TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Congratulations, Bush - FISA Christmas came early, thanks to the spineless Dems
Pages (6): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 »

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov http://mediamatters.org/items/200803210006?f=h_latest

1. "deciding" not to accept public financing and actually not accepting any public financing are two totally different things.

2. do you know the details of the Fidelity & Trust loan stipulations? no, you don't

3. did he recieve matching funds payment? no. he didn't.

so you can't sit here and say McCain broke the f**kin rules can you?

...but i can sit here all night call Obama a man of zero principle and a political oppurtunist of the Kennedy ilk and you can't defend him one f**king iota.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo ...but i can sit here all night call Obama a man of zero principle and a political oppurtunist of the Kennedy ilk and you can't defend him one f**king iota.

Look dude, you can call anyone anything you want. The only person who seems to have ever been fooled about Obama being something other than an opportunistic politician is you. I'm pretty sure everybody else accepted that as a given.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo you don't think the phrase "one world concensus opinion" is an oxymoron? or at the very least redundant? or at the very, very least a generalization? also, how the hell is a poll a concensus? IMO thats the problem right there.

It's not that hard to gauge global opinion of something. You seem to think it is impossible? A consensus is a majority opinion. Just like the consensus in the USA of GWB is 75% negative. Are we going to call that a generalization too?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo so you have Cindy McCain riding her own jet "several times"

Which is a questionable act at best in regards to campaign financing rules...

quote:

and her husband hedging his own life insurance policy in order to fund the primaries.

Yeah, kinda cute little runaround that one, wasn't it?

quote:

thats great Opus. good to see after all the misleading the Dems did to you over the years you haven't lost the knack for innuendo.

And you've done swell with your continual dodging, sidestepping, marginalizing, and/or wholly ignoring the problems posed to you about your Administration. And now it seems you've picked up right where you've left off by doing the exact same with your party's candidate.

Glad to see nothing's changed at all with you, Q. Why am I not surprised?

quote:

we're about to be in the General election now. much different.

Umm, because you say so? Gosh, so NOW is the time of "principles" as opposed to before during the primaries? Man, guess I should have saw that one coming.

quote:

it's called principle Opus.

Yes, yes, I get it -

Primary = no principles for anyone. Look the other way.

General election = PRINCIPLE TIME! LOOK, LOOK! Obama doesn't have any!!! Don't you dare look at what my straight-shootin' candidate did before. Doesn't count!!!

This is fun. Gosh I miss arguing with you.

In any case, the premise of public financing needs a bit of reexamination IMO, especially when you and the MSM are seemingly attempting to nail Obama with it:

http://www.anonymousliberal.com/200...olution-to.html

Again, this isn't a huge issue with me, but given the media's fucking love affair with Mr. Straight Shooter, plus how hard they love going after any Democrat for that matter when they sneeze the wrong way, I'm not terribly surprised by them or yourself to jump on this at all.

quote:

either Obama doesn't have it or he was too stupid to "not kid ourselves" as you say.

His "principles" are not too unlike those of any other politician, unfortunately. You seem to be hellbent on nailing Obama on him going back on his word. I'll do you a favor, Q - I'll give you this one because it's undeniable. Now you're seemingly equating a lack of "principle" with someone going back on their word. Hmmm, kinda reminds me of another person running for POTUS that has a very difficult time taking a stand on something and never changing positions. Jesus, if this is the bar you are setting, Q., YOUR candidate is in serious trouble. How many issues has your boy flip-flopped on lately? Shall we count them together? Look, I realize that McCain's singing some wonderful tunes that are just music to your wingnut ears lately. He's doing well in stirring up the base (perhaps sacrificing his "moderate" picture a little, but we'll see how that pans out down the road). The problem in doing so, Q, is this man had been singing quite a different tune prior to his run for POTUS.

The trouble is, I'm pretty sure you know this. But if that "principle" bar is going to be set so high on candidates flip-flopping, hell I'm game.

