Re: Do you support Bush?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The war on terror- YES
Foreign Policy- YES
Protecting the environment by NOT signing Kyoto treaty-Yes
Global warming ( wich doesn't exist )- not applicable
Energy Policy-Yes
Privatization of Social Security- Yes
Health Care-Yes, it isn't the gov't's responsibility to provide it.
Immigration-The fence should have been built a long time ago.
Tax cuts for the rich(e.g. "supply side economics") Yes
Because he has faith in God-Sure
Health Care-Absolutely.
Giving billions to Africa to fight AIDS- HELL NO
Teaching ID in science class as an opposing theory to evolution, why not?
Abortion- Don't really care.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can't tell you are a red-blooded Republican can we.

The scientific academies in almost every country of the world say global warming is a fact. Bush and Rush Limbaugh disagree. Wonder who is right?? Global warming is not in dispute - what is disputable is what the effect will be. But that is another topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pardon me, I was trying to keep it short. The debate is whether it is man made or sun made. Right now, the evidence points to being caused by the sun and not by my gas guzzling ozone poluting SUV.

What is the evidence that you have to claim that President Bush and Rush Limbaugh say that it doesn't exist? Is it because the President refuses to hamstring the american economy by signing the Kyoto treaty?

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Pardon me, I was trying to keep it short. The debate is whether it is man made or sun made. Right now, the evidence points to being caused by the sun and not by my gas guzzling ozone poluting SUV.


[/ QUOTE ]

Name one respected scientific organization from any country that claims that global warming is do to the sun vs. burning of fossil fuels. Note: I am not talking about single scientists here.

Many of Bush's earlier speeches completely discredited global warming. Now, because the evidence is irrefutable he uses your definition of a naturally occurring condition.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

"I'm not talking about the Reps doing the same thing to Clinton or claiming one action is more justified than another. You're making the assumption that what I would condone for Bush I would condemn for Clinton. I'm not partisan enough for that to be the case."

I wasn't talking about your personal viewpoint. I was addressing your surmisal about why Bush might have chosen to handle things the way he did.

"HA! Yeah, because the wake of 9/11 has really stopped them in the past...."

In the wake of 9/11, the president had a 90% approval rating. The initiative authorizing the use of force breezed through Congress. The Patriot Act went through easily as well. Had Bush called in the Democratic leaders and said here's what I'm going to do, he wouldn't have had any trouble at all. It's only in the wake of the invasion of Iraq that his troubles in the polls have mounted. His 90% approval rating tumbled and he would have lost the election if John Kerry could have walked and chewed gum simultaneously.

"I realize, and as far as my personal interpretation goes, Bush didn't violate the spirit of the law."

Which law are we talking about here, FISA?

Yellow Peril
 

[ QUOTE ]
China can't be intimidated. That's why the US is so frightened of China. It cannot be intimidated. In fact, they're already establishing relations with Iran and in fact even with Saudi Arabia.

[/ QUOTE ]
The most significant oil refinery investment (or "downstream expansion" as the lingo would have it) of the last two decades has been the joint venture between Saudi Aramco and the Chinese.

link

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

but the most important is the Iraq war. we need a strong leader right now.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why is the Iraq war more important than every other domestic or foreign issue to our country? And, how much difference does a "strong leader" make in that war?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldnt a strong leader have sent our troops to Iraq with the proper gear.

Our boys, who make 15k per year had to ask their parents to spend thousands of dollars on body armor. Great leadership.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pardon me, I was trying to keep it short. The debate is whether it is man made or sun made. Right now, the evidence points to being caused by the sun and not by my gas guzzling ozone poluting SUV.


[/ QUOTE ]

Name one respected scientific organization from any country that claims that global warming is do to the sun vs. burning of fossil fuels. Note: I am not talking about single scientists here.

Many of Bush's earlier speeches completely discredited global warming. Now, because the evidence is irrefutable he uses your definition of a naturally occurring condition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where and when did the President say that it didn't exist?

