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 Q5echo ...which, in fact, the FISC itself clearly states, unabiguously, that he is not beholden to.

You're either confusing or obfuscating what the sealed case is stating. Again, the acknowledgment written in dictum was one in passing to imply that POTUS had inherent authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping pre-FISA. The case they were referencing throughout that entire paragraph was Truong (and Keith as well before Truong) and the powers POTUS had prior to FISA enactment. Silberman and the other two judges were in no way suggesting that POTUS still has this authority regardless of a Congressional law like FISA is passed that requires the Executive to obtain a warrant (and has an emergency clause that allows him to obtain a warrant 72 hours after starting a wiretap, I might add). Besides, they were in no way making this argument at all in the first place (which you seem to agree).

quote:

Sealed Case No. 02-001 is the standard to which by the Executive currently acts. it's the standard to which by the Congress has acted.

Your first sentence may indeed be correct, unfortunately for Bush. However, I have not seen this justification utilized by Bush or his Justice Department for a couple of years now. Instead I've seen the AUMF argument, which is a completely different (albeit terribly ridiculous) argument than Article II. In fact I believe it was around that whole Ashcroft bedside debacle when this Administration stopped using Article II to support themselves and switched to AUMF instead. And I believe we've already discussed the flaws of the AUMF argument before here ad nauseum, so I'm not surprised you're not using that one now.

The second sentence, however, continues to remain terribly unsupported. I�m still waiting for you to cite the Democratic leaders using this in order to support your assertion. For them to used a flagrant misinterpretation of what FISC was stating here, not to mention that their entire decision was overturned later by a District Court later regardless, what be just as ridiculous for them to use it as this Administration.

Then again, I wouldn�t put it past them.

quote:

Truong was just an example: "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue"

As explained, the court was referring to all cases pre-Truong (including Keith), and not up to 2002. I�m really not sure how this could be interpreted the way you want. Regardless, even if I grant you that error, the opinion in dictum doesn�t hold a heck of a lot of water.

quote:

this was because the case before the FISC was about FISA presumably overstepping it's bounds, not the president.

True - they were investigating whether FISA had given the President too much power under the Patriot Act written at that time and conflicted on the 4th Amendment. They ruled it did not, but their ruling was stricken down in a District Court in a Sept. 2007 case I keep mentioning. Not exactly sure how this is helping your argument.

quote:

the problem you continue to run into, and it just blows me away, is your wrong assuption that statute is above the Constitution. what Truman failed to have in Youngstown was exactly that. statute.

I�m not exactly sure what you�re referring to here. Truman had asked Congress to create legislation that gave the Executive the power to seize the steel factories since the workers were on strike and he needed them to support the Korean War effort. Congress refused this � they did give him powers in regards to how to deal with issues involving strikes, but they specifically refused to give him powers to seize the factories. Truman, unlike Bush, went to argue his position to the courts that he had the �inherent authority� to do this anyway:

quote:

Opposing the motion for preliminary [343 U.S. 579, 584] injunction, the United States asserted that a strike disrupting steel production for even a brief period would so endanger the well-being and safety of the Nation that the President had "inherent power" to do what he had done - power "supported by the Constitution, by historical precedent, and by court decisions. �.The Government refers to the seizure provisions of one of these statutes (201 (b) of the Defense Production Act) as "much too cumbersome, involved, and time-consuming for the crisis which was at hand." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scrip...l=343&invol=579

Sound familiar? You�re arguing that Bush does not need to follow FISA because, among other reasons, he has the inherent power under Article II that grants him such powers. Youngstown specifically addressed this. The Executive cannot legislate, i.e. cannot pretend to enact powers that were not given to it by any given article under the Constitution. Congress in �52 did not vest the law powers in Truman to seize the steel mills, and actually specifically turned his desire to do so. In the EXACT same manner, FISA specifically does not allow POTUS to wiretap without the Executive going to the FISA courts that Congress has set up (and the Executive had signed to make it law, BTW) to obtain a warrant within 72 hours after starting the tap. SCOTUS in �52 told Truman that he did not have such powers because of these very reasons. And neither does Bush, because the laws that REGULATE the powers invested in the Executive are given by Congress and must be followed by the Executive, period. As it was stated in Youngstown by Justice Black writing for the majority:

quote:

The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad. And the Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal about who shall make laws which the President is to execute. The [343 U.S. 579, 588] first section of the first article says that "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States . . . ." After granting many powers to the Congress, Article I goes on to provide that Congress may "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The Founders of this Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times. It would do no good to recall the historical events, the fears of power and the hopes for freedom that lay behind their choice. Such a review would but confirm our holding that this seizure order cannot stand. With concurring opinions by Justice Douglas: [QUOTE]The power to recommend legislation, granted to the President, serves only to emphasize that it is his function to recommend and that it is the function of the Congress to legislate. Article II, [343 U.S. 579, 633] Section 3 also provides that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." But, as MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER point out, the power to execute the laws starts and ends with the laws Congress has enacted.

And Justice Jackson (really take note with this one):

quote:

The Solicitor General seeks the power of seizure in three clauses of the Executive Article, the first reading, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Lest I be thought to exaggerate, I quote the interpretation which his brief puts upon it: "In our view, this clause constitutes a grant of all the executive powers of which the Government is capable." If that be true, it is difficult to see why the [343 U.S. 579, 641] forefathers bothered to add several specific items, including some trifling ones. The example of such unlimited executive power that must have most impressed the forefathers was the prerogative exercised by George III, and the description of its evils in the Declaration of Independence leads me to doubt that they were creating their new Executive in his image.

Man, Yoo would have a conniption if he even remotely understood the meaning of that.

And finally, Justice Black specifically addresses those Executive Powers during times of war, especially during undeclared wars (like this one against Terra):

quote:

Thus, it is said, he has invested himself with "war powers." I cannot foresee all that it might entail if the Court should indorse this argument. Nothing in our Constitution is plainer than that declaration of a war is entrusted only to Congress. Of course, a state of war may in fact exist without a formal declaration. But no doctrine that the Court could promulgate would seem to me more sinister and alarming than that a President whose conduct of foreign affairs is so largely uncontrolled, and often even is unknown, can vastly enlarge his mastery over the internal affairs of the country by his own commitment of the Nation's armed forces to some foreign venture. 10 [343 U.S. 579, 643] . . . . The appeal, however, that we declare the existence of inherent powers ex necessitate to meet an emergency asks us to do what many think would be wise, although [343 U.S. 579, 650] it is something the forefathers omitted. They knew what emergencies were, knew the pressures they engender for authoritative action, knew, too, how they afford a ready pretext for usurpation. We may also suspect that they suspected that emergency powers would tend to kindle emergencies. Aside from suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in time of rebellion or invasion, when the public safety may require it, they made no express provision for exercise of extraordinary authority because of a crisis. 19 I do not think we rightfully may so amend their work, and, if we could, I am not convinced it would be wise to do so, although many modern nations have forthrightly recognized that war and economic crises may upset the normal balance between liberty and authority. [343 U.S. 579, 651] Their experience with emergency powers may not be irrelevant to the argument here that we should say that the Executive, of his own volition, can invest himself with undefined emergency powers.

If you�re somehow trying to pin me down saying that I believe that laws passed by Congress somehow supersede the Constitutional, I completely agree with you on that, and I am not making that argument here at all. At this point, however, I have not seen you make the argument that the 1978 FISA law is somehow unconstitutional, but it seems this is what you�re going to go next. If so, then state it as such and support your assertion. You might run into a bit of difficulty with that, however, because the sealed FISC case itself explicitly upheld the fact that FISA was constitutional, and in doing so it precludes the idea that any regulation of foreign intelligence gathering by the President amounts to encroachment. So you�re going to run into trouble with the very document and case you�re presenting to defend yourself.

The question at hand, however, is whether POTUS has the constitutional authority to authorize warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and legalized aliens, notwithstanding FISA's restrictions. The FISC 2002 sealed case does not in any way address this argument at all.