Or is it that you're just trying to have a pretend moment of "shock" that Obama is a politician? Considering you're an extremist neocon that makes Cheney even blush, it's almost kinda cute to see someone like yourself pretend to have such a sense of amazement that Obama acts like a politician at times. It's certainly one thing for the Obamabots to be upset with seeing this to a certain extent, but listening to you is almost like reading a David Brooks column as we see an author who holds the most extreme views of this Administration so dear to their heart pretend to be a "middle-of-the-road" kinda voter who's so flabbergasted at a Democrat actually being a politician.

In other words, your role as a purity troll is fucking hilarious, if this is what you're trying to pull instead.

quote:

obviously you don't understand what this fight was all about then Opus. IOW "the dispute over the NSA program is a battle between the political branches over a political question about a political power: who controls the use of surveillance, Congress or the president? Critics of presidential power have tried to convert this question into a legal issue fit for resolution by the courts; they have used the telcoms as a proxy because the administration can't effectively be sued"

No, Q., the telecoms were being targeted for their actions of complicity in breaking current FISA laws along with this Administration. The one question that you nor any Bush wingnut can�t answer is so horribly simple it�s almost embarrassing to ask:

If they did nothing wrong, why the demand by Bush to give amnesty? Surely they could easily defend themselves in court by demonstrating they followed the law, couldn�t they?

quote:

Congress has known all along that the President's Article II powers are valid. they also knew those powers cannot be stripped by statute [FISA] as reiterated in 2002.

I�m sure you want to believe that. Hell, knowing how you think, you probably do believe this. I can�t imagine, however, how you will feel about such sweeping powers given to the Executive if Obama wins POTUS. I wouldn�t be surprised at all to see you crying �FOUL!� when a Democrat enjoys such sweeping, near dictatorial powers to which he can pretty much ignore any laws posed by Congress at any time he so chooses because of his horrid interpretation of Article II shared by this current Administration. Sadly, you�ll have company with me yelling out the same complaint, but I�ll also be pointing out just how much of a hypocritical ass you are in accepting an idiot Republican POTUS doing it while not being so accepting of a Democrat following the same rules. But I guess we�ll where you�ll stand on this later.

Regardless, if his powers are valid, then what harm is there to find out the validity of his powers by allowing the judicial process to unfold and find out?

Furthermore, it�s funny you mention this, because not to long ago, McCain answered that very question with the following:

quote:

1. Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes? McCain: There are some areas where the statutes don't apply, such as in the surveillance of overseas communications. Where they do apply, however, I think that presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is. Globe: Okay, so is that a no, in other words, federal statute trumps inherent power in that case, warrantless surveillance? McCain: I don't think the president has the right to disobey any law. http://www.boston.com/news/politics...ateQA/McCainQA/

Article II has not and was never meant to be interpreted as a means by the Executive to skirt current laws passed by Congress, INCLUDING the necessity to obtain warrants by a secret FISA court that�s so ridiculously lenient and in favor to ANY Administration when handing out warrants and also entails the ability to start a wiretap and get a warrant up to 72 hours retroactively after starting the wiretap. At one point, McCain clearly saw this, but of course he�s likely changed his tune now and flip-flopped, but we won�t consider that because, well, Obama is the one without �principles� for flip-flopping (http://corner.nationalreview.com/po...DQ0MWRiMjM0Y2I=). Yes, once again, IOIYAR (It�s Okay If You�re A Republican).
The other interesting thing to note is that you well know that Article II was the original rationale that was used in this whole argument of Bush to be able to circumvent current FISA laws. Problem is, that argument was disavowed by Jack Goldsmith, the Chief of the Office of Legal Council as well as others disavowed that argument along with the Bybee memo in December of 2003:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/09/...e-but-true.html

