Lets Discuss the Press

#126
#126
(therealUT @ Jul 27 said:
Until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, it is constitutional. You can allege that it violates the constitution all you want, however, almost 5 years have passed since Congress gave GWB that power (which is an awful lot of power) and it has yet to be challenged in court.
Click to expand...

Gave him what power? Congress didn't even KNOW about this stuff. How can you give someone power when you have no clue what is going on? And Congress defined the power of the FISA process but THAT didn't stop GWB either did it?
 
#128
#128
(therealUT @ Jul 27 said:
Until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, it is constitutional.
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight. I can as President do whatever I want unchallenged until the Courts tell me to stop? Wow! I'm announcing my candidacy for 2008!
 
#129
#129
(CSpindizzy @ Jul 27 said:
And you're obsessed with GWB can do no wrong....what's your point?
Click to expand...

There is a difference between making mistakes and breaking the law. As long as congress authorized him the "use of all necessary and appropriate force against those...persons he determines..." then he basically has the authority to do as he pleases.
 
#130
#130
(therealUT @ Jul 27 said:
then he basically has the authority to do as he pleases.
Click to expand...

So that open ended carte blanche notion means forget the FISA courts? Forget the 4th amendment with warrants and going through the courts? Unfortunately for you, Congress does not supercede Constitutional authority.

Hitler had that same freedom as well....
 
#131
#131
Hey, realUT,

As a military guy, what do you think of Bush's military record vs. Kerry's?
 
#132
#132
(vader @ Jul 27 said:
Hey, realUT,

As a military guy, what do you think of Bush's military record vs. Kerry's?
Click to expand...

I don't believe it is much of a factor. I never recall Bush running for office based on his military record, so, regardless of what it was, it basically means nothing. However, John Kerry's campaign seemed to prop him up as some kind of military hero, and therefore his record seems admissable.

That being said, I do not believe our military benefitted from either of their involvements.
 
#133
#133
(therealUT @ Jul 27 said:
I don't believe it is much of a factor. I never recall Bush running for office based on his military record, so, regardless of what it was, it basically means nothing. However, John Kerry's campaign seemed to prop him up as some kind of military hero, and therefore his record seems admissable.

That being said, I do not believe our military benefitted from either of their involvements.
Click to expand...

I am honestly not educated about Kerry's purple hearts. Were they undeserving or just overhyped?
 
#134
#134
(CSpindizzy @ Jul 27 said:
So that open ended carte blanche notion means forget the FISA courts? Forget the 4th amendment with warrants and going through the courts? Unfortunately for you, Congress does not supercede Constitutional authority.

Hitler had that same freedom as well....
Click to expand...

I understand, but your problem should be with congress on this issue, not with Bush. They granted him the power, nobody has challenged their legislation granting him that power, and it has yet to be repealed. So, Bush then can basically act with immunity until it is repealed.

Maybe the democrats should make that their talking point for this election, in '06. They probably should have done it in '04.
 
#135
#135
(vader @ Jul 27 said:
I am honestly not educated about Kerry's purple hearts. Were they undeserving or just overhyped?
Click to expand...

I am sure that he deserved them as much as most other purple heart winners deserve them. I know that on his citations for the three Silver Stars he won, one with a V device (which cannot be attached to a Silver Star,) are suspect. The bottom line is, somebody higher had to sign off on them.
 
#136
#136
(therealUT @ Jul 27 said:
I don't believe it is much of a factor. I never recall Bush running for office based on his military record, so, regardless of what it was, it basically means nothing. However, John Kerry's campaign seemed to prop him up as some kind of military hero, and therefore his record seems admissable.

That being said, I do not believe our military benefitted from either of their involvements.
Click to expand...

I personally think that it was a low blow to both Kerry and all the veterans and it was uncalled for. Especially coming from Bush.


 

Attachments

  • Dlie.jpg
    Dlie.jpg
    18.5 KB · Views: 0
#138
#138
(therealUT @ Jul 27 said:
That being said, I do not believe our military benefitted from either of their involvements.
Click to expand...

So the military doesn't benefit from anyone except for those who charge up San Juan Hill?
 
