Damn, we should have elected Ross Perot.
seriously, when was the last time the US had a president that not only had the overwhelming majority of americans on his side but also was a trust-worthy, decent human being ?
In 2004, Bush won the popular vote by about a million votes, he came out at 51%, while Kerry came out at 48%. If you take into consideration that only 60% percent of americans voted at all, I think it is fair to say that Bush's victory wasn't a landslide.
I dare say that americans chose Bush because they felt he would be better in their situation at the time.
In 2004, Bush won the popular vote by about a million votes, he came out at 51%, while Kerry came out at 48%. If you take into consideration that only 60% percent of americans voted at all, I think it is fair to say that Bush's victory wasn't a landslide.
I dare say that americans chose Bush because they felt he would be better in their situation at the time.
Hillary Clinton is getting 3:1 in Vegas for the 2008 elections........***shiver****
No matter who is elected there will be Scandals, Hell Clinton was Impeached and the slaped on the wrist like a bad school boy. Bush has his problems (BTW Clinton authorized wiretaps without a warrant too). The Pope could be elected and there would be the same problems, now one in this country can ever be satisfied with what they have. At this point government is not for the people by the people anymore no matter which side wins, it is For the Money from the the People that gets politicians off.
Clear and to the point. No matter who wins, the people loose. Any "Career Politician" is going to be scum. No matter what party, platform, etc... People will always whine about who the president is. let's recap the one's I've been around to see:rc-combat wrote:
No matter who is elected there will be Scandals, Hell Clinton was Impeached and the slaped on the wrist like a bad school boy. Bush has his problems (BTW Clinton authorized wiretaps without a warrant too). The Pope could be elected and there would be the same problems, now one in this country can ever be satisfied with what they have. At this point government is not for the people by the people anymore no matter which side wins, it is For the Money from the the People that gets politicians off.
Nixon: "He's a crook!"
Ford: "He's a crook for pardoning Nixon!" or "He's a bumbling idiot!"
Carter: "He's got no backbone!"
Regan: "He's a warmonger!"
GH Bush: "He's an Oil Fat Cat!"
Clinton: "He's a perv!"
GW Bush: "He's a warmonger!"
Poeple have hated every president from Washington on. Even the greats like Lincoln and Roosevelt (both of them) have had their detractors in the press.
Just pick your flavor of evil and go with it. Don't be a sheep and believe the majority of what you hear in either the liberal or conservative sides of the press.
kerry (even though he lost): a liar trying to act tuff by adding 3 purple hearts
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.spacebandit72 wrote:
Agreed.acurasquirrel wrote:
Im sorry but if you dont have anything to hide what do you have to worry about?
We walk a very dangerous line when we allow our politicians, on both sides of the aisle, to bypass our liberties in the guise of national security.
The President has the ability to wiretap people, and Democrat Presidents have wiretapped people in the past. It's just people hate Bush so much, they are looking for ANYTHING to call him to the carpet on.
That being said, don't wiretap me. I have nothing to hide, but it's not your right to go looking for something, especially if there is nothing there to begin with.
To all you fucking idiots that are for these wiretaps, get a FUCKING CLUE!!!! To paraphrase Ben Franklin, "Those that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither."
First we give them illegal wiretaps. Then it will be illegal search and seizure. Then it will be mandatory that all Americans have their fingerprints, blood type, and DNA on file. With the technology they have today the government could make the McCarthy era look like a fucking picnic!
Lets not forget that if we start giving up our liberties to fight terrorits, the terrorists have already won. They want to destroy out way of life, and by making our government just like theirs, they are getting exactly what they want.
First we give them illegal wiretaps. Then it will be illegal search and seizure. Then it will be mandatory that all Americans have their fingerprints, blood type, and DNA on file. With the technology they have today the government could make the McCarthy era look like a fucking picnic!
Lets not forget that if we start giving up our liberties to fight terrorits, the terrorists have already won. They want to destroy out way of life, and by making our government just like theirs, they are getting exactly what they want.