This memo by Yoo is what has been directly utilized as the inherent power argument under Article II that the president can essentially do whatever the fuck he wants while marginalizing Congress as essentially an �advice� group only. This is important to note because again, this is what has been the argument that you and this Administration has used in justifying illegal wiretapping Americans. Hell, even the wingnutosphere acknowledges this connection:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?...jc4OTZkMmY2MTI=

Problem is, however, that not only did the OLC strike this down, but SCOTUS in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld did too. Remember this?:

quote:

"Whether or not the President has independent power, absent congressional authorization, to convene military commissions, he may not disregard limitations that Congress has, in proper exercise of its own war powers, placed on his powers. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 637 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring). The Government does not argue otherwise."

IOW, your rationale of Article II being able to override Congress is complete bullshit.

So your rationale that the Dems came around and bowed down to Article II is unsupported without any evidence given. They may have indeed not known or completely ignored both the OLC and SCOTUS on this, and I grant you that the Dems can be pretty damn stupid at times, but I don�t take them to be that stupid. SCOTUS has repeatedly struck down the rationale of this Administration�s authority, and rightfully so, so I doubt they�re that blind either.

The only logical conclusion that I can see so far is CYA secondary to their complicity.

quote:

Congressional Dems weren't looking to cover their collective asses, they just gave up on trying to backdoor the President and his Constitutional rights.

I realize this is just an opinion of yours, but right now it�s a pretty unsupported one at best.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Look dude, you can call anyone anything you want.

sure i can...i'd rather use his own rhetoric though, it keeps me honest.

quote:

The only person who seems to have ever been fooled about Obama being something other than an opportunistic politician is you.

i admit, he did have me fooled for a minute back in '07

quote:

I'm pretty sure everybody else accepted that as a given.

your candidate is not post-racial. i'm glad you now think he's not
your candidate is not post-political. i'm glad you now think he's not

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo your candidate is not post-racial. i'm glad you now think he's not your candidate is not post-political. i'm glad you now think he's not

What are you on about? I never claimed him to be either of those things. And for that matter, I can't think of anybody that has claimed him to either. It's like your expectation of him was higher than anybody else's for some reason - the better to tear him down for not meeting them? In either case, welcome back to reality.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo sure i can...i'd rather use his own rhetoric though, it keeps me honest. i admit, he did have me fooled for a minute back in '07 your candidate is not post-racial. i'm glad you now think he's not your candidate is not post-political. i'm glad you now think he's not

Well the fact that he endorsed Lieberman over Ned Lamont in 2006 who was against the Iraq war and was clearly a more progressive candidate should have given it away for most. And indeed it has. Obama was not my first choice - I had to go through two other candidates dropping out before I got to him. That's clearly the case for a healthy portion of Obama supporters now as well.

In fact, I'm betting that McCain wasn't your initial first choice either, was it Q? A moderate Republican who's spoken against so many of the policies of your Commander in Chief. McCain was clearly not the choice of many of you who are in the Far Right, but I assume he best represents you now. Just the same in Obama - he clearly doesn't represent EVERY aspect that EVERY supporter holds important. And he will get his fingers caught in the tire spokes from time to time with contradictions and stances that were different than what he advocated.

Okay, so my question is - so fucking what? You expect any of his supporters to merely drop their support because of one or two issues that he's contradicted himself on, or that there's issues that we disagree with him on? Sorry, Q., but we're not Republicans. I'm fucking surrounded here in Kansas by dipshit, narrow-minded Republicans who act like that and vote on those 1-3 issues like God, guns, and gays, and are too willfully ignorant to see the forest behind the trees.

