- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
You sly dog, nothing gets past you. I would have to agree with you here though. You got a point. Now let me ask you a question. If this thing runs its coarse and he is found guilty, what are you going to say then?Originally posted by cnredd:
Once again, the misleading of the forum is a bunch of bullshit that runs downhill...
Thread title?...
Bush Violated National Security Act, According to Congressional Research Service
Title of article linked?...
Congressional Agency Questions Legality of Wiretaps
Anyone notice the difference?...I don't know about you kids, but I find a difference between "violated" and "questions"...Maybe it's just me...
Let's keep going...
According to the actual article, which was obviously linked without full reading...First sentence...
The Bush administration appears to have violated the National Security Act by limiting its briefings about a warrantless domestic eavesdropping program to congressional leaders, according to a memo from Congress's research arm released yesterday.
Anyone see a difference between "violated" and "appears to have violated"?
If they were the same, I'd bet there'd be a helleva lot less trials in this country..."Appears like he did it...he MUST be guilty"...
Let's continue...from the article...
The Congressional Research Service opinion said that the amended 1947 law requires President Bush to keep all members of the House and Senate intelligence committees "fully and currently informed" of such intelligence activities as the domestic surveillance effort.
OK...sounds written in stone...unless, of course, there are EXCEPTIONS...further down the article...
The only exception in the law applies to covert actions, Cumming found, and those programs must be reported to the "Gang of Eight," which includes House and Senate leaders in addition to heads of the intelligence panels. The administration can also withhold some operational details in rare circumstances, but that does not apply to the existence of entire programs, he wrote.
Howz about that?...exception to their own rule...Let's see if the Admin can jump through that glaring hole now...
Unless the White House contends the program is a covert action, the memo said, "limiting congressional notification of the NSA program to the Gang of Eight . . . would appear to be inconsistent with the law."
Ouch...White House claims "covert action"...1947 law becomes irrelevant...
Now...
Are there any other hoops the Admin must jump through that we aren't told about here?...
I don't know...The author of this thread doesn't provide that information...
See folks, I don't even KNOW if this thread has any relevance...Everything in the article may or may not be true...I just don't know...
But what I DO KNOW is that the title thread is intentionally misleading and is NOT what the actual articles reports...
here are the three sentences on the original post...
The non-partisan Congressional Research Service has determined that President Bush has violated the National Security Act, which was passed in 1947...(Not according to the article...the article very clearly states "appears to have violated")...
This law makes it a crime to withhold from Congress information on some intelligence operations, such as domestic spying. ..(True statement...But does not mention whether or not what the Administration is doing falls under the realm of "some")...
Bush's limits on what information he gave Congress about domestic spying violated the law...(Unless there is admission of conjecture and/or personal opinion, because the article does NOT agree with this statement)...
Debunked again...Now you know why I don't do this with every thread the author starts...There are only so many hours in the day...
But hopefully, the members here will see this and understand what to look for the next time the author decides to mislead again...
Don't worry...It won't be long...
cnredd said:Thread title?...
Bush Violated National Security Act, According to Congressional Research Service
Title of article linked?...
Congressional Agency Questions Legality of Wiretaps
Anyone notice the difference?...I don't know about you kids, but I find a difference between "violated" and "questions"...Maybe it's just me...
That may be true. However, it doesn't take away from the fact that there is a very real possibility that Bush may soon be charged and found guilty a crime.Originally posted by KCConservative:
This is nothing new and I point it out every day. Biased thread title from a biased thread maker.
Once again, we have another example of your hair splitting, word parsing, and misrepresentations of the truth, of which you are famous for on this board.cnredd said:Once again, the misleading of the forum is a bunch of bullshit that runs downhill...
Thread title?...
Bush Violated National Security Act, According to Congressional Research Service
Title of article linked?...
Congressional Agency Questions Legality of Wiretaps
Anyone notice the difference?...I don't know about you kids, but I find a difference between "violated" and "questions"...Maybe it's just me...
Let's keep going...
According to the actual article, which was obviously linked without full reading...First sentence...
The Bush administration appears to have violated the National Security Act by limiting its briefings about a warrantless domestic eavesdropping program to congressional leaders, according to a memo from Congress's research arm released yesterday.
Anyone see a difference between "violated" and "appears to have violated"?
If they were the same, I'd bet there'd be a helleva lot less trials in this country..."Appears like he did it...he MUST be guilty"...:roll:
Let's continue...from the article...
The Congressional Research Service opinion said that the amended 1947 law requires President Bush to keep all members of the House and Senate intelligence committees "fully and currently informed" of such intelligence activities as the domestic surveillance effort.