Last edited by Agent_Dung_Bomb (2006-01-19 08:32:18)
Wait a minute...... we just agreed on something. Spooky.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
To all you fucking idiots that are for these wiretaps, get a FUCKING CLUE!!!! To paraphrase Ben Franklin, "Those that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither."
First we give them illegal wiretaps. Then it will be illegal search and seizure. Then it will be mandatory that all Americans have their fingerprints, blood type, and DNA on file. With the technology they have today the government could make the McCarthy era look like a fucking picnic!
Lets not forget that if we start giving up our liberties to fight terrorits, the terrorists have already won. They want to destroy out way of life, and by making our government just like theirs, they are getting exactly what they want.
Why is this topic still going? Haven't you people ever read the Bill Of Rights?
I'll tell you all why this is not a big deal.
1. It's illegal. This means the President shouldn't do it. If he does do it, it doesn't get through the Congress, House or Senate. Checks and Balances people.
2. If he does it secretly, people tend to find out about it sooner or later. This means it ends, abrubtly. It also means, whoever is behind it, be it the President, CIA, or some Joe Blow, has to answer to someone and will pay the penalty sooner or later. Crying, whining, bitching and moaning about the matter doesn't speed things up any.
3. It goes against our rights. Nuff said. Impeachments or resignations soon to follow.
I'll tell you all why this is not a big deal.
1. It's illegal. This means the President shouldn't do it. If he does do it, it doesn't get through the Congress, House or Senate. Checks and Balances people.
2. If he does it secretly, people tend to find out about it sooner or later. This means it ends, abrubtly. It also means, whoever is behind it, be it the President, CIA, or some Joe Blow, has to answer to someone and will pay the penalty sooner or later. Crying, whining, bitching and moaning about the matter doesn't speed things up any.
3. It goes against our rights. Nuff said. Impeachments or resignations soon to follow.
Holy shit, I think it's snowing in hell too.Erkut.hv wrote:
Wait a minute...... we just agreed on something. Spooky.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
To all you fucking idiots that are for these wiretaps, get a FUCKING CLUE!!!! To paraphrase Ben Franklin, "Those that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither."
First we give them illegal wiretaps. Then it will be illegal search and seizure. Then it will be mandatory that all Americans have their fingerprints, blood type, and DNA on file. With the technology they have today the government could make the McCarthy era look like a fucking picnic!
Lets not forget that if we start giving up our liberties to fight terrorits, the terrorists have already won. They want to destroy out way of life, and by making our government just like theirs, they are getting exactly what they want.
I don't have anything to hide, but that doesn't mean I want the government listening to my calls, or reading my e-mail just because they suspect something and have no proof under which they can legally get a warrant.
Great stuff here you can post your opinion without being flamed, a very nice change.
About 9/11 ok this was bad shit should not have happend, but in the US there are more people who DIE from street violence each year than terrorist attacks. Why does your US goverment do nothing about that, well theres no profit in it. I dislike the thought that a goverment scares it Folk into beleaving anything it says behind the farce of terror. Dont get me wrong i am not anti US i have been there about 50 times. But come on Bush is no better than Gadaffi the only difference is the sun tan. The guy is out of line. I hope that the US folk wakes up and sees that BUSH is doing a con job on them. He filling his pockets and his familys at the cost of American lives.
he a link to make everyone cheer up a bit.
http://www.devilducky.com/media/11654/
About 9/11 ok this was bad shit should not have happend, but in the US there are more people who DIE from street violence each year than terrorist attacks. Why does your US goverment do nothing about that, well theres no profit in it. I dislike the thought that a goverment scares it Folk into beleaving anything it says behind the farce of terror. Dont get me wrong i am not anti US i have been there about 50 times. But come on Bush is no better than Gadaffi the only difference is the sun tan. The guy is out of line. I hope that the US folk wakes up and sees that BUSH is doing a con job on them. He filling his pockets and his familys at the cost of American lives.
he a link to make everyone cheer up a bit.