Why not give credibility to single scientists? Is it because they aren't part of a wacko left-wing agenda?

Here is a small list of "Individual Scientists" that I came up with in less than 5 minutes using Google.
NASA Scientists David Lind and Judith Lean.
Dr. Sallie Baliunas Astrophysicist at Harvard-Smithsonian Institute for Astrophysics,(National expert on global climate change).
Dr. Madhav Khandekar- PHD in Meteorology and top climate scientist with Environmental Canada for 25 years.
Richard Willson- Columbia University Researcher.

There were more, but I HAVE to go to work so I can SUPPORT a welfare recipient somewhere. Try it and look for yourself, it really isn't that hard.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The administration agrees with your reason for opposing Hussein. WMDs and 9/1 were excuses, not reasons for the invasion. They thought they were making the world safe for us to prosper in it. They see the Middle East as the key to remaking the world in their image.

[/ QUOTE ]


Do you or anyone really think that the Middle East, and the world of this nascent century, can work in (or even with) the Middle East's current paradigm? Well yeah, I guess the jihadists do, but they're insane.

If there's a portion of the world that needs to be remade, it's the Middle East. The past and present paradigms of the Middle East are a perfect prescription for oppression, corruption, war and disaster--and not just for the Middle East, but for much of the world as well (e.g., nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, for just one HUGE future disaster)

Remake faster, please.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

[ QUOTE ]
In the wake of 9/11, the president had a 90% approval rating. The initiative authorizing the use of force breezed through Congress. The Patriot Act went through easily as well. Had Bush called in the Democratic leaders and said here's what I'm going to do, he wouldn't have had any trouble at all. It's only in the wake of the invasion of Iraq that his troubles in the polls have mounted. His 90% approval rating tumbled and he would have lost the election if John Kerry could have walked and chewed gum simultaneously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? What you said was that the Dems wouldn't play politics with these wiretaps "in the wake of 9/11". I took that to mean that you consider us to still be in the wake of 9/11. Regardless of why he has lost bi-partisan support, the fact remains, and you admit it here (right?), the Dems are not unwilling to play politics with something like this. I don't really see what you're trying to say, the "wake of 9/11" was your comment, not mine - my original point was that by going around the courts it's more likely that the Bush administration was trying to dodge the political heat than that they actually feared the court would reject their request.

What exactly do you think Bush was trying to hide? Do you think he was eavesdropping on teenage girls and wacking off? I'm serious though, what are you actually getting at?

I don't mean to sound confrontational, I'm just confused what your point is.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Huh? What you said was that the Dems wouldn't play politics with these wiretaps "in the wake of 9/11". I took that to mean that you consider us to still be in the wake of 9/11. Regardless of why he has lost bi-partisan support, the fact remains, and you admit it here (right?), the Dems are not unwilling to play politics with something like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF is "playing politics", anyway? I really have little to no conception of what this means, despite how much I hear it.

...okay, that's not entirely true; I think I know what people mean when they say it, but someone humor me anyway and explain what 'playing politics' is. Feel free to PM me if this is an inappropriate thread hijack (not that this thread was very narrow to begin with, though).

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

When I say "play politics" I generally mean "take a stance because of the benefit it will do to your political party or agenda, regardless of the consequences (or lack thereof) that the stance has for the country as a whole." It is often characterized by alterior motivations. Other people might have different interpretations of it, but that's mine.

I'm not saying this is an exclusively Democrat thing to do, I'm just answering the fine gentleman's question.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

[ QUOTE ]
When I say "play politics" I generally mean "take a stance because of the benefit it will do to your political party or agenda, regardless of the consequences (or lack thereof) that the stance has for the country as a whole." It is often characterized by alterior motivations. Other people might have different interpretations of it, but that's mine.

I'm not saying this is an exclusively Democrat thing to do, I'm just answering the fine gentleman's question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's a fine definition.