OK...sounds written in stone...unless, of course, there are EXCEPTIONS...further down the article...
The only exception in the law applies to covert actions, Cumming found, and those programs must be reported to the "Gang of Eight," which includes House and Senate leaders in addition to heads of the intelligence panels. The administration can also withhold some operational details in rare circumstances, but that does not apply to the existence of entire programs, he wrote.
Howz about that?...exception to their own rule...Let's see if the Admin can jump through that glaring hole now...
Unless the White House contends the program is a covert action, the memo said, "limiting congressional notification of the NSA program to the Gang of Eight . . . would appear to be inconsistent with the law."
Ouch...White House claims "covert action"...1947 law becomes irrelevant...
Now...
Are there any other hoops the Admin must jump through that we aren't told about here?...
I don't know...The author of this thread doesn't provide that information...
See folks, I don't even KNOW if this thread has any relevance...Everything in the article may or may not be true...I just don't know...
But what I DO KNOW is that the title thread is intentionally misleading and is NOT what the actual articles reports...
here are the three sentences on the original post...
The non-partisan Congressional Research Service has determined that President Bush has violated the National Security Act, which was passed in 1947...(Not according to the article...the article very clearly states "appears to have violated")...
This law makes it a crime to withhold from Congress information on some intelligence operations, such as domestic spying. ..(True statement...But does not mention whether or not what the Administration is doing falls under the realm of "some")...
Bush's limits on what information he gave Congress about domestic spying violated the law...(Unless there is admission of conjecture and/or personal opinion, because the article does NOT agree with this statement)...
Debunked again...Now you know why I don't do this with every thread the author starts...There are only so many hours in the day...
But hopefully, the members here will see this and understand what to look for the next time the author decides to mislead again...
Don't worry...It won't be long...
Here is the second paragraph, which shows the intended meaning even clearer:The Bush administration appears to have violated the National Security Act by limiting its briefings about a warrantless domestic eavesdropping program to congressional leaders, according to a memo from Congress's research arm released yesterday.
Of course, you conveniently left that second paragraph out of what you had selectively quoted. That was quite dishonest of you, but quite expected of you too. Do you understand what "conflicted with current law" means? I think you do, but decided to split hairs and mislead around other fine points in the article instead.The memo from national security specialist Alfred Cumming is the second report this month from CRS to question the legality of aspects of Bush's domestic spying program. A Jan. 6 report concluded that the administration's justifications for the program conflicted with current law.
A Jan. 6 report concluded that the administration's justifications for the program conflicted with current law.
Yes, I seem to remember a thread on Impeaching Bush. I think it died about 50 or 60 pages back. Revive it and keep us posted, billo.Billo_Really said:That may be true. However, it doesn't take away from the fact that there is a very real possibility that Bush may soon be charged and found guilty a crime.
Have you heard of Resolution 635?Originally posted by KCConservative:
Yes, I seem to remember a thread on Impeaching Bush. I think it died about 50 or 60 pages back. Revive it and keep us posted, billo.
This one's pretty funny...danarhea said:Once again, we have another example of your hair splitting, word parsing, and misrepresentations of the truth, of which you are famous for on this board.
1) You point out the title's article "Congressional Agency Questions Legality of Wiretaps", and tell everyone what the meaning of the title is, according to the author and the Congressional Research Service. The title could be construed to mean anything, and construe you do. However, the meaning is quite plain in the first sentence:
Did you even read what you post or is this "pin the tail on GWB"?danarhea said:Here is the second paragraph, which shows the intended meaning even clearer:
The memo from national security specialist Alfred Cumming is the second report this month from CRS to question the legality of aspects of Bush's domestic spying program. A Jan. 6 report concluded that the administration's justifications for the program conflicted with current law.
Of course, you conveniently left that second paragraph out of what you had selectively quoted. That was quite dishonest of you, but quite expected of you too. Do you understand what "conflicted with current law" means? I think you do, but decided to split hairs and mislead around other fine points in the article instead.
Now you're sounding like Navy Pride...Anything meant to be objective in the face of bashing MUST mean I'm defending...False statement...danarhea said:2) Now on to this further hair splitting and word parsing. You give many reasons why what Bush is doing COULD be legal , and the magic word here is COULD. However, unlike you and your ilk, the Congressional Research Service is non partisan, and as the non partisan entity it is, it took up all the reasons the White House gave, and said this about those justifications (repeat second paragraph, which you dishonestly left out):
Whatever that meant...danarhea said:Jeez. You know the meaning of the word "is" is argument better than Clinton himself.