http://www.devilducky.com/media/11654/
I'm sorry, but you've presented no valid arguments at all, as your info comes from extremely right-wing sources. This is exactly what I was talking about in the "France/Terrorist State" thread, where everyone is increasingly trying to spin their agendas as hard as they can. Which is developing this rift between the two partisan groups (hence the creation of this entire thread).Darth_Fleder wrote:
*truncated the message to keep it clean*Isn't that EXACTLY what you people are doing??? One word of wisdom to you, if a democrat is accusing you of something, you can rest assured that he is doing that very thing. The accusation is just to put you on the defensive. Are you aware that Bush in his victory in 2004 got more votes than any other president in history? If democrats can't start picking their issues better, they can look forward to many more sad days at the polls.Marconius wrote:
If the Republicans/Bush Administration think they can get away with anything now due to the US being at "war," what will happen if a Democrat gets elected in 2008? Will they all back down and say, "Oh, no no no, we were wrong, we weren't supposed to do all of that as it was illegal at the time...so it looks like you Democrats can't do the same!" Does anyone feel like there is something more sinister going on to ensure that Republicans can force another election to come out in favor of them?
Please re-read the little blurb about the Abramoff scandal. That little article goes to great lengths to state a few powerful names, but makes no link to any of those names directly pulling money from Abramoff. Just "many Democratic lawmakers benefitted from it." Loosely stating "beneficiaries" benefitting from no apparent source is not enough to link Democrats to Abramoff.
And about ECHELON...you pulled that from NewsMax.com...consider the source, sir.
Here's something to teach you about the ECHELON program, a global surveillance program set up in the 70s and 80s between the USA, England, Canada...basically a UKUSA link with all of their allies for global surveillance. Declassified explanation of ECHELON
It recorded every telex, fax, phone call, radio transmission, etc, and sent it to the NSA for computer processing. The NSA was using this before Clinton's administration.
What NewsMax fails to point out is that Clinton used the well-established NSA ECHELON unit for Commercial spying, creating the Office of Intelligence Liaison within the Dept. of Commerce. Clinton created the NEC, the National Economic Council, which took info from companies outside of the US and fed it to other select companies to increase the competitiveness of the US. It was never used on US citizens.
I think you missed the some of the point Dung_bomb. My point was where was all the screaming when Clinton was doing the wiretapping? Where were the calls for impeachment by the left? They were non-existant. The echelon program was MUCH greater and wider than what Bush is doing now.
As for the Abramoff scandal....as a conservative, now mark this well-it a great difference between the right and the left, I say anyone convicted of taking bribes or kickbacks should be publicly hung, Democrat or Republican or anyone else. However, until the left comes to this point of hanging there own out to dry (i.e. the whole lot on the white house lawn in support of Clinton's perjury) they will have a hard time enlisting my support when they start pointing the finger.
It's so funny to see the Benjamin Franklin quote being used so much by the left. It wasn't all that long ago that I was saying the same thing in the lead-up to the war. Then it was the left telling us that we should be giving up liberties at home rather than eliminating the problem abroad. I continue to believe in that quote whole heartedly and am fundamentally against any infringement of our liberties.
With that being said, I ask you, how would you go about breaking up terrorist cells here in the United Sates?
SAS2475, are you joking? First, do you really believe that we do nothing about street violence? Second, stepping up enforcement would be greeted with howls of protest of becoming a police state. Farce of terror? London, Moscow, New York, Bali, Madrid, ring any bells? Are you suggesting these are all government conspiracies to manipulate us? Chirac today warned that the French could possibly respond to terror attacks with nuclear retaliation. More farce? If Bush is no better than Qadaffi, then Churchill, DeGaulle and Roosevelt were absolute monsters.
It's also funny to hear McCarthy's name brought up in light of the Alito hearings. It appears that some wouldn't know so called McCarthyism if it slapped them in the face. Now it rides under the guise of pro-abortionism.
For most of you, all you know of Joe McCarthy is what little you learned in school and from the perspective of the teacher who taught you (read liberal). Here are a couple quotes by contemporaries of Senator Joseph McCarthy.