The public financing option was originally created as a means to control big campaign donors coughing up oodles of cash in one hack. The problem with you is Barack's funding doesn't come primarily from these coughers. He's changed the game around completely by receiving small donations from hundreds of thousands to millions of grassroot supporters instead, something that you Republicans can't even come close to yet. As my previous link to this issue has noted:

quote:

Obviously there's nothing inherently good about the federal government forking over hundreds of millions of dollars to pay for often misleading and hackish 30 second television spots. To the contrary, public financing is clearly intended to be a means to an end. The idea is that it's better to have the taxpayers pay this money directly than to have politicians raise the money from special interests, to whom they'd then be beholden. And until very recently, that made a lot of sense. Under the old fundraising model, politicians raised most of their money from large donors, and it is reasonable to assume that the interests and priorities of people who can afford to give thousands of dollars to political campaigns may not be quite the same as those of average Americans. Indeed, that's why you still see politicians doing things like promising to repeal the estate tax, a move that makes no policy sense at all and would only benefit the ultra-wealthy. It's little more than an appeal for donations from a group of people with a lot of money. But the major revelation of the Obama campaign, one that I think even surprised the candidate himself, is just how much money can be raised from small donors, i.e., average American voters. Obama has shattered all previous records for fund-raising, and he's done so with an average contribution of only about $100. Public financing is supposed to insulate candidates from the pernicious influence of special interests. But when a campaign is primarily funded through the small contributions of millions of voters, there really is no special interest concern. The problem, after all, is not the money itself, but where the money comes from. And when it's coming from a broad cross-section of the voters themselves, it's difficult to see what there is to be concerned about. What the editorial boards are doing is failing to re-examine the premises underlying their support for public financing. They're all wringing their hands over the "precedent" that Obama is setting by rejecting public financing. But what exactly is that precedent? Future politicians who attempt to follow Obama's lead will run campaigns geared around appealing to large numbers of small donors, i.e., average American voters. Is that really something we should be concerned about? As someone who used to be a big supporter of public financing, I can tell you that the fund-raising success of the Dean campaign and now the Obama campaign have changed my views on the subject. Their success has convinced me that--in the internet age--politicians who appeal to large numbers of small donors will consistently be able to out-raise those who appeal only to narrow special interests. And if that's the case, why should the taxpayers be footing the bill for elections? What exactly does that accomplish? http://www.anonymousliberal.com/200...olution-to.html

But I know, you don't give a shit about that, nor would you even care to examine the premises of campaign financing in the first place. You want to nail Obama on a contradiction of him saying he'll do public financing and then opting out? Fine, have a fucking cookie. Congratulations.

But again if you're going to lower the bar this low, it's going to make your candidate look like an outright scumbag liar at every single turn. You willing to do this? Like I said, your attempts at portraying a purity troll are hilarious, considering the side of the aisle you come from and who represents your party in '08.

Welp, seems only fair to examine the flip-flops on BOTH sides just to make a worthy comparison of those who hold "principles" so dearly:








Dear oh dear. And I had such high hopes that McCain would be more "principled" and live up to his "Straight Talk" reputation......

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Which is a questionable act at best in regards to campaign financing rules...

questionable act at worst more like it.

quote:

Yeah, kinda cute little runaround that one, wasn't it? And you've done swell with your continual dodging, sidestepping, marginalizing, and/or wholly ignoring the problems posed to you about your Administration. And now it seems you've picked up right where you've left off by doing the exact same with your party's candidate. Glad to see nothing's changed at all with you, Q. Why am I not surprised? Umm, because you say so? Gosh, so NOW is the time of "principles" as opposed to before during the primaries? Man, guess I should have saw that one coming. Yes, yes, I get it - Primary = no principles for anyone. Look the other way. General election = PRINCIPLE TIME! LOOK, LOOK! Obama doesn't have any!!! Don't you dare look at what my straight-shootin' candidate did before. Doesn't count!!! This is fun. Gosh I miss arguing with you. In any case, the premise of public financing needs a bit of reexamination IMO, especially when you and the MSM are seemingly attempting to nail Obama with it: http://www.anonymousliberal.com/200...olution-to.html Again, this isn't a huge issue with me, but given the media's fucking love affair with Mr. Straight Shooter, plus how hard they love going after any Democrat for that matter when they sneeze the wrong way, I'm not terribly surprised by them or yourself to jump on this at all.

with all that said, with all the blame you want to level on everyone else, where the hell is it that McCain broke the law?

quote:

No, Q., the telecoms were being targeted for their actions of complicity in breaking current FISA laws along with this Administration.

HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES DOES IT HAVE TO BE EXPLAINED TO YOU! THE POTUS'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS CAN NOT BE TRUMPED BY STATUTE! FFS dude youre in college PICK UP A G**DAMN BOOK!

quote:

If they did nothing wrong, why the demand by Bush to give amnesty?

because it is an ongoing program. it's not something you turn off like a switch and expect your intel services to be in the same place when you turn the switch back on.

there are already suits filed in Federal District court. he knows he's protected under the Constitution but also realizes his opponents want to run an end-around with the Telcoms and un-elected judges to stop it. the Telcoms want to help him but they want assurances that the Donks won't hamstring them in some needless civil suit.

quote:

Surely they could easily defend themselves in court by demonstrating they followed the law, couldn�t they?

see, this is where your ignorance on this subject shines.

as you already know there are suits pending trial. you and your liberal blogs think this is blanket immunity, it's not. the pending suits still have to be dismissed by District court judges. in order to merit a dismissal they must substaintiate they have recieved assurances what they did was authorized by the President and deemed legal.

quote:

Regardless, if his powers are valid

wrong. there is no "regardless". his Constitutional powers ARE valid. end of discussion. the FISA Court of Review has determined that 6 years ago in November 2002, Congress has just re-iterated it this week.

quote:

Article II has not and was never meant to be interpreted as a means by the Executive to skirt current laws passed by Congress IOW, your rationale of Article II being able to override Congress is complete bullshit. So your rationale that the Dems came around and bowed down to Article II is unsupported without any evidence given.

when Federal District courts start dismissing current pending litigation against the Telecoms you can appologize to me.

but don't take my word for it, take Arlen Spector's: >LINK<

�The provision that the bill will be the exclusive means for the government to wiretap is meaningless because that specific limitation is now in the 1978 Act and it didn�t stop the government from the warrantless terrorist surveillance program and what the telephone companies have done. That statutory limitation leaves the president with his position that his Article II powers as commander in chief cannot be limited by statute, which is a sound constitutional doctrine unless the courts decide otherwise. Only the courts can decide that issue and this proposal dodges it.�

notice he fails to mention the FISC decision in Nov 2002. he's a moron.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo a political oppurtunist

given you're a bush administration supporter, i wouldn't be throwing around terms like that

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 In fact, I'm betting that McCain wasn't your initial first choice either, was it Q?

nope. he wasn't. but not for the reasons you might assume.

youre right about one thing, the reasons he wasn't are irrelevant to the point of deciding to stay with him for all the marbles. however, those reasons were POLITICAL ISSUES driven not issues of political expediency and character. which these latest rounds of Obama's really point to.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo nope. he wasn't. but not for the reasons you might assume. youre right about one thing, the reasons he wasn't are irrelevant to the point of deciding to stay with him for all the marbles. however, those reasons were POLITICAL ISSUES driven not issues of political expediency and character. which these latest rounds of Obama's really point to.

Why do you keep insisting that Obama supporters will vote for him because of character or "political expediency" rather than the issues? This whole conversation is making you look rather naive.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Why do you keep insisting that Obama supporters will vote for him because of character or "political expediency" rather than the issues? This whole conversation is making you look rather naive.

yeah, i'd vote for obama coz the other side have made a colossal fuckup of the world in the last 8 years. who really cares what obama is like after that? seriously.

sometimes "support" has nothing to with it, its just a vote against the other guy.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Why do you keep insisting that Obama supporters will vote for him because of character or "political expediency" rather than the issues? This whole conversation is making you look rather naive.

