disneydude
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 25,528
- Reaction score
- 8,470
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
disneydude said:I find it very disheartening that George Bush thinks that he is above the law.
Despite right wing spin that is trying to make it a matter of "national security" it is clear that George Bush broke the law when he authorized domestic spying. If George Bush has nothing to hide then he should release the records regarding the spying. However, he constantly hides behind the dogma of "an ongoing investigation" to cover up.
I guess this is what we get when our leaders become annointed rather than elected. Because George was appointed by the Supreme Court in 2000 he obviously thinks that he is "King" rather than "President" which in turn comes with complete power (at least in his mind).
disneydude said:I find it very disheartening that George Bush thinks that he is above the law.
Despite right wing spin that is trying to make it a matter of "national security" it is clear that George Bush broke the law when he authorized domestic spying. If George Bush has nothing to hide then he should release the records regarding the spying. However, he constantly hides behind the dogma of "an ongoing investigation" to cover up.
I guess this is what we get when our leaders become annointed rather than elected. Because George was appointed by the Supreme Court in 2000 he obviously thinks that he is "King" rather than "President" which in turn comes with complete power (at least in his mind).
Connecticutter said:I take it that if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gore and he got elected, you wouldn't consider it an annointment?
So far, it hasn't been shown that Bush has done anything that goes beyond past administrations. He is clearly not a King - his term ends in January 2009. You'll have to get over it until then.
aps said:disneydude, just ignore Connecticutter. I totally agree with you.
aps said:If the law isn't helping him, he just breaks it. I have posted this muliptle times, but I must do it again because NO ONE has been able to rebut the findings made by legal professionals from prestigious law schools such as Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Chicago, Duke, etc. Once you read this, you will know what Bush has broken the law. I just hope that either Congress or the Supreme Court holds him accountable for such.
"Other presidents did it." Yeah right. Prove it.
http://balkin.blogspot.com/DOJ.Response.AUMF.final.pdf
These experts addressed legal doctrine (for example, when two statutes conflict, which one is given deference), Supreme Court rulings, and the legislative history in making their determination that Bush most likely violated the law.
aps said:I love how those who say that Bush hasn't done anything illegal just make the conclusion without providing any evidence to substantiate their allegation. LOL
Check out these Tom Toles cartoons. They are hilarious!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...oles_main.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...&date=01092006
Connecticutter said:Ignore me? That's not in the spirit of this website.
They haven't proved anything. If they want to bring it to trial, they should. I'm not ignorant of these guys - I've heard of many of them, and I've even been to a panel led by Harold Koh. They are bright people, but this isn't the word of God we're talking about here.
They never concluded that our president is a monarch and needs to be impeached. They didn't even come close. They were just responding to a proposed legal defense of the DOJ. No trial has taken place. If you want one, then fine - but to declare Bush a monarch is nothing but partisan crap. Your description of the document was completely off the mark.
Well, the cartoons certainly don't go down as evidence in my book.
Are you saying you want proof that something didn't happen?aps said:I love how those who say that Bush hasn't done anything illegal just make the conclusion without providing any evidence to substantiate their allegation.
aps said:Yeah, words like this really foster great debate: So far, it hasn't been shown that Bush has done anything that goes beyond past administrations. He is clearly not a King - his term ends in January 2009. You'll have to get over it until then. :roll:
aps said:I'm not saying Bush is a monarch. Care to explain how my description was off the mark?
Sure, you claimed "Once you read this, you will know what Bush has broken the law. " The only think the document did was analyze and reject a particular defense put up by the department of justice. Your descirption does not accurately describe what the document says.
aps said:Did you think I was serious in posting these cartoons? Jesus--they're CARTOONS!
I was only kidding.
Connecticutter said:Sure, you claimed "Once you read this, you will know what Bush has broken the law. " The only think the document did was analyze and reject a particular defense put up by the department of justice. Your descirption does not accurately describe what the document says.
This arguement is valid if, and only if, something, in fact, did not happen. But that's the farthest thing from the truth. Because, O' consevative one, something did.Originally posted by KCConservative:
Are you saying you want proof that something didn't happen?
Billo_Really said:This arguement is valid if, and only if, something, in fact, did not happen. But that's the farthest thing from the truth. Because, O' consevative one, something did.
His lame rap is anything but news.Originally posted by aps:
Billo, KC has nothing to back up his blanket statement (well, his piggybacking on someone else's assertions, which he has been doing a lot of lately), so he claims that something "didn't happen." LOL Now that's the sign of a great debater. NOT.