Joe McCarthy had strength, he had great courage, he had daring. There was a quality about the man which compelled respect and even liking from his strongest adversaries. (Lyndon Baines Johnson, 3rd May, 1957)
Joe McCarthy was unquestionably the most controversial man I ever served with in the Senate. The anti-anticommunists were outraged at his claims that some of the principals in the Truman and Roosevelt administrations actively served the communist causes.
McCarthy was supported by a strong, nationwide constituency, which included among others, Joseph P. Kennedy, the father of John, Bob, and Edward. A variety of respected, creditable federal employees disturbed by security risks in the national government provided McCarthy with a steady stream of inside information.
The liberals mounted a skillfully orchestrated campaign of criticism against Joe McCarthy. Under the pressure of criticism, he reacted angrily. It is probably true that McCarthy drank too much, overstated his case, and refused to compromise, but he wasn't alone in his beliefs. (Barry Goldwater, 1979)
As for the Abramoff scandal....as a conservative, now mark this well-it a great difference between the right and the left, I say anyone convicted of taking bribes or kickbacks should be publicly hung, Democrat or Republican or anyone else. However, until the left comes to this point of hanging there own out to dry (i.e. the whole lot on the white house lawn in support of Clinton's perjury) they will have a hard time enlisting my support when they start pointing the finger.
It's so funny to see the Benjamin Franklin quote being used so much by the left. It wasn't all that long ago that I was saying the same thing in the lead-up to the war. Then it was the left telling us that we should be giving up liberties at home rather than eliminating the problem abroad. I continue to believe in that quote whole heartedly and am fundamentally against any infringement of our liberties.
With that being said, I ask you, how would you go about breaking up terrorist cells here in the United Sates?
SAS2475, are you joking? First, do you really believe that we do nothing about street violence? Second, stepping up enforcement would be greeted with howls of protest of becoming a police state. Farce of terror? London, Moscow, New York, Bali, Madrid, ring any bells? Are you suggesting these are all government conspiracies to manipulate us? Chirac today warned that the French could possibly respond to terror attacks with nuclear retaliation. More farce? If Bush is no better than Qadaffi, then Churchill, DeGaulle and Roosevelt were absolute monsters.
It's also funny to hear McCarthy's name brought up in light of the Alito hearings. It appears that some wouldn't know so called McCarthyism if it slapped them in the face. Now it rides under the guise of pro-abortionism.
For most of you, all you know of Joe McCarthy is what little you learned in school and from the perspective of the teacher who taught you (read liberal). Here are a couple quotes by contemporaries of Senator Joseph McCarthy.
Joe McCarthy had strength, he had great courage, he had daring. There was a quality about the man which compelled respect and even liking from his strongest adversaries. (Lyndon Baines Johnson, 3rd May, 1957)
Joe McCarthy was unquestionably the most controversial man I ever served with in the Senate. The anti-anticommunists were outraged at his claims that some of the principals in the Truman and Roosevelt administrations actively served the communist causes.
McCarthy was supported by a strong, nationwide constituency, which included among others, Joseph P. Kennedy, the father of John, Bob, and Edward. A variety of respected, creditable federal employees disturbed by security risks in the national government provided McCarthy with a steady stream of inside information.
The liberals mounted a skillfully orchestrated campaign of criticism against Joe McCarthy. Under the pressure of criticism, he reacted angrily. It is probably true that McCarthy drank too much, overstated his case, and refused to compromise, but he wasn't alone in his beliefs. (Barry Goldwater, 1979)
The law allows for the tap to occur prior to actually obtaining the warrant ONLY when non-US citizens are involved. If the tap occurs on a US citizen, inside the US, prior to issuance of warranty, the tap is considered illegal.Darth_Fleder wrote:
I think you missed the some of the point Dung_bomb. My point was where was all the screaming when Clinton was doing the wiretapping? Where were the calls for impeachment by the left? They were non-existant. The echelon program was MUCH greater and wider than what Bush is doing now.