Whatever that meant...danarhea said:The only thing you are debunking here is your own credibility. Now to throw your own words back in your face:
danarhea said:But hopefully, the members here will see this and understand what to look for the next time cnredd decides to mislead by splitting hairs, parsing words, and make misleading statements again...
Don't worry...It won't be long...
Lets see what you are really saying......cnredd said:This one's pretty funny...
According to you *snort*...the title could be construed to mean anything...I don't think I've seen a dumber statement on this thread....:roll:
Here's how I "construed" it...Questions=Questions..."the phrase "appears to have violated" means there are "questions"...
Here's how YOU construed it by replacing the word in YOUR title of YOUR thread...Questions=Violated...No more questioning...You state it as fact...
You got such a hard-on for GWB that you don't even see how retarded that looks...
[/size]
Did you even read what you post or is this "pin the tail on GWB"?
Read the paragraph again...and again...and again, if necessary...
The Jan. 6 report concluded that the administration's JUSTIFICATIONS for the program conflicted with current law...
The report says the conflict is with the way they JUSTIFIED wiretapping...not the wiretapping itself...If you read your own articles every once in awhile, you'll see they're still QUESTIONING that...
All they're saying is that they don't agree with the Administration's reasoning...That leads me to believe if there are other reasons that haven't been relayed to the Congressional Research Service that they WILL agree with, the whole story becomes a non-issue...
Here's a question....What is the justification that the report is using?....Something GWB said at a press conference?....A statement by Atty. Gen Gonzales?...Did an aide or White House Staff member say something?
WE DON'T KNOW...Your handy-dandy article doesn't tell us...
Now you're sounding like Navy Pride...Anything meant to be objective in the face of bashing MUST mean I'm defending...False statement...
1) The reasons, once again, are not shown...
2) I have no idea who or what Congressional Research Service is, and your opinion of them is irrelevant...As usual, the forum members here only go by what YOU present...Attempting to clear things up after the fact is disingenious at best, cowardice at worst...
The article doesn't mention who they are...until NOW, YOU don't mention who they are...For all the forum members may know, they could be some fringe lunitic club...YOU don't present anyone with info...Just an article and a three sentence GWB bash...just as usual...
Whatever that meant...
Whatever that meant...
New danarhea article..."Bush is Hitler!"
cnredd..."No they're not"...
danarhea..."oh, you're just splitting hairs"...
I guess that's your new catch phrase now when you got nothin' else...
danarhea - "The Colts beat the Steelers' last week"
cnredd - "No...The Colts are done for the year and the Steelers play this week"...
danarhea - "oh, you're just splitting hairs"...
:roll:
You best brush up on government then. Here is their website:I have no idea who or what Congressional Research Service is, and your opinion of them is irrelevant...As usual, the forum members here only go by what YOU present...Attempting to clear things up after the fact is disingenious at best, cowardice at worst...
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Congressional Research Service is the public policy research arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]History and Mission[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Congress created CRS in order to have its own source of nonpartisan, objective analysis and research on all legislative issues. Indeed, the sole mission of CRS is to serve the United States Congress. CRS has been carrying out this mission since 1914, when it was first established as the Legislative Reference Service. Renamed the Congressional Research Service by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, CRS is committed to providing the Congress, throughout the legislative process, comprehensive and reliable analysis, research and information services that are timely, objective, nonpartisan, and confidential, thereby contributing to an informed national legislature.[/FONT]
Remember that quote? Its the one you conveniently left out, while telling everyone that I am posting according to "what danarhea thinks". Sorry, but I dont plagarize. I posted a direct link to my source. If you still think the quote is wrong, then please take that up with the Congressional Research Service, you know, that agency that you call irrelevant and admit that you have no clue as to its purpose.A Jan. 6 report concluded that the administration's justifications for the program conflicted with current law.
cnredd said:I don't think I've seen a dumber statement on this thread....:roll:
cnredd said:For purposes of brevity and so as to negate future conflict, whenever I, cnredd, XO of the monkey army :monkeyarm, make such grandiose comments, it is to be implied that I am not taking into account teacher's, of the colossal brain, rants, forever and ever, Amen. Like I have to say that. That guy...