Let's just to be clear, though: why then, do Democrats 'play politics' with the War on Terror?

Perhaps you have a different response; but the seemingly obvious answer is, of course, their base demands they oppose President Bush's policies -- that's part and parcel of legitimate politics, right? We elect leaders to enact our will? Isn't that what we hope our elected leaders do? I'm generally assuming we could cite polling data which shows an uber-majority of Democrats strongly oppose most, if not all of President Bush's policies.

So, I assume when we're eventually done with this conversation, we'll discover that the charge of 'playing politics' is esentially legitimate politics, as I have yet to hear a charge of 'playing politics' that had much substance to it -- at least, in the way that those who levy such a charge want it to; as the charge of 'playing politics' is an attempt to some attach nefarious motives to what is an essentially legitimate action.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pardon me, I was trying to keep it short. The debate is whether it is man made or sun made. Right now, the evidence points to being caused by the sun and not by my gas guzzling ozone poluting SUV.


[/ QUOTE ]

Name one respected scientific organization from any country that claims that global warming is do to the sun vs. burning of fossil fuels. Note: I am not talking about single scientists here.

Many of Bush's earlier speeches completely discredited global warming. Now, because the evidence is irrefutable he uses your definition of a naturally occurring condition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where and when did the President say that it didn't exist?

Why not give credibility to single scientists? Is it because they aren't part of a wacko left-wing agenda?

Here is a small list of "Individual Scientists" that I came up with in less than 5 minutes using Google.
NASA Scientists David Lind and Judith Lean.
Dr. Sallie Baliunas Astrophysicist at Harvard-Smithsonian Institute for Astrophysics,(National expert on global climate change).
Dr. Madhav Khandekar- PHD in Meteorology and top climate scientist with Environmental Canada for 25 years.
Richard Willson- Columbia University Researcher.

There were more, but I HAVE to go to work so I can SUPPORT a welfare recipient somewhere. Try it and look for yourself, it really isn't that hard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I noticed you could not come up with one single scientific organization from ANY country in the world. Use google all you want. I suppose every scientific organization in the world is part of a left-wing pinko conspiracy. Individual scientists can be just as crazy as you. The peer reviewed organizations are the ones the world respects.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When I say "play politics" I generally mean "take a stance because of the benefit it will do to your political party or agenda, regardless of the consequences (or lack thereof) that the stance has for the country as a whole." It is often characterized by alterior motivations. Other people might have different interpretations of it, but that's mine.

I'm not saying this is an exclusively Democrat thing to do, I'm just answering the fine gentleman's question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's a fine definition.

Let's just to be clear, though: why then, do Democrats 'play politics' with the War on Terror?

Perhaps you have a different response; but the seemingly obvious answer is, of course, their base demands they oppose President Bush's policies -- that's part and parcel of legitimate politics, right? We elect leaders to enact our will? Isn't that what we hope our elected leaders do? I'm generally assuming we could cite polling data which shows an uber-majority of Democrats strongly oppose most, if not all of President Bush's policies.

So, I assume when we're eventually done with this conversation, we'll discover that the charge of 'playing politics' is esentially legitimate politics, as I have yet to hear a charge of 'playing politics' that had much substance to it -- at least, in the way that those who levy such a charge want it to; as the charge of 'playing politics' is an attempt to some attach nefarious motives to what is an essentially legitimate action.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said, but I disagree. Let me make sure I understand your point by putting it in simple words: Playing politics results in doing the will of what the people you represent would want done anyways, so even if it's just a game to the politicians, they end up doing what's expected of them regardless.

Is that basically what you're saying?