George Bush is a joke.Bush is at war with Americanism
By DAVID MICHAEL GREEN
First published: Saturday, January 28, 2006
Forget the war on terrorism. President Bush is engaged in a full-blown war on Americanism. Ridiculous? Unthinkable? The idea that an American president could epitomize anti-Americanism is certainly counterintuitive. But it's a lot less shocking if we consider just what defines this country's core values.
And if that list includes such essentials as freedom, responsibility, justice, humanity, respect and fairness -- and doesn't it? -- if that's what it means to be American, then George Bush is indeed at war with Americanism.
Each new revelation forces patriotic Americans to reconsider how much of ourselves -- our liberties, our reputation, our dignity -- have now been sacrificed on the altar of the Bush presidency. Each week brings fresh outrages. Torture, wiretaps, planted news stories, secret prisons, one unmasked war justification after another. This country faces some very real threats, but must we give up everything that makes America, well, America in order to live safely within our borders?
As it turns out, that's a false choice anyhow, since even our security has been diminished by George Bush. The 9/11 commission has flunked him for his preparations against another attack. Meanwhile, he admits a breathtaking disinterest in Osama bin Laden, saying "I am truly not that concerned about him" and "I don't really think about him very much."
Bush he has been similarly unconcerned about North Korean nuclear proliferation on his watch, Hurricane Katrina, and the still unsolved anthrax case. Add these to his Iraq obsession, which has severely diminished our military, and American security has lessened.
For this, we've given up two centuries worth of proud honor and traditions?
For this, George Bush has traded away so much of what makes this country great that his presidency can only be described as a war on Americanism.
Consider:
Once, America stood as a proud beacon for human rights. Now we are known for the horrors of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition and torture.
Once, we stood foursquare for the rule of law. Now we demolish inconvenient agreements we once promoted -- the Geneva, nuclear nonproliferation and ABM treaties, the International Criminal Court -- and thereby encourage others to follow suit.
Once, America's word was good. Today -- after deceits ranging from WMD, to promised but withdrawn U.N. votes, to shameful lies about former football star Pat Tillman's death in Afghanistan -- we are distrusted.
Once, America stood tall against colonialism. Today, with invasion excuses falling like dominoes, most of the world sees us as just another old-fashioned imperialist predator.
Once, we stood for due process of law. Now our President creates his own prisons and courts and denies the accused long sacred rights -- to habeas corpus, an attorney, a speedy trial judged by peers, knowledge of the crime charged, and more.
Once, we were a model for civil liberties. Now, Mr. Bush authorizes himself to conduct illegal wiretaps on Americans while his government monitors everyone from vegans to Quakers, then snoops in libraries to see what we're reading.
Once, we stood for press freedom. Now our tax dollars pay to plant stories and buy off journalists, here and abroad, while our President plots to blow up al Jazeera, all in the name of bringing freedom to the Mideast.
Once, we were a good neighbor. Today, our 5 percent of the world population produces 25 percent of global warming emissions, while the President scuttles the Kyoto Protocol.
For all these reasons and others, world opinion of the United States has sunk precipitously -- as well it should, for this is not the America our Founders had in mind.
And so we must ask, just what will be left of Americanism after George Bush is through with America? And, if the goal is not only preserving our lives, but also our way of life, just who is the true enemy of America and Americanism?
Surely al-Qaida is. Too bad, therefore, that the President doesn't think very much anymore about the folks who brutally attacked us on 9/11.
Surely Saddam Hussein -- who never attacked the United States and never threatened to do so -- was no such enemy, however brutal a dictator he certainly was.
But what of Mr. Bush himself? However counterintuitive, it is hard to reach but one conclusion about a President who has bankrupted America morally, fiscally, and militarily, who has alienated the world and deeply divided his own country, and who has trampled roughshod over our most sacred traditions and liberties, as if he were some sort of self-anointed king.
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStorie...ategory=OPINION&newsdate=1/28/2006&TextPage=1
Billo_Really said:This arguement is valid if, and only if, something, in fact, did not happen. But that's the farthest thing from the truth. Because, O' consevative one, something did.
aps said:Billo, KC has nothing to back up his blanket statement (well, his piggybacking on someone else's assertions, which he has been doing a lot of lately), so he claims that something "didn't happen." LOL Now that's the sign of a great debater. NOT.