Fleder, read my post. You must've missed it. There was no screaming because Clinton wasn't using it on US Citizens. We are screaming now because Bush readily admitted that he WAS wiretapping US Citizens.Darth_Fleder wrote:
I think you missed the some of the point Dung_bomb. My point was where was all the screaming when Clinton was doing the wiretapping? Where were the calls for impeachment by the left? They were non-existant. The echelon program was MUCH greater and wider than what Bush is doing now.
As for the Abramoff scandal....as a conservative, now mark this well-it a great difference between the right and the left, I say anyone convicted of taking bribes or kickbacks should be publicly hung, Democrat or Republican or anyone else. However, until the left comes to this point of hanging there own out to dry (i.e. the whole lot on the white house lawn in support of Clinton's perjury) they will have a hard time enlisting my support when they start pointing the finger.
With that being said, I ask you, how would you go about breaking up terrorist cells here in the United Sates?
I agree with you about outing any political figure who has taken bribes, but until names are mentioned and credible links are shown and proven to be true, it currently stands that Abramoff has given money to more Right-wingers than Democrats. It's much less finger-pointing and more of just stating fact.
As for the destruction of al Qaeda cells in the US and around the world, Richard Clarke wrote up a paper on how to effectively do that after extensive research into their organization. Forgot who he was? He was the head of counterterrorism in 2000; Clinton appointed him after the bombing of the USS Cole.
Clarke drew up an elaborate paper detailing out how to freeze al Qaeda's assets, attack the fake charities that were giving them money, fund the Northern Alliance and give more aid and support/increase CovOps in Afghanistan.
I'm just going to copy and paste what I said about this in the France thread:
Despite what people have been quoted as saying about McCarthy, he still was a political muckraker, plus avidly fought to have our basic Civil Liberties stripped to fit his one-track vision of "America." He fought dirty, smeared all of his opponents, and his credibility loss went up exponentially throughout his scathing years. Anyone who wants a McCarthy America basically is in complete disagreement with the Constitution, and is intolerant of the freedoms that America is based off of.Marconius wrote:
Bush is sworn in, and Condi Rice eventually lets Clarke stay on as head of counterterrorism. Clarke's plan to take out al Qaeda went unheeded as the new cabinet decided to focus more on missile defense and force restructuring. Clarke is still largely ignored despite the amounting threats of terror uncovered by the Hart-Rudman Commission. Bush was spending his time vacationing while Clarke was avidly trying to get his message out to him.
Then 9/11 happened. Just a few days after Bush's cabinet finally decided to hear Clarke out...
Please find and read:
May 19 2002, New York Daily News
Feb. 28, 2002, "How 9/11 Changed Goals of Justice Dept." New York Times
December 30, 2001 "Planning for Terror but Failing to Act" New York Times
March 10, 2003 "The 9/10 President" The New Republic
A biography on McCarthy: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmccarthy.htm
Last edited by Marconius (2006-01-19 11:25:55)
Marconius,
Appently you posted while I was crafting my response to the dung_bomb and others and I did not have the time to reply to your response. I will first respond to your first response and time and space permitting your second. Dung_Bomb, you might find this enlightening as well.
First of all, my sources. First a question. Since when is the Washington Post a “hard-right” newspaper? Second, I can spot a regurgitation of the ideology of the hard left and so choose to pull some info off of newsmax to counter it with. Third, your sources, The New York Times? All the News we can dream up to print? It's also heavily biased to the left. A comment you made about the FOX news channel caught my attention as well. You seem to think that FOX is a hard right news source, perhaps that is because in your experience you have only been exposed to a leftist bias as evidenced by your reliance on New York left leaning newspapers. FOX news sports many from the left as well hence it’s claim “Fair and Balanced”. I do not deny that there are people there who are conservatives. Since you seem to be very entrenched in left wing ideology, I expect nothing less than for you to attack a source of news that does have the bias that you are comfortable with. Unfortunately for your side, FOX is gaining a larger and larger market share as people get their news with a little more balance and they are flocking in droves from the other networks. What you consider to be "hard-right' of today is to the left of where JFK was in 1960.