I would disagree with you on the basis that an elected official's job is (well, should be) to do more than reflect the raw will of the people he represents. There's a reason we don't simply have a national vote on every issue -- we didn't have a national vote to decide to go to war -- we elect officials because it is impractical for every citizen to be fully informed on every issue. Dems would oppose Reps (and vice versa) on just about everything, even without putting much thought into the issue at hand; for our elected officials to do the same thing is to surrender to partisanship. Ideally our elected officials would critically analyze each issue, but the reality is they have to stay fairly loyal to their base even when their base is in the wrong. It's too bad, because more good could be done if there wasn't partisan dead weight pulling on every issue.


This may be getting off topic now, so PM me if you see fit.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pardon me, I was trying to keep it short. The debate is whether it is man made or sun made. Right now, the evidence points to being caused by the sun and not by my gas guzzling ozone poluting SUV.


[/ QUOTE ]

Name one respected scientific organization from any country that claims that global warming is do to the sun vs. burning of fossil fuels. Note: I am not talking about single scientists here.

Many of Bush's earlier speeches completely discredited global warming. Now, because the evidence is irrefutable he uses your definition of a naturally occurring condition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where and when did the President say that it didn't exist?

Why not give credibility to single scientists? Is it because they aren't part of a wacko left-wing agenda?

Here is a small list of "Individual Scientists" that I came up with in less than 5 minutes using Google.
NASA Scientists David Lind and Judith Lean.
Dr. Sallie Baliunas Astrophysicist at Harvard-Smithsonian Institute for Astrophysics,(National expert on global climate change).
Dr. Madhav Khandekar- PHD in Meteorology and top climate scientist with Environmental Canada for 25 years.
Richard Willson- Columbia University Researcher.

There were more, but I HAVE to go to work so I can SUPPORT a welfare recipient somewhere. Try it and look for yourself, it really isn't that hard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I noticed you could not come up with one single scientific organization from ANY country in the world. Use google all you want. I suppose every scientific organization in the world is part of a left-wing pinko conspiracy. Individual scientists can be just as crazy as you. The peer reviewed organizations are the ones the world respects.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here we go again, the classic liberal attack. Anything that doesn't go along with their belief has no credibility. FYI one of the "respected organizations" you are asking for such as "The United Nations eleventh Conference of Parties Climate Meeting" (since you lib's love the UN so much) wouldn't even let Dr. Khandekar into the meeting because they didn't like his belief that the sun has more to do with it than man does.

The scientists at the Armagh Observatory make these claims as well.

BINGO! Does anyone see a correlation here between the UN and bocablkr's stance on the issue?

Furthermore, how ironic is it that we are having this conversation and only two of the 15 countries that signed on to it are on pace to make the required cuts in greenhouse gases? LOL! Does it sound a little hypocritical to anyone?

I am PROUD that we haven't signed on to it and will NOT support a presidential candidate that does endorse it. All it will do is hamstring the American economy.

bocablkr, why can't you debate the issue with me in a civil manner instead of becoming so emotional and calling me crazy? Is it because that is all you lib's have when confronted on the issues?

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

I don't know if we can remake the Middle East. If we can, it's not going to be done well by the group currently running things in Washington, because they are an arrogant, ignorant bunch. They are certainly capable of causing a lot more trouble than, for example, the relatively impotent madman currently running Iran.

That said, I think honest people can disagree with my second sentence above. That you and I, basically 180 degrees opposite on the war in Iraq, agree with the sentence you highlighted from my original post should awaken some eyes to the probability of the three sentences you didn't highlight also being true.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

No need to apologize, let me try being clearer.

I originally said, "As for the phone tapping, the administration could have accomplished whatever it wanted going through the FISA court, which has approved tens of thousands of wiretaps while rejecting only a handful. The fact that they didn't lends one to believe they have something to hide."

You replied, "Most likely it was that they knew the Dems would play politics with it if they found out the administration was requesting permission to spy. So they hoped they could get away with it."

