• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bush Violated National Security Act, According to Congressional Research Service

Originally Posted by alphieb:
Put that in your friggin pipe Conflict. Your full of it.

I wonder what's in his pipe?
It's all sess now. It could be some ragweed the grew in a pot on the roof of an out-house, but if you ask them what it is they'll say, "It's sess, man!" Or, "The Kind!" Or, "The Bomb!"
 
cnredd said:
"On and on"?...:confused:

I've said it once...with evidence...:shrug:

cnredd, you have devoted your posts in here to discrediting danarhea's conclusions on what the article states. See posts #2, 12, 18 (which seem to be the longest posts in this thread). That is my interpretation of your posts in this thread. Just like you once criticized the way I debate, I don't like how when you attempt to prove a point, you belittle the person whose point you are refuting. It's appropriate sometimes, but with you, it's all the time. Again, you may disagree with my perception of the content of your posts, but this is my interpretation based upon what I have read.
 
aps said:
cnredd, you have devoted your posts in here to discrediting danarhea's conclusions on what the article states. See posts #2, 12, 18 (which seem to be the longest posts in this thread). That is my interpretation of your posts in this thread. Just like you once criticized the way I debate, I don't like how when you attempt to prove a point, you belittle the person whose point you are refuting. It's appropriate sometimes, but with you, it's all the time. Again, you may disagree with my perception of the content of your posts, but this is my interpretation based upon what I have read.
Its all he knows. He is unable to rebut the content, so he personally attacks the messenger instead. He has still yet to rebut this:

A Jan. 6 report concluded that the administration's justifications for the program conflicted with current law.
Note: Now backed by a link to the Congressional Research Service itself.

He accuses me of selectively using articles which back my side. Surprise, surprise. Isnt that the reason to post links? To back your side of a debate in this forum? duhhhh........ Also, tell me how a link to the Congressional Research Service is somehow tainted, as cnredd implies.

In his accusations, he has not addressed the issue whatsoever, except to parse words and split hairs on what the meaning COULD BE, not what it is, in addition to personally attacking me and calling me names.

I have given links to the Congressional Research Service, and his response is that it is irrelevant, and that he doesnt care what it says. Now think about that. I post an article which says that the Congressional Research Service came out with a report (actually 2 reports) which conclude that Bush broke the law. Not only did I provide a link to the article, but provided a link to the Congressional Research Service itself, which contains both reports. What does cnredd do? Calls me a liar. Well, if he thinks I am a liar, then he needs to take it up with the Congressional Research Service.

What I posted was true, and I have posted all the info I need which proves it to be true. How? The title is "Bush Violated National Security Act, According to Congressional Research Service". I have given links from the Congressional Research Service itself to back my statement. cnredd calls me a liar. Why? Because he doesnt like the content, and would like to shut me up. Thats why the attacks on the messenger instead of the message.

Personally attacking the messenger is all cnredd knows, because he has nothing to rebut the statement except to engage in namecalling.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
He is unable to rebut the content, so he personally attacks the messenger instead.
What? lol He completely destroyed the content...beginning with your untruthful headline.
 
KCConservative said:
What? lol He completely destroyed the content...beginning with your untruthful headline.

You mean this statement from the article?

A Jan. 6 report concluded that the administration's justifications for the program conflicted with current law.

You mean the link to the Congressional Research Service which backs the statement?

Dream on.
 
KCConservative said:
What? lol He completely destroyed the content...beginning with your untruthful headline.

KC, you and cnredd can read the article and interpret it to say that it's possible the president violated NSA. danarhea read the article and based upon the conclusion that the presidents actions are inconsistent with the law, he interprets it as saying that Bush violated NSA. So I wouldn't say that danarhea's headline was intentionally untruthful (to you it is, but to him it's not).
 
aps said:
KC, you and cnredd can read the article and interpret it to say that it's possible the president violated NSA. danarhea read the article and based upon the conclusion that the presidents actions are inconsistent with the law, he interprets it as saying that Bush violated NSA. So I wouldn't say that danarhea's headline was intentionally untruthful (to you it is, but to him it's not).

Of course not. How would you interperpret that statement?

A Jan. 6 report concluded that the administration's justifications for the program conflicted with current law.