Now, on to your claims about Echelon. You state categorically…
I am not sure who you think you are trying to bamboozle with your misrepresentations of fact or your yammerings about sources, but one thing is clear, the facts don't bear you out. Your arguments are clearly specious and you are trying to split fine hairs with them.
BTW, that is the site I took the McCarthy quotes from.
Appently you posted while I was crafting my response to the dung_bomb and others and I did not have the time to reply to your response. I will first respond to your first response and time and space permitting your second. Dung_Bomb, you might find this enlightening as well.
First of all, my sources. First a question. Since when is the Washington Post a “hard-right” newspaper? Second, I can spot a regurgitation of the ideology of the hard left and so choose to pull some info off of newsmax to counter it with. Third, your sources, The New York Times? All the News we can dream up to print? It's also heavily biased to the left. A comment you made about the FOX news channel caught my attention as well. You seem to think that FOX is a hard right news source, perhaps that is because in your experience you have only been exposed to a leftist bias as evidenced by your reliance on New York left leaning newspapers. FOX news sports many from the left as well hence it’s claim “Fair and Balanced”. I do not deny that there are people there who are conservatives. Since you seem to be very entrenched in left wing ideology, I expect nothing less than for you to attack a source of news that does have the bias that you are comfortable with. Unfortunately for your side, FOX is gaining a larger and larger market share as people get their news with a little more balance and they are flocking in droves from the other networks. What you consider to be "hard-right' of today is to the left of where JFK was in 1960.
Now, on to your claims about Echelon. You state categorically…
and….Marconius wrote:
It was never used on US citizens.
now compare those statements to this by CIA director George TenetMarconius wrote:
There was no screaming because Clinton wasn't using it on US Citizens.
It seems that you might want to get your facts straight before you try to correct anyone. Now I found an analysis of this on a democratic website that I think is an intelligent one. It relates to how Mr. Tenet’s quote is being used.George Tenet testified to this before Congress on 4/12/00 wrote:
I’m here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations regarding Signals Intelligence activities and the so-called Echelon Program of the National Security Agency…
There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously adhere to whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether directly or indirectly. We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department.
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/the-echelon-myth/
That would be most intelligent Americans. Now we move on to what exactly the FISA court is that Mr. Bush has bypassed.JohnST from www.democrats.org wrote:
I'd be careful about quoting the Tenet testimony. In fact, I'd be careful about this whole issue. I'm a Democrat, and I want to win. It is very unlikely this issue helps us win, and much more likely it will help us lose in 2006.
What are we opposing here, exactly? That the president, of whichever party, should be able to spy on foreign adversaries? Should it really make a difference if the foreign adversaries are carrying out their plot with one individual in the plot located in the U.S.?
To the Tenet testimony: The pertinent sentence is this one: "We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department."
The "for collection" phrase is key. That suggests using the wiretapped conversations as evidence in a criminal case. That's not what the program in question is about. The warrantless wiretaps are only usable for detection of a crime that has not yet taken place. But, I think most Americans agree, that's a valid use of espionage techniques--to save American lives in the event of an imminent terrorist attack. It is another issue entirely whether we can successfully prosecute the terrorists; and a distinctly secondary one.
http://www.democrats.org/a/p/governor_d … audio.html
Now, we ARE in a state of war, your claims and the claims of your fellow liberals notwithstanding.CRS Report for Congress wrote:
Excerpted from
The National Security Agency:
Issues for Congress
Updated January 16, 2001
Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) (50 USC 1801) which establishes procedures for electronic surveillance in the United States for foreign intelligence
purposes.46 It provides that the Attorney General may authorize surveillance in situations wherein the target is communications of foreign powers; in cases in which communications of U.S. persons might be acquired, then approval of a court, created pursuant to the FISA, would be required. Information acquired in accordance with FISA provisions is to be used for foreign intelligence purposes (even though in recent years Congress has expanded FISA to permit use of some types of information acquired under its provisions to be used for law enforcement purposes in certain
circumstances). FISA, in essence, ensures that foreign intelligence electronic surveillance operations within the United States are conducted in accordance with statutory authorities and with supervision by the Justice Department (and with oversight by Congress).
http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL30740.pdf
From the mouth of one of your very own and beloved on the subject116 STAT. 1498 PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002 wrote:
Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq…
…Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';…
…Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and…
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Mrs. Clinton was an occupant of the white house for eight years. Her husband had access to the same intelligence people that Mr. Bush had. If you people are still have it your minds that Bush lied, it is you who are a little short upstairs.Hillary Clinton wrote:
Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran…
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.