And in regards to statute and what Bush has now with Congress, again I give you the Hamdan decision money quote:

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).

Not to mention the Concurring Opinion of Justice Kennedy:

quote:

"If the President has exceeded these [Congressional] limits, this becomes a case of conflict between Presidential and congressional action . . . And '[w]hen the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb.'"

Which Judge Roberts fully agreed with during his confirmation hearings back in 2005:

quote:

If the president is acting in an area where Congress is supportive -- expressly supportive of his action -- the president's power is at its maximum. If the president is acting in an area such as you postulate under the Bybee, memo where the president is acting contrary to congressional authority, what justice Jackson said is, the president's authority is at its lowest ebb. http://www.veiled-chameleon.com/web...ves/000204.html

Also interesting to note how the nonpartisan Congressional Research Report said essentially the exact same thing in regards to POTUS powers at their �lowest ebb�:

http://www.opencrs.com/document/M20060105

Pretty clear to me what they�re saying here.

quote:

Youngstown isn't even mentioned in the FISC's ruling for precedent and the extent of the Executive power.

Why would it? FISC wasn't even examining this question, so there's no reason they would cite it.

quote:

Sealed Case No. 02-001 was not about whether Bush had overstepped his bounds. it was about whether the courts had overstepped their bounds. the FISC ruled affirmatively in favor of Bush.

I�m not presenting an argument that this case stated anything of the sort. It was you who is citing an opinion in dictum from this case in order to defend whether or not Bush has overstepped his bounds and stating that this case gives Bush inherent authority to bypass FISA, not me. I was the one who pointed out that not only are you incorrect with the statement being made (it appears much more pre-FISA), not only is it pure dicta and holds no value of precedence EVEN IF it means what you want it to mean, but that the court wasn�t even arguing this in the first place.

The president can do anything he wants.... even bang my dears friend's wife if he wants.

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover The president can do anything he wants.... even bang my dears friend's wife if he wants.

I reiterate:

quote:

I'm just wondering (as always) if you will ever try to address the issue in a thread and support any argument you might make

The continuance of your silly 5th grade attempt of an insult aside, will there ever come a time that you'll ever support any statement you make? If memory serves, you were given a 2-week suspension for this very same behavior.

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover The president can do anything he wants.... even bang my dears friend's wife if he wants.

Ninja edit, huh?

Anyway, I've grown tired of this, LatinLover: one single ad hominem from you and you're banned. I value liberty and freedom of speech, but enough is enough, and I'll just consider you a troll =/

Yup.

What this means:

- E-Mail and internet monitoring (websites, IMs, etc)
- GPS tracking and speaker monitoring on your cell phones
- Phone call records/active conversations

Have fun being eavesdropped on.

What this will mean in the long run:

Large databases being constructed that will allow construction of ergodynamic decision making practices on the governmental, industrial, and commercial level.

It's huge. It's the collective organism of life beginning to become aware of itself. The psychology of nations can finally be studied.

Unfortunately, human beings are the conduit of its construction, so yeah, not good. =P

the question becomes, "Who gets to weild this power, make these decisions, and determine/study the data?"

Not who any of us would want, that's apparent.

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover more than you can ever know in this life or the next one...

Right. I'll take that as a "nothing."

quote:

On a more serious note... I am truly saddened with the candidates we have, Obama & Mccain you have Osama I mean Obama that carries the title of the most liberal man in the senate, a title in which he carries proudly. I think the Dems can take this election this year, but if they do I would have preferred Hillary instead of Obama

Most liberal Senator? Well, then explain this post by a bone fide conservative:

quote:

Liberal but open to alternative views: He published a searing attack on affirmative action by a former Reagan Administration official. And when, in an unusual move, he selected a young woman from a non-Ivy League law school to fill one of the Review's most prestigious slots, she produced an essay focused on individual responsibilities as much as on liberties, which criticized both conservative judges and feminist scholars. I have yet to come across a conservative contemporary of his who didn't love the guy.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.c...as-harvard.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11257.html

Hmm... universally loved by the conservatives he knows and labeled as "fair" and "balanced"? That sure ruins your (unsupported) argument.