There really is no wiggle room on that. And what does "conflict" mean? That it was lawful? Outside of his namecalling, this is what cnredd wants you to believe.
 
alphieb said:
Damn, did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed, teacher?

I had to do a thing because of a reason. Politics. Besides, Billo really enjoys rants like that. Dunno why, he just likes carnage I guess. The d-man didn't bite at all. Solid. He can't be all bad. He's the guy with the best 11 songs. Except for that Devo one.

I do hate links though. But in this case a acceptable one would be to the exact law covering this.

According to the article, Bushes fault lies in that he only informed congressional leaders, but not the intelligence leaders. Which is allowed in matters covert. So they are spying, which is generally covert, and did not tell the heads of the intelligence committees as allowed by the 1947 law.

Seems like the question that must be asked is were these activities covert?

Not that it matters to anyone I'm sure. But if he did do wrong, why? To hurt a political opponent? Greed? Malice? If he erred it was while doing what he thought was in the interests of national security. So if proved to be illeagle, let the senate vote on impeachment. I accepted Clintons outcome, can you do the same? Taking into consideration the recent leaks about the wiretapping and radiological detection program, maybe there should not be so many people in the know. If they can't keep their mouths shut about confidential material, should they be told? And how come the big issue is not who leaked? That's more on the treason end than not telling a few blabbermouths. What I'd like to know is there any newer laws that have a bearing on this very old law? The 1979 law maybe? Are there things about this they can't divulge because it would divulge classified operating procedures? And again, what power does this CRS have, if any?

Aps says it well:


aps said:
KC, you and cnredd can read the article and interpret it to say that it's possible the president violated NSA. danarhea read the article and based upon the conclusion that the presidents actions are inconsistent with the law, he interprets it as saying that Bush violated NSA. So I wouldn't say that danarhea's headline was intentionally untruthful (to you it is, but to him it's not).

At this point, it's interpretation based on what is covert or not.

Much ado about nothing. IMO, I think danarea is getting too happy too early about something nowhere near resolved and cnredd called him on it. Don't know much about danarea. Is he a habitual Bush hater or is he a pragmatic question asker? Judging by cnredd's post he's a Bush hater. Being as cnredd is the second in command of the monkey army :monkeyarm you can guess who I'm backing.



Speaking of the Devo song "Whip it". When it came out it got put in the jukebox of the arcade I worked at as a teen. Everybody allways played that song. Over and over. So when there was no one there I played it and repeatedly picked up and dropped the jukebox until the 45 got all scratched and unplayable. It played about ten seconds then did that scratching noise as the stylus ran off the record. I was just as funny the hunderth time as the first. The moral of the story? Humor can be found in almost any situation.

cnredd called danerea a liar, which by definition he can correctly state. danarea could have just said, my mistake, it was a unintended oversite and diffused cnredd but he chose to make a big deal about it. He now uses cnredds statement about him being a liar (which at this point, can still be said) to take the debate away from facts and to the land of war. He can still say it was a simple mistake and take away cnredds point and both come out equal. I'm sure cnredd would say no biggie and danarea can say cnredd jumped all over him for something not typed.

Score:
cnredd: 0. But he has the ball.
danarea: 0. Honerable mention for not taking the bait.
teacher: Retains tittle of favorite asshole. Amused Billo. Still looks good in a cape. Took care of a thing. Slipped in a perfect segway to an anecdote. Amused self: 18 under par and drinks for free at the 19th.

Lesson learned? Don't even leave a crack open, cnredd will be there. And if Billo agrees with cnredd, log off, reregister under a new name. And if you're going to hell, bring something warm.

Have I missed anything?

Oh yea, my pipe? Longbottom/two rivers hybrid.
 
Originally posted by teacher:
Lesson learned? Don't even leave a crack open, cnredd will be there. And if Billo agrees with cnredd, log off, reregister under a new name. And if you're going to hell, bring something warm.
I still say you hang like a bat, when at rest!
 
danarhea.