it's not naive at all. i'm just letting these things pile up.

for a man courting this messianic arbiter of Washington change, a man supposedly unfettered by outside interests, a man so new to the beltway establishment, by his own doing (b/c you know damn well none of this shit is manufactured by the GOP) these things just keep driving his brand negatives into the sky. one has to wonder, who the hell really are the naive ones? the one's supporting him or the people opposed to him, and not just "wingnuts" either.

look you can call me naive all you want but at the end of the day or November you're the one who will be voting for this, apparently now, reasonable facsimile of a man who you once thought was more than just that

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo questionable act at worst more like it.

In any case, Mr. Straight Shooter seemingly isn't shooting quite so straight in regards to campaign finance rules.

quote:

with all that said, with all the blame you want to level on everyone else, where the hell is it that McCain broke the law?

Not exactly sure I said he broke the law, although the evidence I and Lebez gave does tend to demonstrate he very well may have in regards to campaign financing rules. The fact that he may or may not be breaking the law is not my point, however. I was merely pointing out that someone like McCain leaping outside the boundaries of campaign finance rules has hardly a position of moral clarity to call someone out for not wanting to play by such rules that McCain seemingly can't follow himself.

And the distinction of those rules between the GE and the primaries is a silly one to make at best.

quote:

HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES DOES IT HAVE TO BE EXPLAINED TO YOU! THE POTUS'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS CAN NOT BE TRUMPED BY STATUTE! FFS dude youre in college PICK UP A G**DAMN BOOK!

Just finished. And no matter how many times you scream your head off, you've not demonstrated this position with verifiable evidence ONCE. Not one fucking time. In fact, as I have demonstrated previously, the exact opposite is true that was shown by numerous SCOTUS decisions as well as the OLC.

quote:

because it is an ongoing program. it's not something you turn off like a switch and expect your intel services to be in the same place when you turn the switch back on.

What? How the hell does that answer my question?

quote:

there are already suits filed in Federal District court. he knows he's protected under the Constitution but also realizes his opponents want to run an end-around with the Telcoms and un-elected judges to stop it. the Telcoms want to help him but they want assurances that the Donks won't hamstring them in some needless civil suit.

Oh please. What a bunch of horseshit. The telecoms are worried about civil suits? The fucking multi-billion dollar telecoms with the best freakin' lawyers money can buy are worried about civil suits? God damn you're hilarious.

Nothing that you said answers the question, nor does your position of Bush being protected by Article II hold any water. If they did nothing wrong, why can't they demonstrate their innocence in court?

And what's worse, you show me one case that's been presented, just one to where either the telecoms OR this Administration has made any attempt to demonstrate what they have been doing by bypassing the FISA court approval of warrants is justifiable with evidence to support them. Because in all cases I've read, they do nothing of the sort. Instead they merely claim "State Secrets", and hope it all goes away instead.

quote:

see, this is where your ignorance on this subject shines. as you already know there are suits pending trial. you and your liberal blogs think this is blanket immunity, it's not. the pending suits still have to be dismissed by District court judges. in order to merit a dismissal they must substaintiate they have recieved assurances what they did was authorized by the President and deemed legal.

Do not play me as a fucking fool. First off, it's not just the liberal blogs that are up in arms on this. Ron Paul supporters:

http://www.breakthematrix.com/node/10780

True libertarian groups like the CATO institute:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008...antless-spying/

And even Bob Barr are against this:

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/press/pr...nt-protections/

For the very same reason you mindlessly attempt to pin on us libruls only. Strange how we can be joined by such stalwarts of the Constitution as these folks. Then again, I guess they're fucking libruls to you too, since anyone that opposes what you say must be librul.

