|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
dpfitzen
|
|
response 150 of 404:
| 
Dec 30 23:14 UTC 2005 |
Mighty sorry if I distracted the discussion. The discussion of wire taps ,
the law,previous presidents use of wire taps . Can't understand abit about
resignation and or impeachment when no one has definately determined if a
federal crime has been committed. Where did the various lawyers obtain their
facts for advising the president? Were the laws so poorly written anyone and
everyone is right? Considering newspaper articles and various leaks could
it be there is plenty reason for not reporting a wire tap? What about the
old classified material idea? Don't understand comparing one leven of crime
with another. A crime is a crime degree has to do with punishment. To
determine if one is a habitual lier prehaps the chicago trubune articles will
prove interesting to some to establish Bush's integrity and respect for the
constitution. It was suggested it would be nice if we could find something
to agree on. Well todays articles in the series reads (president had legal
authority to ok taps and the second so much for protecting constitution) Now
there is something for everyone. The business of religion gosh thought we
out grew that when a catholic became pres. Where does one establish God &
King Pres. theory? Control courts well guess that depends on who is counting
left or right. That is if one or the other have been counted as more
religious. ACLU prey on weak minds prehaps I don't know but feel they aren't
doing our country any good acting like we aren't at war. Like some the more
law suits they can come up with the more $ and more power. Seems it has been
proven to be anything but democratic.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 151 of 404:
|
Dec 30 23:56 UTC 2005 |
Tod, I enjoyed very much reading that story. Thank you for sharing it
with us!
Re: the ACLU. I don't agree with them on everything. And I do think they
are a bit less non-partisan than others claim. However, all in all I
think they do good work.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 152 of 404:
|
Dec 31 01:25 UTC 2005 |
Re #150: "Can't understand abit about resignation and or impeachment when
no one has definately determined if a federal crime has been committed."
Bush has admitted to not following FISA. He and his supporters claim his
constitutional powers as CIC permit him to do this. Previous SCOTUS
decisions, in which presidents have made similar assertions, have rejected
Bush's interpretation. Therefore, it's not too hard to conclude Bush not
only broke the law but that his defense to his crime will be rejected.
|
richard
|
|
response 153 of 404:
|
Dec 31 01:50 UTC 2005 |
True but Bush will simply claim that he followed his lawyer's advice.
His lawyer being the Attorney General. He'll make Gonzalez take the
fall if it comes to it.
|
klg
|
|
response 154 of 404:
|
Dec 31 02:26 UTC 2005 |
When the TSA was established, the ACLU threatened to sue if it used
personal appearance as a means of i.d.ing potential terrorists. It said
the screeners should use individual behavior, instead.
Now, the TSA has announced a program to use individual behavior as the
means of i.d.ing potential terrorists.
The ACLU has threatened to sue.
Are they funny, or what?
(Would someone please get Richard a dictionary of IDIOMS?)
|
richard
|
|
response 155 of 404:
|
Dec 31 02:48 UTC 2005 |
The ACLU is not suing over the monitoring of individual behaviour of
TERRORISTS to ID terrorists. They are suing over the monitoring of the
individual behaviour of PRIVATE AMERICAN CITIZENS. You do understand
the difference between monitoring foreign persons who are suspected of
being terrorists, and monitoring private american citizens who are
supposed to be protected, ensured the basic right to privacy, by the
Bill of Rights, don't you klg?
|
scooterlibby
|
|
response 156 of 404:
|
Dec 31 02:55 UTC 2005 |
Deal with it. This president is going to do whatever the fuck he wants,
and there isn't a god damned thing you can do about it.
|
klg
|
|
response 157 of 404:
|
Dec 31 03:14 UTC 2005 |
Oh, I get it. If an AMERICAN CITIZEN wants to take A BOMB on board to
bring down a jetliner, THAT'S OK WITH RICHARD. (Just as long as HE'S
NOT ON IT, I'd guess.)
|
cyklone
|
|
response 158 of 404:
|
Dec 31 03:58 UTC 2005 |
You are such a totally lame troll. Richard may go overboard in expressing
his views, but he never said anything remotely close to what you claim.
What he wants is a LEGAL means to identify and prevent terrorism.
|
gull
|
|
response 159 of 404:
|
Dec 31 04:04 UTC 2005 |
Getting back to the original topic...the Justice Department announced
today that they're investigating the leak that led to us all finding out
about this program.
|
jep
|
|
response 160 of 404:
|
Dec 31 04:56 UTC 2005 |
I think it's true that the things we are most likely to see changed, are
the things that we all favor, conservatives and liberals together. I
happen to hate land mines as much as anyone who hasn't been personally
affected by them. I hate torture, too. I have good solid reasons,
grounded in my own political philosophy, for these stands. People like
aruba, and people like me, who are not afraid to cooperate with one
another despite other differences, are more likely to get a change
enacted than would be more radical people.