What the fuc*k dude? I know I carrot and sticked your ass. Or in this case, sticked then carroted. I also know that responding to the likes of me kind of diminishes your reputation as a serious debater. Cavorting with the wrong crowd and all, or, "it's just teacher for crying out loud, and we all know about him." If that is the case, be a man and say it. But...this particular topic, what? Did I just whup you bro? You gonna take that? Or is it, "I refuse to dignify that statement with a response?" Seems to me if you take the trouble and show the balls to post such a weak ass link you should stand to and stick to your guns. Or am I now on your ignore list? You started this thread. Post all you want in other people's threads, but don't start one and then flee. If you're gonna do that then this thread should have never been. Weak. For now, I'm just gonna go with the knowledge that I just handed you your ass.


(In the voice of the soldiers in Monty Python's Holy Grail movie:)

"Run away."

Just because it's me...

I do that a lot.

Why does it not catch on?

By example now...

(In the voice of Howard Cosell.) "Here we sit. On the precipice of what we all thought would be a great battle. The meeting of teacher and danarhea. What I have coined,
The mistake,
at political debate."

(In the voice of the Reverend Lovejoy from the Simpson's.) "Let us now bow our heads in a moment of silence for the dear departed, danarhea."

(In the voice of grounds keeper Willie of the Simpson's.) "Ack boy, I'd not post such weak shi*t on this site with the likes of teacher waiting like a starving vulture for fodder."

In the voice of: I do that a lot.

(In the voice of Sean Connery in any Bond movie.) "I'm teacher, just teacher."
 
teacher said:
danarhea.

What the ****, dude? I know I carrot and sticked your ass. Or in this case, sticked then carroted. I also know that responding to the likes of me kind of diminishes your reputation as a serious debater. Cavorting with the wrong crowd and all, or, "it's just teacher for crying out loud, and we all know about him." If that is the case, be a man and say it. But...this particular topic, what? Did I just whup you bro? You gonna take that? Or is it, "I refuse to dignify that statement with a response?" Seems to me if you take the trouble and show the balls to post such a weak ass link you should stand to and stick to your guns. Or am I now on your ignore list? You started this thread. Post all you want in other people's threads, but don't start one and then flee. If you're gonna do that then this thread should have never been. Weak. For now, I'm just gonna go with the knowledge that I just handed you your ass.

I see you figured out dana. It's like looking through flypaper. Transparant.
 
teacher said:
danarhea.

What the fuc*k dude? I know I carrot and sticked your ass. Or in this case, sticked then carroted. I also know that responding to the likes of me kind of diminishes your reputation as a serious debater. Cavorting with the wrong crowd and all, or, "it's just teacher for crying out loud, and we all know about him." If that is the case, be a man and say it. But...this particular topic, what? Did I just whup you bro? You gonna take that? Or is it, "I refuse to dignify that statement with a response?" Seems to me if you take the trouble and show the balls to post such a weak ass link you should stand to and stick to your guns. Or am I now on your ignore list? You started this thread. Post all you want in other people's threads, but don't start one and then flee. If you're gonna do that then this thread should have never been. Weak. For now, I'm just gonna go with the knowledge that I just handed you your ass.


(In the voice of the soldiers in Monty Python's Holy Grail movie:)

"Run away."

Just because it's me...

I do that a lot.

Why does it not catch on?

By example now...

(In the voice of Howard Cosell.) "Here we sit. On the precipice of what we all thought would be a great battle. The meeting of teacher and danarhea. What I have coined,
The mistake,
at political debate."

(In the voice of the Reverend Lovejoy from the Simpson's.) "Let us now bow our heads in a moment of silence for the dear departed, danarhea."

(In the voice of grounds keeper Willie of the Simpson's.) "Ack boy, I'd not post such weak shi*t on this site with the likes of teacher waiting like a starving vulture for fodder."

In the voice of: I do that a lot.

(In the voice of Sean Connery in any Bond movie.) "I'm teacher, just teacher."

Wow. You're sooooo tough. *sarcasm* :roll:

These are the statements of a terribly insecure person.
 
aps said:
Wow. You're sooooo tough. *sarcasm* :roll:

These are the statements of a terribly insecure person.

Dont be hard on teacher. He is just trying to get a rise out of me.......

O chit. I just took the bait.

You win, teacher.:lol:
 
danarhea said:
Dont be hard on teacher. He is just trying to get a rise out of me.......

O chit. I just took the bait.

You win, teacher.:lol:

GREAT attitude danarhea. I am proud of you! :bravo:
 
Back
Top Bottom