|
Congratulations, Bush - FISA Christmas came early, thanks to the spineless Dems (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lebezniatnikov |
| 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. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| 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 up 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. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| 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 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 |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| 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 ING 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 ing 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 horse. The telecoms are worried about civil suits? The ing 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 ing 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 ing 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 ing 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: | | :haha: 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 bull routine, the courts have had to intervene and tell them Yoo and Addington are full of . 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. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| 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 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 bull 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 ing 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....... |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
(b/c you know damn well none of this is manufactured by the GOP) |
Funny the things the GOP presidency did manufacture the last 8 years...:rolleyes: How could a rational person want more of it? Boggles my mind... |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Funny the things the GOP presidency did manufacture the last 8 years...:rolleyes: How could a rational person want more of it? Boggles my mind... |
like what?
wait, you know what? ing thread it dude. otherwise go play in the COR and quit trolling here. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| 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< |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
like what?
wait, you know what? ing 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...:o |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| 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" ? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Have you lost it? |
nope. still got it. thread it. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
