quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo yeah but your man has no principles, so... how did he break those "no rules"?

quote:

AP, WSJ left out FEC chairman's statement that McCain cannot withdraw from public financing system without FEC consent Summary: The Associated Press reported that Sen. John McCain "has decided not to accept the public matching funds," but that the Federal Election Commission "wants him to assure regulators that he did not use the promise of public money as collateral for [a] loan." The article did not mention that FEC Chairman David Mason has asserted that McCain cannot legally withdraw from the public finance system without FEC approval. Additionally, a Wall Street Journal article did not note that McCain may not be able to opt out of the public financing system. A March 21 Associated Press article reported that Sen. John McCain "has now spent $58.4 million in his primary bid, surpassing the $50 million limit he would have faced if he participated in the public financing system he had been certified to join." The article, by staff writer Jim Kuhnhenn, continued: "McCain has decided not to accept the public matching funds, but the FEC [Federal Election Commission] wants him to assure regulators that he did not use the promise of public money as collateral for the loan." Kuhnhenn also reported that "[t]he Democratic National Committee [DNC] has filed a complaint with the FEC arguing McCain cannot withdraw from the public finance system without FEC approval." In fact, as Kuhnhenn himself has noted in previous articles, in addition to the DNC, FEC Chairman David Mason has also asserted that McCain cannot legally withdraw from the public finance system without such approval. In a February 21 AP article, Kuhnhenn reported: "The government's top campaign finance regulator says John McCain can't drop out of the primary election's public financing system until he answers questions about a loan he obtained to kickstart his once faltering presidential campaign. Federal Election Commission Chairman David Mason, in a letter to McCain this week, said the all-but-certain Republican nominee needs to assure the commission that he did not use the promise of public money to help secure a $4 million line of credit he obtained in November." Kuhnhenn also reported: "In his letter, Mason told McCain he would need the votes of four commissioners to accept his withdrawal from the system. 'The commission will consider your request at such a time as it has a quorum,' Mason wrote." Similarly, in a February 25 AP article, Kuhnhenn reported that "McCain's loan, from Fidelity & Trust Bank, has become a central issue in the Arizona senator's attempt to bypass the public financing system and the strict spending caps that come with it. Mason told McCain last week that the commission's approval was required and that he needed to explain the terms of his loan." Indeed, in his letter to McCain, Mason wrote: As you may be aware, in Advisory Opinion 2003-35 (Gephardt), the Commission balanced the voluntary nature of participating in the Matching Payment Program with the contractual obligations a candidate commits to once he seeks and receives Commissions certification of eligibility to receive payments under the Matching Payment Program. The Commission made clear that a candidate enters into a binding contract with the Commission when he executes the Candidate Agreements and Certifications. AO 2003-35. The Commission stated that it would withdraw a candidate's certifications upon written request, thus agreeing to rescind the contract, so long as the candidate: 1) had not received Matching Payment Program funds, and 2) had not pledged the certification of Matching Payment Program funds as "security for private financing." Id. Accordingly, we consider your letter as a request that the Commission withdraw its previous certifications. Just as 2 U.S.C. § 437c(c) required an affirmative vote of four Commissioners to make these certifications, it requires an affirmative vote of four Commissioners to withdraw them. Therefore, the Commission will consider your request at such time as it has a quorum. A February 22 Washington Post article discussing Mason's letter noted that "[k]nowingly violating the spending limit is a criminal offense that could put McCain at risk of stiff fines and up to five years in prison." Indeed, the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act provides in 26 U.S.C. § 9035 that "[n]o candidate shall knowingly incur qualified campaign expenses in excess of the expenditure limitation applicable under section 320(b)(1)(A) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971." And 26 U.S.C. § 9042 states: "Any person who violates the provisions of section 9035 shall be fined not more than $25,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. Any officer or member of any political committee who knowingly consents to any expenditure in violation of the provisions of section 9035 shall be fined not more than $25,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both." In addition, in a March 21 Wall Street Journal article about McCain's February fundraising, staff writer Mary Jacoby reported that the McCain campaign "spent $8.8 million in February," and that, according to his FEC report, "in February, the McCain campaign repaid $923,000 of a $4 million bank loan he took out in November." But Jacoby did not note that McCain may not be able to opt out of the public financing system for the primary campaign after obtaining that loan, or that by spending $8.8 million that month, his campaign has exceeded the legal limit for spending that participants in the public financing system face. From the March 21 Associated Press article: Republican John McCain reported raising $11 million in February, a slight dip from January but still a better fundraising clip than he had last year. Now, as the presumed GOP nominee, McCain has embarked on an aggressive fundraising schedule in March to finance his campaign against the Democrats, whoever their nominee might be. McCain reported $8 million cash on hand -- $3 million of which is for the general election. At month's end, McCain still owed $3 million on a loan, but he paid that off this week, aides said. [...] [Sen. Barack] Obama, as the delegate and money leader in the race, has found himself staving off both [Sen. Hillary] Clinton and McCain in recent weeks. His campaign underscored the challenge in a fundraising appeal Thursday. "No one could have imagined it would go on this long, or that we'd have to fight this battle on two fronts at the same time," Obama campaign manager David Plouffe wrote in an e-mail to potential donors. "We've got to take on both Senator Clinton and Senator McCain at the same time." In a testament to the financial heft behind the Democrats, Obama and Clinton together spent more in a month than McCain has for the length of the yearlong campaign. McCain has now spent $58.4 million in his primary bid, surpassing the $50 million limit he would have faced if he participated in the public financing system he had been certified to join. McCain has decided not to accept the public matching funds, but the FEC wants him to assure regulators that he did not use the promise of public money as collateral for the loan. McCain and his lawyers said the loan was secured with other assets, thus freeing him to spend as much money as he wishes on his primary campaign. The Democratic National Committee has filed a complaint with the FEC arguing McCain cannot withdraw from the public finance system without FEC approval. The FEC for now can't act, however, because four of its six seats are vacant. While eschewing public funds for the primary, McCain has called on Obama to accept public financing with him for the fall campaign. Such a step would limit both candidates to about $85 million to be spent from September to Election Day in November. Obama has hedged, setting several conditions before he would consider taking public money. Few Democrats believe Obama should abandon his prodigious fundraising, which could generate far more than the public funding would permit. McCain is keeping his options open. Last month he filed documents to create a "compliance fund" -- an account used by publicly financed candidates so they can accept private donations to cover legal expenses and other exempted costs. The Wall Street Journal article, headlined "McCain Raised $11 Million in February," in its entirety: Sen. John McCain raised $11 million for his presidential primary bid in February, an amount far behind the Democratic contenders but reflecting the settled nature of the Republican race. The Arizona senator all but wrapped up the Republican nomination March 4 when former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee dropped out of the race following losses in the Ohio and Texas primaries. The McCain campaign spent $8.8 million in February, a report filed Thursday evening with the Federal Election Commission shows. In all, Sen. McCain has raised $59.6 million for his bid. He reported cash on hand of nearly $8 million and debts of $4.3 million. Democratic Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Clinton of New York were expected to report raising about $55 million and $35 million in the month, respectively. Their reports had not been filed with the FEC late Thursday. Also in February, the McCain campaign repaid $923,000 of a $4 million bank loan he took out in November, his report shows. However, a campaign official said the entire loan was repaid this week and the campaign's current debt is much lower than the amount reported for February.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200803210006?f=h_latest

___________________

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.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

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.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

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......

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

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.

Last edited by Q5echo on Jun-22-2008 at 23:05

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.