#139
#139
(therealUT @ Jul 27 said:
I understand, but your problem should be with congress on this issue, not with Bush. They granted him the power, nobody has challenged their legislation granting him that power, and it has yet to be repealed. So, Bush then can basically act with immunity until it is repealed.

Maybe the democrats should make that their talking point for this election, in '06. They probably should have done it in '04.
Click to expand...

Again, so Bush should disregard the Constitution? They defined the FISA court procedure you seem to repeatedly ignore and so does Bush. A President with immunity....see Clinton and Nixon. You keep thinking Bush has a blank check. I hope he does as well. Soon his day will come. Hopefully he won't have taken the nation down the drink with his moves as well.

It's really sad to see someone like you believing that it's not illegal until you get caught. So much for honor and ethics.
 
#140
#140
(CSpindizzy @ Jul 27 said:
Again, so Bush should disregard the Constitution? They defined the FISA court procedure you seem to repeatedly ignore and so does Bush. A President with immunity....see Clinton and Nixon. You keep thinking Bush has a blank check. I hope he does as well. Soon his day will come. Hopefully he won't have taken the nation down the drink with his moves as well.

It's really sad to see someone like you believing that it's not illegal until you get caught. So much for honor and ethics.
Click to expand...

It is not unconstitutional for the executive power to work within the framework of authority granted by Congress. If the Supreme Court rules on this, and rules that it is unconstitutional than it is. However, that has not happened.
 
#141
#141
(CSpindizzy @ Jul 27 said:
Again, so Bush should disregard the Constitution? They defined the FISA court procedure you seem to repeatedly ignore and so does Bush. A President with immunity....see Clinton and Nixon. You keep thinking Bush has a blank check. I hope he does as well. Soon his day will come. Hopefully he won't have taken the nation down the drink with his moves as well.

It's really sad to see someone like you believing that it's not illegal until you get caught. So much for honor and ethics.
Click to expand...
Dizzy, you are not quite right are you.
 
#142
#142
Interesting how the "Press" thread has become about constitutional powers while the "Constitutional Powers" thread has a bunch of posts about the press!
 
#143
#143
(therealUT @ Jul 27 said:
It is not unconstitutional for the executive power to work within the framework of authority granted by Congress. If the Supreme Court rules on this, and rules that it is unconstitutional than it is. However, that has not happened.
Click to expand...


And how is GWB working within the framework of the FISA courts? Where are the court approved warrants? Have ANY warrants been approved? The sad part is that FISA even allows for 48 hour retro warrants but even THAT has been ignored.

It does not matter what Congress says or doesn't say. The 4th Amendment is clear on the subject. No Congressional law can change what this Amendment has defined on searches and seizures. Procedure and precedent has been issued for years. This is the way it always has been.
 
#146
#146
(smoke_em06 @ Jul 27 said:
Nah. I think real has pretty much taken care of you.
Click to expand...

LOL. Nice try. If taken care of me means police state and a President who can do what he wants any time he wants then yes. I am 'taken care of' I'd rather be on the libertarian (lower case or uppercase) side of this argument any day of the week. Trusting everything into one person is what gets societies in trouble. People trusted in Nixon and were burned. People trusted in Clinton and were burned. And frankly it was over issues not even closely related to Constitutional rights as what this President has done. If realUT wants to put all of the power of government into one branch then so be it. Let it be known that his whole argument is against everything this nation was founded on. I myself choose to be on the side of the Founding Fathers. he can choose to be on the side of tyranny.
 
#147
#147
What we need to do is just give in and make America an empire. Lay waste to the middle east and take the land. Use the oil cheaply until we can figure out a better cheaper energy method.

Of course, I'd like to be the right hand enforcer like my username suggests...
 
#148
#148
(vader @ Jul 27 said:
What we need to do is just give in and make America an empire. Lay waste to the middle east and take the land. Use the oil cheaply until we can figure out a better cheaper energy method.

Of course, I'd like to be the right hand enforcer like my username suggests...
Click to expand...

There are always two. Who will be your sidekick?
 
#150
#150
(volinbham @ Jul 27 said:
Interesting how the "Press" thread has become about constitutional powers while the "Constitutional Powers" thread has a bunch of posts about the press!
Click to expand...

Did someone say Constitutional Powers? That reminds me of another cartoon I saw..

chalk-monkey.gif

 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top