I am opposed to the unconstitutional behavior of the current president
because I am conservative. (And I voted against him the 2nd time
because I think he was dishonest and also wrong on the biggest decision
he will ever make, to invade Iraq.) I was opposed to the
unconstitutional decision of the Clinton administration to ban people
living in public housing projects from possessing firearms and I said so
at the time of the decision. If you think the Constitution is
important, it is as critical to say so when your side messes it up as
when the other side does so.
|
klg
|
|
response 161 of 404:
|
Dec 31 18:43 UTC 2005 |
Does John hate the land mines that have been keeping the N. Koreans from
infiltrating into the south and killing people there?
Does brodbeck find in unusual that the Justice Department should
investigate a criminal act?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 162 of 404:
|
Dec 31 22:20 UTC 2005 |
Land mines there aren't needed. And, please document all those people
killed in the south by the N.Koreans "infiltrating" by other means.
|
scott
|
|
response 163 of 404:
|
Dec 31 22:41 UTC 2005 |
Is klg willing to submit to a daily rectal probe because it might save lives?
|
keesan
|
|
response 164 of 404:
|
Jan 1 00:33 UTC 2006 |
I have done translations on methods of removing both underwater mines and land
mines, which continue to kill innocent people for many years after a war ends
and are very expensive to remove. I read that some Vietnamse supported
themselves salvaging large amounts of metal from mines. Dangerous occupation.
|
klg
|
|
response 165 of 404:
|
Jan 1 18:26 UTC 2006 |
Helke: I get that just by coming here.
Hey look what St. Billy himself had to say:
"U.S. rejects Oslo treaty against land mines
"By NANCIE L. KATZ, Copyright 1997 Special to the Chronicle"
"WASHINGTON -- Citing concern for the safety of U.S. troops, President
Clinton rejected international pressure Wednesday and refused to endorse
a draft treaty that would outlaw anti-personnel land mines.
"Hours after 104 nations backed a draft agreement to prohibit the mines,
Clinton said that negotiators were unable to get provisions to
adequately protect U.S. soldiers. But the president instructed defense
officials to find alternatives that would make the weapons obsolete by
the year 2006.
"'We went the extra mile and beyond to sign this treaty,' Clinton said.
'But there is a line I simply will not cross, and that line is the
safety and security of our men and women in uniform. As commander in
chief, I will not send our soldiers to defend the freedom of our people
and the freedom of others without doing everything to make them as
secure as possible.'"
|
nharmon
|
|
response 166 of 404:
|
Jan 1 19:06 UTC 2006 |
Just as some of us conservatives can admit that Bush has done wrong, the
liberals here can admit that Clinton did wrong with rejecting the oslo
treaty.
Does the anti-landmine treaty include sentry guns?
|
keesan
|
|
response 167 of 404:
|
Jan 1 19:30 UTC 2006 |
If people started planting land mines on US territory things might change.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 168 of 404:
|
Jan 1 20:15 UTC 2006 |
Most liberals here can admit that Clinton wasn't much of a liberal.
He paid lip service to many liberal positions, and some of the time he
did more than that. But it would be wrong to say that Clinton's core
convictions were liberal; indeed I'm not convinced that he even had any.
|
aruba
|
|
response 169 of 404:
|
Jan 1 20:26 UTC 2006 |
I very strongly disagreed with Pres. Clinton on the land mine treaty.
|
cross
|
|
response 170 of 404:
|
Jan 1 20:47 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 171 of 404:
|
Jan 1 21:11 UTC 2006 |
The hard thing is that all presidents have to pick their battles at
home. I seem to remember quite a few things that administrations have
tried to put throug that COngress wouldn't budge on. I'm not saying
that this is what happened here, but the fact is that the President does
not have absolute power, as much as many of them would wish it. And
there is something to be said about weighing the cost and consequences.
I'm absolutely against land minds, but if a treaty has provisions in it
that are frivolous or don't take into account certain needs of countries
that wish to sign it, the head of a nation has to take that into
consideration.
I do not think that Clinton was a classic Liberal, but neither do I
think he was a Conservative.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 172 of 404:
|
Jan 1 21:26 UTC 2006 |
Consider his national health care plan (even if the one suggested wasn't
the optimum): certainly a liberal concept.
|
scott
|
|
response 173 of 404:
|
Jan 1 22:39 UTC 2006 |
I'm confused by that "Clinton did something bad also" argument - does it mean
that if a previous President did something wrong, it's OK for future
Presidents too? Is W. Bush entitled to a free blowjob because Clinton got
one first?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 174 of 404:
|
Jan 2 00:47 UTC 2006 |
Good point. Actually, what the argument signifies is the person making the
statement is a knee-jerk Bushie unable to support or defend their position
on the merits. Kludgie and his ilk therefore hope to distract others from
recognizing the weakness of their positions.
|