And I have proven that in post #14.Originally posted by KCConservative:
Exactly my point. If you make claims that something did happen (which you have just done again here), then the responsibility is on you to prove. Attempting to reverse this (asking someone to prove something didn't happen) is futile, and frankly looks like a dodge.
With Mr. Green's oped piece? I can see where you and he share the same opinion (Bush trampled roughshod, morally bankrupt, etc.), but that's all. Nothing is proven by his piece nor, therefore, by you.Billo_Really said:And I have proven that in post #14.
He'd have to lie about it under oath to a grand jury. Then you might have something.disneydude said:"Someone give GWB a blow-job so we can impeach him."
Are you saying:Originally posted by KCConservative:
With Mr. Green's oped piece? I can see where you and he share the same opinion (Bush trampled roughshod, morally bankrupt, etc.), but that's all. Nothing is proven by his piece nor, therefore, by you.
disneydude said:I find it very disheartening that George Bush thinks that he is above the law.
Despite right wing spin that is trying to make it a matter of "national security" it is clear that George Bush broke the law when he authorized domestic spying. If George Bush has nothing to hide then he should release the records regarding the spying. However, he constantly hides behind the dogma of "an ongoing investigation" to cover up.
I guess this is what we get when our leaders become annointed rather than elected. Because George was appointed by the Supreme Court in 2000 he obviously thinks that he is "King" rather than "President" which in turn comes with complete power (at least in his mind).
disneydude said:I find it very disheartening that George Bush thinks that he is above the law.
Despite right wing spin that is trying to make it a matter of "national security" it is clear that George Bush broke the law when he authorized domestic spying.
easyt65 said:Either you have a really short termed memory, are too young to remember it, or are the poster child for DNC Hypocrisy! Which is it?
When in office, bill Clinton illegally gathered FBI files on EVERY GOP Senator and Representative, along with all of his political opponents, for his own personal use against them - only one of MANY Clinton scandals ending in '-gate'!
During his administration, Bill Clinton declared he had a Presidential right - the same one Bush is envoking/citing, to 'perpetrate' the same type wire tapping activities against Americans, the only difference being Clinton was not fighting terrorists at the time when he ordered it. Not only did he order wire taps, but he took it to a new level by authorizing the entry into and search of personal property - people's homes and businesses - as well as the seisure of property in these little raids, ALL WITHOUT WARRANTS EVER BEING FILED!
No, I do not believe that 2 wrongs make a right, but you astonish me by making your accusations sound as if Bush was the 1st to institute such a practice/program. And you have the nerve/gall to refer to mochk the President by calling him 'King George', saying HE thinks HE is above the law.
Might I remind you:
- Clinton began his campaign for his 1st term in office by lying to America - 'I didn't inhale...' and declaring he did not protest the Viet Nam war from Russia, which was later proven to have been true. He dragged this country through illegal scandal after scandal:
- FBI files
- Ms. Clinton denying she knew that certain files even existed only to be found later in their living quarters with her finger prints all over them.
- He helped alter technology restrictions on China and assisted his Arkansas buddy provide China with the missile technology they needed to finally reach the U.S. with their nukes in exchange for millions in his campaign fund, traced directly back to the chinese military! Can YOU say 'treason'?
- He had an adulterous affair in the White House.
- He lied about it to independent counsel and to the American people on TV
- He tried to strip an American citizen, who he sexually harrassed, of her Constitutional right to a fair trial by committing a FELONY - perjury - under by lying under oath before a Federal Grand Jury to save his own a$$.
- He lied about being warned of Al Qaeda by Able Danger, as proven when Sandy Burgaler, er, Berger - one of his cabinet members, was caught stuffing classified down his pants, stealing them, taking them home (more documents were found lying around at home), and shredding many of them - all having to do with what Clinton did and did not know about Al Qaeda during his time in office. One of the truly pathetic points of interest hers is that it was almost 5 years AFTER he was out of office, and we are STILL having to endure scandals from his administration!
- Again, well after he has left office, we are hearing how he killed the investigation on Cisneros! Won't he ever frickin' GO AWAY?
- And these are only the TOP/Major scandals and political crimes/gaffes Bill Clinton Perpetrated!
So, if ANYONE ever assumed the roe of 'King' in the White house and believed he was above the constuitution and the laws in this country, it had to be the infamous pathological liar, Bill Clinton!
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?