain support for dubious actions.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 01:09 PM   #185
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 08:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen


So we should throw out everything this country supposedly stands for because of 9/11 and the "war on terror"? I'd say the terrorists really win if we do that. They don't even have to win, we defeat ourselves.

People are treading on dangerous territory when they use September 11th to bend and maybe even break the law and ethical standards. And when they prey on peoples' fears in order to gain support for dubious actions.
Everything hasn't been "thrown out" Gina.
That is a bit 'dubious' on your part to even suggest that.

db9
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 01:09 PM   #186
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 09:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


condescending posts laced with profanity will not win many people over, and will actually add to one's demise.

db9
I'm not trying to win you over. You've made yourself very clear that you don't care if he lies, cheats or steals. That is not democracy, plain and simple.

And if upholding the integrity of democracy will lead to one's demise, than consider me gone.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 01:14 PM   #187
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 10:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond

Everything hasn't been "thrown out"

Well at the very least integrity has been thrown out by this administration, that is everything to me.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 02:01 PM   #188
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 10:27 AM
DICK MORRIS: SPY STORY COULD BITE DEMS

December 21, 2005 -- Whom did the Valerie Plame leak hurt? Valerie, who went from undercover to on the cover when she posed for Vanity Fair? Joe Wilson, who got a best-selling book out of the deal?

The current leak, however, of classified material relating to National Security Agency tactics in intercepting conversations between people abroad and those within the United States is a vastly serious proposition that may have materially compromised investigations in progress and tipped terrorists off to our methods so that they can hide among us undetected.

This leak, far more than the Valerie Plame incident, deserves a full investigation to identify who spilled the beans and to whom and how. The consequences of this leak alone merit an independent investigation and, perhaps, a trial for treason.

Why does Bush need to use taps without warrants in the fight on terror? The answer is obvious: We often don't know who or what we are looking for.

Our analysts' best hope of catching and exposing terror plots against us lies in combing the airwaves, listening for suspicious words and phrases or patterns. Unlike criminal investigations, which are deductive -- predicated on a single suspect or a number of alternative suspects -- terror investigators want to find out what is going on and only an inductive approach -- amassing lots of material and searching for patterns -- has any chance of success.

For example, in 2002 the federal government tipped off the New York City Police Department that there was a lot of chatter about the Brooklyn Bridge. The resulting police tactics stopped the attack and eventually led to the apprehension of the would-be bomber.

What warrant could the anti-terror investigators have gotten to allow such a search? They had no name, no phone numbers, no idea of what to look for. But a careful analysis of the data averted a massive tragedy.

Politically, the left is making a big mistake in focusing on the issue. Bush is well-served by bringing the terrorism debate home. Isolationists -- about 40 percent of the nation, divided between the two parties -- will not back him on a war in Iraq but sure will support him against attempts to handcuff homeland security in the name of privacy or civil liberties. By raising this issue -- and the concomitant issue of the Patriot Act renewal -- the Democrats are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Iraq is a winner for the left. Homeland security is a loser.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 02:16 PM   #189
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


You really should be carefully quoting Drudge "BLURBS".

Maybe take the time to read the actual documents...

Oh wait...Scarletwine did!

THis is SPIN....Verses REALITY.

PHYSICAL searches and Wiretapping of FOREIGN citizens is not the same issue.
I think we are looking at the slippery slope. Past Presidents have exercised powers that would appear to go beyond limits established by law. If we go back far enough, I'm sure we'd see a pattern and practice of this. I'm not sure the new elements added in this case poses such a significant difference that we change from a "Presidential power" to "not a Presidential power".

Perhaps that element should be examined in greater detail.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 02:34 PM   #190
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 08:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
DICK MORRIS: SPY STORY COULD BITE DEMS

December 21, 2005 -- Whom did the Valerie Plame leak hurt? Valerie, who went from undercover to on the cover when she posed for Vanity Fair? Joe Wilson, who got a best-selling book out of the deal?

The current leak, however, of classified material relating to National Security Agency tactics in intercepting conversations between people abroad and those within the United States is a vastly serious proposition that may have materially compromised investigations in progress and tipped terrorists off to our methods so that they can hide among us undetected.

This leak, far more than the Valerie Plame incident, deserves a full investigation to identify who spilled the beans and to whom and how. The consequences of this leak alone merit an independent investigation and, perhaps, a trial for treason.

Why does Bush need to use taps without warrants in the fight on terror? The answer is obvious: We often don't know who or what we are looking for.

Our analysts' best hope of catching and exposing terror plots against us lies in combing the airwaves, listening for suspicious words and phrases or patterns. Unlike criminal investigations, which are deductive -- predicated on a single suspect or a number of alternative suspects -- terror investigators want to find out what is going on and only an inductive approach -- amassing lots of material and searching for patterns -- has any chance of success.

For example, in 2002 the federal government tipped off the New York City Police Department that there was a lot of chatter about the Brooklyn Bridge. The resulting police tactics stopped the attack and eventually led to the apprehension of the would-be bomber.