Thank you, Mr. President.
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
I am not sure who you think you are trying to bamboozle with your misrepresentations of fact or your yammerings about sources, but one thing is clear, the facts don't bear you out. Your arguments are clearly specious and you are trying to split fine hairs with them.
BTW, that is the site I took the McCarthy quotes from.
Last edited by Darth_Fleder (2006-01-19 19:12:18)
According to Nostradamus, World War Three will occur in 2008. There are so many ways of interpreting his 'predictions' though that it could mean anything.
I have to say though, the way the US is stirring up the wasps nest, (the nest being the Middle-East,) there could be a big war involving many countries. I doubt it will be a 'World War' as such because other countries, like my own, have little reason to go to a war in the middle east.
No-one wants to target us, apart from jealous film academy judges who don't want New Zealand and Peter Jackson to sweep the Oscars again. We will though.
Edit: By the way, sorry about the double posts. It keeps doing that. Some admin will have to fix it. I'll stop writing stuff now to make their job a little easier.
I have to say though, the way the US is stirring up the wasps nest, (the nest being the Middle-East,) there could be a big war involving many countries. I doubt it will be a 'World War' as such because other countries, like my own, have little reason to go to a war in the middle east.
No-one wants to target us, apart from jealous film academy judges who don't want New Zealand and Peter Jackson to sweep the Oscars again. We will though.
Edit: By the way, sorry about the double posts. It keeps doing that. Some admin will have to fix it. I'll stop writing stuff now to make their job a little easier.
Last edited by Tyferra (2006-01-19 18:20:37)
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Temporary safety my ass, and if you have something against the wiretapping because you have something to hide, then you probably should be arrested, and they only wiretap suspicious persons, not just some dude at the fucking grocery store, and Ben Franklin was a jackass anyways. And we're not "giving up our liberties" to fight the terrorists, we are fighting the terrorists to protect our liberties.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
To all you fucking idiots that are for these wiretaps, get a FUCKING CLUE!!!! To paraphrase Ben Franklin, "Those that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither."
First we give them illegal wiretaps. Then it will be illegal search and seizure. Then it will be mandatory that all Americans have their fingerprints, blood type, and DNA on file. With the technology they have today the government could make the McCarthy era look like a fucking picnic!
Lets not forget that if we start giving up our liberties to fight terrorits, the terrorists have already won. They want to destroy out way of life, and by making our government just like theirs, they are getting exactly what they want.
clinton only got in Because Ross Perot took 19% of the Conservative vote. Kennedy got in without the popular vote. I think what he was referring to was that Very few states went to Kerry or Gore ( not even his own state ! lol ) That's why we have the Electoral College , So you cant win by promising free beer in a the Slums.B.Schuss wrote:
seriously, when was the last time the US had a president that not only had the overwhelming majority of americans on his side but also was a trust-worthy, decent human being ?
In 2004, Bush won the popular vote by about a million votes, he came out at 51%, while Kerry came out at 48%. If you take into consideration that only 60% percent of americans voted at all, I think it is fair to say that Bush's victory wasn't a landslide.
I dare say that americans chose Bush because they felt he would be better in their situation at the time. That pretty much sums up the mood of the Nation
Dare you apply that Quote to the 2nd Amendment ?Marconius wrote:
May I remind you two of this:spacebandit72 wrote:
Agreed.acurasquirrel wrote:
Im sorry but if you dont have anything to hide what do you have to worry about?
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
Haha, nice Fleder.
The point here is that Clinton never violated FISA, but Bush decided that he could go above and beyond it.