Gonna have to take a little sabbatical for the next month from here, but I'll be back around August just in time for the political shit to really start hittin' the fan.

I'll bookmark this thread and will return to it then if there's replies to my posts.

See ya all in about a month.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Right. I'll take that as a "nothing." Most liberal Senator? Well, then explain this post by a bone fide conservative: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.c...as-harvard.html http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11257.html Hmm... universally loved by the conservatives he knows and labeled as "fair" and "balanced"? That sure ruins your (unsupported) argument.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? I could care less if Obama was to the right, left or to the middle in the Law review @ Harvard. You dont have to post all this nonsense, just look at his positions on issues, his votes on the senate etc...

Now you want to come with the phony talking that he is going to be a moderate. I'll tell you this.... I am no clinton fan... but hilliary has shown in the senate bipartisanship on many issues. And Obama?

I understand lezbez that you are like all the other college groupies that are excited about this candidate. But this man wrong judgement... i foresee a jimmy carter II

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? I could care less if Obama was to the right, left or to the middle in the Law review @ Harvard. You dont have to post all this nonsense, just look at his positions on issues, his votes on the senate etc... Now you want to come with the phony talking that he is going to be a moderate. I'll tell you this.... I am no clinton fan... but hilliary has shown in the senate bipartisanship on many issues. And Obama? I understand lezbez that you are like all the other college groupies that are excited about this candidate. But this man wrong judgement... i foresee a jimmy carter II

And more people see George W Bush II if McCain wins. The Republicans are not going to win. Come November, you will be greatly saddened by the turn of events against your movement. The people don't want anymore unilateral ENDLESS wars and political fuck ups like what happened when the Justice Department was...POLITICIZED. Did you forget about that? Or is everything about the War on Terror with you?

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? I could care less if Obama was to the right, left or to the middle in the Law review @ Harvard. You dont have to post all this nonsense, just look at his positions on issues, his votes on the senate etc... Now you want to come with the phony talking that he is going to be a moderate. I'll tell you this.... I am no clinton fan... but hilliary has shown in the senate bipartisanship on many issues. And Obama? I understand lezbez that you are like all the other college groupies that are excited about this candidate. But this man wrong judgement... i foresee a jimmy carter II

I'd be extremely pleased to have a president that basically gives republicans the bird after the asshole currently in office did this half of America for the past 8 years.


Nobody wants the idiocy you support anymore. Jimmy Carter II? That sounds fantastic.

Clovis & Krypton,
Look man I understand you guys are one of those disturbed american college kiddos that blame all of your personal problems towards bush.
But it takes a no brainier knowing that Obama is going to be a catastrophe towards this nation. Heck, Chavez, castro and cheering for this man. That tells you much! All the dictators of the world want Obama to win!

If you think that we can elect a president because of pretty speeches; i see that our country is doomed. Obama has shown no substance whatsoever, bad judgement hanging out with guys that are racist and blame all african american problems on whites.

I mean if you are the type of individual that wants america to have a reputation of our pres meeting with foreign dictators, or expect the govt to pay for your college tuition, health care, all your expenses, or for the govt to raise your kids. go ahead vote for him! it shows that you guys cant sustain yourself and not make it on your own in this world

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover Look man I understand you guys are one of those disturbed american college kiddos that blame all of your personal problems towards bush.

No you don't understand shit, as evidenced by pretty much everything you've ever said in this forum.

We are in a "catastrophe for this nation" right now, but I wouldn't expect you to admit that given your detachment with reality.

It's great that you believe in your neo-conservative fantasies, but 8 years of, by all accounts, complete and utter failure have pointed most of America into the other direction.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis No you don't understand shit, as evidenced by pretty much everything you've ever said in this forum. We are in a "catastrophe for this nation" right now, but I wouldn't expect you to admit that given your detachment with reality. It's great that you believe in your neo-conservative fantasies, but 8 years of, by all accounts, complete and utter failure have pointed most of America into the other direction.