Second, the District court judge will be completely and totally barred from further examination as to why this Administration and the telecos spied on Americans. All it takes is the mere wave of the wand by Bush's Attorney General to claim that spying was "designed to prevent or detect a terrorist attack". The provision in question is Title VIII,l "Protection of Persons Assisting the Government." Section 802(a), that reads:

quote:

A civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be properly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that . . . (4) the assistance alleged to have been provided . . . was -- (A) in connection with intelligence activity involving communications that was (i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007 and (ii) designed to prevent or detect a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation of a terrorist attack, against the United States" and (B) the subject of a written request or directive . . . indicating that the activity was (i) authorized by the President; and (ii) determined to be lawful.

This translates to the AG being able to simply say that Bush requested the wiretaps to save us from terrorists, and the courts MUST dismiss the lawsuits. Period, end of story.

That does nothing, NOTHING to help check the power of the president on this. All that does is transfer the power to the AG, whom is 100% behind Bush on every turn of this, to merely say Bush was lawful, and they are subsequently and immediately dismissed.

That is immunity, plain and simple. So don't fucking piss on my leg.

quote:

wrong. there is no "regardless". his Constitutional powers ARE valid. end of discussion. the FISA Court of Review has determined that 6 years ago in November 2002, Congress has just re-iterated it this week.

And all we have is YOUR word as to why they did so. Show me one Democratic leader who put this forward who stated this. And you've failed to counter what SCOTUS decided in Hamdan in regards to POTUS power with Article II. I'm not surprised, but you're going to have to do better than just giving your opinion on this.

quote:

when Federal District courts start dismissing current pending litigation against the Telecoms you can appologize to me.

Again, their actions of dismissal do not support your unsupported conclusions as to their rationale, nor does that invalidate SCOTUS and the OLC's actions and opinions on the matter pertaining to Article II.

But you're welcome to continue playing the fool here. Nothing new, and times certainly haven't changed.

quote:

but don't take my word for it, take Arlen Spector's: >LINK< �The provision that the bill will be the exclusive means for the government to wiretap is meaningless because that specific limitation is now in the 1978 Act and it didn�t stop the government from the warrantless terrorist surveillance program and what the telephone companies have done. That statutory limitation leaves the president with his position that his Article II powers as commander in chief cannot be limited by statute, which is a sound constitutional doctrine unless the courts decide otherwise. Only the courts can decide that issue and this proposal dodges it.� notice he fails to mention the FISC decision in Nov 2002. he's a moron.

The courts did decide otherwise, Q., that's what I'm pointing out. Look, the fact that this capitulating Congress gave in to this does not make the situation MORE correct for you. I seem to recall them giving in to military detainment and torture as well, and look how far that got them with the recent SCOTUS decision. Every time this Administration has attempted to flex it's inherent Executive Authority bullshit routine, the courts have had to intervene and tell them Yoo and Addington are full of shit. There may very well be a day when SCOTUS will say the exact same thing with this legislation as well, but that's off in the future and it's pointless to make predictions on these matters.

But you've done a swell job at dodging and weaving like you always have. Again, nothing new. Almost kinda nostalgic to see.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo it's not naive at all. i'm just letting these things pile up. for a man courting this messianic arbiter of Washington change, a man supposedly unfettered by outside interests, a man so new to the beltway establishment, by his own doing (b/c you know damn well none of this shit is manufactured by the GOP) these things just keep driving his brand negatives into the sky. one has to wonder, who the hell really are the naive ones? the one's supporting him or the people opposed to him, not just "wingnuts"

It's funny how I keep hearing this whole "messiah" complex bullshit from a certain group of people. If it's not from the ol' Hillary supporters, it's now from the GOP. Funny how I seem to not hear this at all from Obama supporters very much.

I'm sorry the guy is charismatic. I'm sorry he can fart millions on a whim. I'm sorry he can actually speak better than the fucking idiot we've had in office for far too long. I'm sorry he seems rather intelligent. And I'm sorry he has a good following of campaign donations come primarily from small grassroot donations. Man, he must truly be flawed to have all these positives.