Your democrats.org quote was a comment on Governer Dean's lashing out at the Bush administration after they flat out told everyone that they were above the FISA laws. You also seemed to quote the only moderate/right-wing response off of it, to which his conclusion was based off of his own assumption on Tenet's semantics. You've already spun that one off to your agenda...so I'm just going to disregard it.
Alright, you've given me the Authorization Act, which was passed since the President allowed everyone to see faulty evidence that he constructed in order to win everyone over to his side (which then prompted Senator Clinton to make that presentation). The President gets to see everything first, so intelligence is filtered through the President.
Iraq wasn't an issue in the Clinton years; Hillary knows about Richard Clarke and his work on al Qaeda, though. Bush lied, Bush ignored Richard Clarke, and I've already posted my proof on that ad nauseum.
Have you read the People for a New American Century (PNAC) report?
http://newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm - check out the people who have signed this report.
http://www.raytal.com/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf - If you are so right-wing, this is supposedly your agenda. This is the line of thinking that is making the whispers of a new American Civil War grow louder every day. I'd really like to know what you think of it.
The point here is that Clinton never violated FISA, but Bush decided that he could go above and beyond it.
Your democrats.org quote was a comment on Governer Dean's lashing out at the Bush administration after they flat out told everyone that they were above the FISA laws. You also seemed to quote the only moderate/right-wing response off of it, to which his conclusion was based off of his own assumption on Tenet's semantics. You've already spun that one off to your agenda...so I'm just going to disregard it.
Alright, you've given me the Authorization Act, which was passed since the President allowed everyone to see faulty evidence that he constructed in order to win everyone over to his side (which then prompted Senator Clinton to make that presentation). The President gets to see everything first, so intelligence is filtered through the President.
Iraq wasn't an issue in the Clinton years; Hillary knows about Richard Clarke and his work on al Qaeda, though. Bush lied, Bush ignored Richard Clarke, and I've already posted my proof on that ad nauseum.
Have you read the People for a New American Century (PNAC) report?
http://newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm - check out the people who have signed this report.
http://www.raytal.com/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf - If you are so right-wing, this is supposedly your agenda. This is the line of thinking that is making the whispers of a new American Civil War grow louder every day. I'd really like to know what you think of it.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."Horseman 77 wrote:
Dare you apply that Quote to the 2nd Amendment ?Marconius wrote:
May I remind you two of this:spacebandit72 wrote:
Agreed.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
Sure, Horseman...I don't really know what you are implying. How does the 2nd amendment here affect our liberty? I see nothing within it that says we should give up our liberties for some safety...
NEVER LISTEN TO A LIBERAL FROM CALIFORNIA! Bush has infringed on our rights, but the republicans will win the next election if the match up is what i think its going to be. Condi vs HilaryMarconius wrote:
So far, Bush has been caught red-handed breaking the law. He claims that he can basically illegally wiretap Americans and invade their privacy as it is a "time of war." Albeit he never had a formal Declaration of War approved from the Congress. 'Shock and Awe' lasted just long enough that he didn't have to present his Articles of War, and the resulting firefight in Iraq is still going on.
Hopefully the Impeachment process will start soon, but only if enough Republicans in the House will allow a call for it to pass.
My question to everyone is:
If the Republicans/Bush Administration think they can get away with anything now due to the US being at "war," what will happen if a Democrat gets elected in 2008? Will they all back down and say, "Oh, no no no, we were wrong, we weren't supposed to do all of that as it was illegal at the time...so it looks like you Democrats can't do the same!" Does anyone feel like there is something more sinister going on to ensure that Republicans can force another election to come out in favor of them?
Well were pretty well screwed. Its almost north vs south again. The sad part is....the south would win this one. All the major manufacturing plants, armories, bases etc. are in the south. And most soldiers are generally conservative...NOTE: I SAID GENERALLY. Doesn't look good for us....Rome's government fell from corruption, every superpower has almost fell from within....it might very well happen.
Last edited by 2ndLt.Tucker (2006-01-19 19:47:59)