That confirms it! I understand our nation faces many challenges: energy independence, war( Iraq & on terror), global competition ( economy & education) and so on...

Obama who? Has shown no leadership in these areas. All he does is carries a slogan on "change" but the substance where is it?

I dont know what personal problems you might have... but dont bring them to this election. If you are a true patriot you would care about these issues instead of being concentrated only on you. As i have said if you want someone to pay for all your financial difficulties, to raise your kids, or govt to hold you by the hand for the rest of your life. chose obama! that is what he is speaking. he is your man! cheers!

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover Obama who? Has shown no leadership in these areas. All he does is carries a slogan on "change" but the substance where is it?

The substance is right there for everyone to see, it's really not our fault you're apparently unable to read anything longer than a paragraph.


Again, your opinions are cute, but no one cares, and you're going to lose the election. I almost wish McCain would win and we could watch him continue Bush' downward spiral of stupidity for another 4 years, just to really cement to anyone with half a brain that modern conservative policies, for the seemingly 8 millionth time, do not fucking work, but thankfully for this country that most likely won't happen.

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover Clovis & Krypton, Look man I understand you guys are one of those disturbed american college kiddos that blame all of your personal problems towards bush. But it takes a no brainier knowing that Obama is going to be a catastrophe towards this nation. Heck, Chavez, castro and cheering for this man. That tells you much! All the dictators of the world want Obama to win! If you think that we can elect a president because of pretty speeches; i see that our country is doomed. Obama has shown no substance whatsoever, bad judgement hanging out with guys that are racist and blame all african american problems on whites. I mean if you are the type of individual that wants america to have a reputation of our pres meeting with foreign dictators, or expect the govt to pay for your college tuition, health care, all your expenses, or for the govt to raise your kids. go ahead vote for him! it shows that you guys cant sustain yourself and not make it on your own in this world

I can sense fear in your words and Iam glad that you are.I would be scared too if I was a Neocon like yourself.

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover Clovis & Krypton, Look man I understand you guys are one of those disturbed american college kiddos that blame all of your personal problems towards bush. But it takes a no brainier knowing that Obama is going to be a catastrophe towards this nation. Heck, Chavez, castro and cheering for this man. That tells you much! All the dictators of the world want Obama to win! If you think that we can elect a president because of pretty speeches; i see that our country is doomed. Obama has shown no substance whatsoever, bad judgement hanging out with guys that are racist and blame all african american problems on whites. I mean if you are the type of individual that wants america to have a reputation of our pres meeting with foreign dictators, or expect the govt to pay for your college tuition, health care, all your expenses, or for the govt to raise your kids. go ahead vote for him! it shows that you guys cant sustain yourself and not make it on your own in this world

LOL...Personal problems? Like going to war on false premises? Or politicizing the Justice Department? How about torturing over 100 people to death? I guess to you, all of these are just personal problems of the loony left, right?

And we come back to my original point. The American people are sick of this bullshit. The Republican Party has the equivalent of pneumonia right now. What are you going to say when the Democrats win the election? Did their victory in the 2006 Congressional elections ring a bell for you? When the incumbant party fucks up so badly as they have the last 7 years, it's time for a new government. I wonder how your going to cope with this new reality?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton LOL...Personal problems? Like going to war on false premises? Or politicizing the Justice Department? How about torturing over 100 people to death? I guess to you, all of these are just personal problems of the loony left, right? And we come back to my original point. The American people are sick of this bullshit. The Republican Party has the equivalent of pneumonia right now. What are you going to say when the Democrats win the election? Did their victory in the 2006 Congressional elections ring a bell for you? When the incumbant party fucks up so badly as they have the last 7 years, it's time for a new government. I wonder how your going to cope with this new reality?

Theres no point in bringing up valid examples and backing up any of your opinions with LatinLover.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis Theres no point in bringing up valid examples and backing up any of your opinions with LatinLover.