Thank you for the update.Originally posted by oldreliable67:
HR 635 sponsored by John Conyers, is now in the House Rules Committee. The Rules Committee is made up of 8 Repubs and 4 Dems. Conyers, of course, knew from the first that this resolution was highly likely to die a slow death in the Rules Committee or some other committee. As of today, this bill hasn't made it onto the Committee calendar. Consequently, Conyers sponsorship of this resolution looks more like publicity seeking and posturing than anything else.
teacher said:(If you all don't get it by now...teacher is not, though he implies such, and you better well should infer such, is not a moderator. He also has this most annoying tactic of putting words in other peoples mouths that they in real life did not say, by his most adroit use of the quote buttons. Speaking of which, he did first, and Trajan (6) and galenrox both copied with out due footnotes. Bastards.)
George_Washington said:lmao
Thinking of you as a mod, Teacher, I don't know whether I should laugh or be afraid. But you're a funny guy though, I'll give you that. :mrgreen:
You colored in the wrong statement...it should be this one...danarhea said:Lets see what you are really saying......
I have no idea who or what Congressional Research Service is, and your opinion of them is irrelevant...As usual, the forum members here only go by what YOU present...Attempting to clear things up after the fact is disingenious at best, cowardice at worst...
Yup...danarhea said:You best brush up on government then. Here is their website:
http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/whatscrs.html
Yes I could...But it's funny though...That's NOT the forum member's job...It the job of the thread starter to guide the members...Where is the Jan. 6 report?...Where's the link for it?...It sure as hell isn't in anything you provided...danarhea said:Kind of shoots down your "danarhea makes it all up" theory, doesnt it? You can read their January 6 report and find the basis for this statement in the article I linked to, which I did not make up:
cnredd said:See folks, I don't even KNOW if this thread has any relevance...Everything in the article may or may not be true...I just don't know...
But what I DO KNOW is that the title thread is intentionally misleading and is NOT what the actual articles reports...
here are the three sentences on the original post...
The non-partisan Congressional Research Service has determined that President Bush has violated the National Security Act, which was passed in 1947...(Not according to the article...the article very clearly states "appears to have violated")...
This law makes it a crime to withhold from Congress information on some intelligence operations, such as domestic spying. ..(True statement...But does not mention whether or not what the Administration is doing falls under the realm of "some")...
Bush's limits on what information he gave Congress about domestic spying violated the law...(Unless there is admission of conjecture and/or personal opinion, because the article does NOT agree with this statement)...
A Jan. 6 report concluded that the administration's justifications for the program conflicted with current law.
I don't "convientiently" leave out anything...in fact, I'm ahead of you on this because at least I show PART of the article for public consumption...You don't show any...If I "convieniently" left out something, you've "convieniently" left out everything...danarhea said:Remember that quote? Its the one you conveniently left out, while telling everyone that I am posting according to "what danarhea thinks". Sorry, but I dont plagarize. I posted a direct link to my source. If you still think the quote is wrong, then please take that up with the Congressional Research Service, you know, that agency that you call irrelevant and admit that you have no clue as to its purpose.
"GWB sucks...Here's an article that says so"
go read this
danarhea said:If you still think the quote is wrong, then please take that up with the Congressional Research Service, you know, that agency that you call irrelevant and admit that you have no clue as to its purpose.
cnredd said:2) I have no idea who or what Congressional Research Service is, and your opinion of them is irrelevant...As usual, the forum members here only go by what YOU present...Attempting to clear things up after the fact is disingenious at best, cowardice at worst...
Second time you mentioned this...As stated, probably on another thread in past history...nothing related to it on this one...danarhea said:[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Now you can tell everyone why you think danarhea made it all up. I doubt they will believe you, but go ahead. Like I already said, the only thing you are debunking is your own credibility.
[/FONT]
The only rebuttal worth using is someone's else, who put things in much more blunt terminology that I have...danarhea said:[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Too bad that the only way you know how to debate is to attack the messenger. Thats OK with me, because it makes beating you in debates child's play.[/FONT]
Binary_Digit said:Yes, the thread title is inaccurate, misleading, and inappropriate IMO. Stick to the facts, there's already enough stupid BS flying around.
Let's take down a notch, guys. Were getting a little to heated!Originally posted by cnredd:
Congratulations...You're now a liar!...
"On and on"?...aps said:danarhea, I would take cnredd's attention to you as a compliment. You have enough of an effect on him for him to go on and on and on and on about how you're a liar.
danarhea said:The non-partisan Congressional Research Service has determined that President Bush has violated the National Security Act, which was passed in 1947. This law makes it a crime to withhold from Congress information on some intelligence operations, such as domestic spying. Bush's limits on what information he gave Congress about domestic spying violated the law.
Article is here.
I think he hangs like a bat!Originally Posted by alphieb:
Damn, did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed, teacher?
Put that in your friggin pipe Conflict. Your full of it.Billo_Really said:I think he hangs like a bat!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?