Not to worry. I'm sure the GOP and our darn librul media will find a myriad of things to try to tear him down. Any day now we're going to hear about some serious character flaws, past relationships, Muslim upbringings and unAmerican connotations, occasional racist slurs and whispers, yep, they'll be coming soon. We haven't heard any of these things yet, but you just wait, brother. They'll catch him raping and murdering ponies any second now.......

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo (b/c you know damn well none of this shit is manufactured by the GOP)

Funny the things the GOP presidency did manufacture the last 8 years... How could a rational person want more of it? Boggles my mind...

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Funny the things the GOP presidency did manufacture the last 8 years... How could a rational person want more of it? Boggles my mind...

like what?

wait, you know what? fucking thread it dude. otherwise go play in the COR and quit trolling here.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 But you're welcome to continue playing the fool here.

fool huh? i just made up Art. II powers, huh?

read it. read it all. then i want an appology.

>link<

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo like what? wait, you know what? fucking thread it dude. otherwise go play in the COR and quit trolling here.

Have you lost it? You keep talking, "oh obama is such a newbie messiah demigod", I bring up the point that the GOP presidency you've supported for so long is a FAILURE! And you deride opposition supporters for wanting to vote for a candidate promising a complete executive management overhaul.

Like what? Like the quagmire in Iraq. Like the credit/sub-prime market collapse. Like the debacle of the federal government's response to Katrina. Not to mention Osama has yet to be apprehended. The presidency has divided the country into two bitterly opposed conservative/liberal camps. After such a spectacular failure, I'm surprised you'de still want to vote for the party that brought you such garbage executive leadership...

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo fool huh? i just made up Art. II powers, huh? read it. read it all. then i want an appology. >link<

Too long; did it say "they used the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law" ?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Have you lost it?

nope. still got it. thread it.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo fool huh? i just made up Art. II powers, huh?

Did I ever say you made it up? Did I say anything of the sort?

No, this is what I said:

quote:

Again, their actions of dismissal do not support your unsupported conclusions as to their rationale, nor does that invalidate SCOTUS and the OLC's actions and opinions on the matter pertaining to Article II.

I'm fully aware that this Administration via the Yoo Doctrine have vested a heavy hand into Article II as well as AUMF to essentially do whatever the hell they want. The trouble is, it's continually getting struck down by the courts, just like the one last week by SCOTUS.

quote:

read it. read it all. then i want an appology.

>link< [/QUOTE]

You just gave me the supplemental brief by Ashcroft to the FISA courts in order to say what they are doing is legal back in 2002. How the hell does that validate your point or undermine mine? It wasn't until DECEMBER of 2003 that Goldsmith came in to the OLC and said Article II wasn't a reasonable rationale for supporting their actions (which subsequently was soon followed by the AUMF rationale immediately thereafter). And it does nothing to disprove what SCOTUS had ruled in Hamdan in regards to Article II and the powers that POTUS supposedly has. Have you got a case which disproves this? Again let me quote the Hamdan ruling:

quote:

"Whether or not the President has independent power, absent congressional authorization, to convene military commissions, he may not disregard limitations that Congress has, in proper exercise of its own war powers, placed on his powers. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 637 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring). The Government does not argue otherwise."

This speaks directly to the powers that POTUS supposedly has. Try again, and it seems like it's you who owes the apology right now.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo nope. still got it. thread it.

Thread what? You just can't respond to any of my points?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo look you can call me naive all you want but at the end of the day or November you're the one who will be voting for this, apparently now, reasonable facsimile of a man who you once thought was more than just that

I still have no idea what you're rambling on about. I never thought Obama was "more" than a man or whatever the hell you're insinuating. He's a politician, pure and simple. He wasn't my first choice as a candidate, but he's one I can get behind because his policies and issues are ones that I believe in. "Change" doesn't have to be revolutionary. Sometimes it just means the re-establishment of common sense and decency in Washington after eight years of its absence.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.