I enjoy putting down stupidity wherever I see it...

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover Obama who? Has shown no leadership in these areas. All he does is carries a slogan on "change" but the substance where is it?

You look kind of silly not knowing his first name. But here's your "substance" that you haven't been able to find on your own. Next time, open your eyes.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obam...ntForChange.pdf

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov You look kind of silly not knowing his first name. But here's your "substance" that you haven't been able to find on your own. Next time, open your eyes. http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obam...ntForChange.pdf

Like a whole page of shit he has to read is gonna convince him, jesus man. Don't you know, thats all just fancy talk? McCain, that guy, he wears flag pins and shit! He was in Vietnam! (he'll even remind you 6 times in 5 minutes). He hugged George BUSH! HUGGED! Thats indirect bromance experience!

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis Like a whole page of shit he has to read is gonna convince him, jesus man. Don't you know, thats all just fancy talk? McCain, that guy, he wears flag pins and shit! He was in Vietnam! (he'll even remind you 6 times in 5 minutes). He hugged George BUSH! HUGGED! Thats indirect bromance experience!

For fun, try and figure out when the last time was that John McCain wore a flag lapel.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov You look kind of silly not knowing his first name. But here's your "substance" that you haven't been able to find on your own. Next time, open your eyes. http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obam...ntForChange.pdf

Very good find. This is what every politician needs to do. Put into written word their policy for everyone to see. If they fail to meet their own promises, well, it'll be plain for everyone to see.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov You look kind of silly not knowing his first name. But here's your "substance" that you haven't been able to find on your own. Next time, open your eyes. http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obam...ntForChange.pdf

LOOK OBAMA has nothing.... is this all you do post irrelevant excrement? I mean no shit every single presidential candidate has a blueprint for what he wants to do in every sector in the american govt? (most of the times is the ideas of their advisers)what im trying to tell you is WHEN HAS OBAMA SHOWN LEADERSHIP PRIOR TO HIS PRESIDENTIAL RUN THAT CAN BE BE PUT ON HIS RESUME FOR HIS QUALIFICATIONS FOR BEING PRES? I want valid examples in these areas: war, education, economy, foreign policy etc... I dont give a shit what he is saying now. I want to see leadership from his part, i want to hear that he was a champion of a major legislation, i want to see his blueprint on important legislation that has made a tremendous impact

You all can wine about Mccain, i could careless. I mean krypton makes me laugh. his major concern is that all these thugs are being tortured in guantanamo. buddy if you dont have any friends or familiy memebers locked up there you shouldnt worry

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover LOOK OBAMA has nothing.... is this all you do post irrelevant excrement? I mean no shit every single presidential candidate has a blueprint for what he wants to do in every sector in the american govt? (most of the times is the ideas of their advisers)what im trying to tell you is WHEN HAS OBAMA SHOWN LEADERSHIP PRIOR TO HIS PRESIDENTIAL RUN THAT CAN BE BE PUT ON HIS RESUME FOR HIS QUALIFICATIONS FOR BEING PRES? I want valid examples in these areas: war, education, economy, foreign policy etc... I dont give a shit what he is saying now. I want to see leadership from his part, i want to hear that he was a champion of a major legislation, i want to see his blueprint on important legislation that has made a tremendous impact

You keep changing what you're asking for. Talk about moving the goalposts.

quote:

You all can wine about Mccain, i could careless. I mean krypton makes me laugh. his major concern is that all these thugs are being tortured in guantanamo. buddy if you dont have any friends or familiy memebers locked up there you shouldnt worry

Ah yes, because we should only worry about preserving the Constitution's ability to cover our own asses.

btw Clovis main concern is that Mccain hugged bush Omg i must guess now that Mccain is a real bad man now. has no morale. how can mccain hug evil bush omg Armageddon is coming

BUT when his candidate wants to meet with chavez, castro and all the foreign dictators without pre conditioning; clovis dosent wine about it. oh thats right is that in clovis world bush is evil and all the foreign dictators are angels.

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