What warrant could the anti-terror investigators have gotten to allow such a search? They had no name, no phone numbers, no idea of what to look for. But a careful analysis of the data averted a massive tragedy.

Politically, the left is making a big mistake in focusing on the issue. Bush is well-served by bringing the terrorism debate home. Isolationists -- about 40 percent of the nation, divided between the two parties -- will not back him on a war in Iraq but sure will support him against attempts to handcuff homeland security in the name of privacy or civil liberties. By raising this issue -- and the concomitant issue of the Patriot Act renewal -- the Democrats are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Iraq is a winner for the left. Homeland security is a loser.
Although Dick Morris is seemed as creepy he has a good point here, the same point I've been trying to make.
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 02:34 PM   #191
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


I think we are looking at the slippery slope. Past Presidents have exercised powers that would appear to go beyond limits established by law. If we go back far enough, I'm sure we'd see a pattern and practice of this. I'm not sure the new elements added in this case poses such a significant difference that we change from a "Presidential power" to "not a Presidential power".

Perhaps that element should be examined in greater detail.
Dick Cheney agrees with you, but he has been flat out wrong so many times lately

Quote:
Cheney Defends Domestic Spying

He says Bush's decision to sidestep the courts and allow surveillance was an organized effort to regain presidential powers lost in the 1970s.

By Maura Reynolds
Times Staff Writer

December 21, 2005

WASHINGTON — President Bush's decision to bypass court review and authorize domestic wiretapping by executive order was part of a concerted effort to rebuild presidential powers weakened in the 1970s as a result of the Watergate scandal and the Vietnam War, Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday.

Returning from a trip to the Middle East, Cheney said that threats facing the country required that the president's authority under the Constitution be "unimpaired."

"Watergate and a lot of the things around Watergate and Vietnam, both during the 1970s, served, I think, to erode the authority I think the president needs to be effective, especially in the national security area," Cheney told reporters traveling with him on Air Force Two. "Especially in the day and age we live in … the president of the United States needs to have his constitutional powers unimpaired, if you will, in terms of the conduct of national security policy."

Cheney's remarks were recorded by reporters traveling with him and disseminated by the White House under an official pool arrangement.
Quote:
New rounds of criticism followed reports Tuesday of comments Bush made last year in which he seemed to assure his audience that the government conducted wiretaps only with court approval.

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretaps, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order," the president said in a speech in Buffalo, N.Y. on April 20, 2004, in which he discussed enactment of the Patriot Act.

"Nothing has changed, by the way," Bush continued in the speech. "When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said it was "time for the president to tell the truth."

"Why is it that President Bush went in front of the American people and said that a wiretap 'requires a court order' after having approved a wiretap program without a court order two years earlier?"
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...adlines-nation
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 05:25 PM   #192
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 10:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


I think we are looking at the slippery slope. Past Presidents have exercised powers that would appear to go beyond limits established by law. If we go back far enough, I'm sure we'd see a pattern and practice of this. I'm not sure the new elements added in this case poses such a significant difference that we change from a "Presidential power" to "not a Presidential power".

Perhaps that element should be examined in greater detail.
I agree it needs examination.

In reading about the things on Clinton it says "PHYSICAL" search.

In reading about Carter it is clear that American citizens were not allowed to be the target.

At what point to the checks and balances count.

I am not willing to allow the law to be broken on the President's wim. I do not trust one branch of the government to make certain my rights are not being broken.

I have argued in here for the Patriot Act. A legal means that this President said was necessary to fight terrorism. There were provisions and oversites established by this law.

They say he did not violate the Patriot Act because he was operating under another law.

Well, then WHY did you need the Patriot Act if you are going to circumvent it.

It does not add up. I do not buy it. It is wrong.

The smoke cloud thrown out there over this is amazing. I have heard pundits say he is operating under the War Powers. There has been no War declared.

I have seen Carter did it.....apparently not true.

I have seen Clinton did it.....apparently not true.

There needs to be an investigation. I SERIOUSLY wonder what intercepts there have been.

Last night I heard Greenpeace, PETA.,,,,

What if MOVE ON was tapped.

As fucking disgusting I find MoveON, I would be more disgusted if it turns out that they were tapped as well.

This is not going to go away without an investigation.

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 05:44 PM   #193
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 03:27 PM
Dread

I'll keep up the fight with you
__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 06:14 PM   #194
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 03:27 PM
Can someone please point out the exact line in the Patriot Act/FISA law whatever that gives the President the right to wiretap without a warrent? They say it's in the Patriot Act but no one has come out and said "Yes here's the line that gives the president such power." Does that not say something?
__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 06:19 PM   #195
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 11:57 AM
Good points Dread!

There are some people who are wondering about why didn't they simply go back and get the permission after the taps were in place, they can do that. Some people say it's because they didn't want the courts to have an official record of who were the targets of the wiretaps.

Did you like my Fox News format there?
__________________

__________________
trevster2k is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com