The policy of wiretapping without getting FISA approval started, apparently, directly after 9/11. Directly after 9/11, the president got whatever he wanted. Had he gone to the congressional leadership and said, listen guys, I'm afraid we're gonna get hit again if we have to keep going to the FISA court, I'm gonna bug some guys who we know are terrorists without getting FISA approval, I'll keep you posted on what's happening, my sense is they would have gone along. The administration claims they kept the congress informed, but it's hard to tell exactly what they told them and how honest they were. Even Frist said he was told what was appropriate for him to be told. I interpret that somewhat enigmatic comment to mean that Frist knows they didn't tell him some things.

I have no idea what Bush was trying to hide. What I do know, from his comments about the wiretapping, from the attorney general's comments about inherent presidential power, and from the vice president's comments about restoring the presidency to its rightful position of power, it that they feel they can interpret the spirit of the law without honoring the letter of it.

I don't see how going around the court would be dodging political heat. There would have been no heat had they gone to the court. It's SOP, done by presidents of both parties for a long time. The only heat that would be generated would be if they didn't go to the court.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

[ QUOTE ]
bocablkr, why can't you debate the issue with me in a civil manner instead of becoming so emotional and calling me crazy? Is it because that is all you lib's have when confronted on the issues?


[/ QUOTE ]

Happy to debate you any time on the issue. You have not named a peer reviewed organization from any country in the world. Do you know how many countries are in the world? Are they all part of some UN conspiracy?? By-the-way I am not even close to being a liberal except on social issues.
Conservative on some issues and middle of the road on others.

You are just parroting the party line when it comes to environmental regulations and it effects on industry. It has been shown that environmental regulations actually create jobs instead of losing them. The other health and environmental benefits are just a plus. They said the clean air and water act would destroy some industries - didn't happen. The recovery of the Great Lakes region has added hundreds of thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars into the economies of the Great Lake states.

Down in Tampa the local power company spent almost a billion dollars converting their plant to more efficient natural gas instaed of fighting the environmentalists. A billion dollars. Did it hurt them??? Nope. They recovered it in 3 years because they were so much more effiecient. The CEO, a republican could not believe it. They are more profitable now than ever before. The area residents no longer complain of breathing and sinus problems. And they ended up added almost a billion into the economy. Rush and his ditto heads don't know what they are talking about.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

3 words for you: Broken Window Fallacy.

Also, giant power companies LOVE lobbying for more strict environmental controls that require them to spend billions. Do you see why?

I'll give you a hint: what happens to their smaller competitors who can't afford the government-mandated conversions in order to comply with the new regulations?

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

Good thoughtful post Andy.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
bocablkr, why can't you debate the issue with me in a civil manner instead of becoming so emotional and calling me crazy? Is it because that is all you lib's have when confronted on the issues?


[/ QUOTE ]

Happy to debate you any time on the issue. You have not named a peer reviewed organization from any country in the world. Do you know how many countries are in the world? Are they all part of some UN conspiracy?? By-the-way I am not even close to being a liberal except on social issues.
Conservative on some issues and middle of the road on others.



You are just parroting the party line when it comes to environmental regulations and it effects on industry. It has been shown that environmental regulations actually create jobs instead of losing them. The other health and environmental benefits are just a plus. They said the clean air and water act would destroy some industries - didn't happen. The recovery of the Great Lakes region has added hundreds of thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars into the economies of the Great Lake states.

Down in Tampa the local power company spent almost a billion dollars converting their plant to more efficient natural gas instaed of fighting the environmentalists. A billion dollars. Did it hurt them??? Nope. They recovered it in 3 years because they were so much more effiecient. The CEO, a republican could not believe it. They are more profitable now than ever before. The area residents no longer complain of breathing and sinus problems. And they ended up added almost a billion into the economy. Rush and his ditto heads don't know what they are talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is good stuff. Attack, attack and attack some more rather than listening to another opinion. You are right, the rest of us shouldn't even post because you are the only intelligent one in the room, the one of "supreme knowledge", LMAO.

What "peer reviewed" organization have you provided that does? Again, I will repeat, what difference does it make if you have as many scientists say the sun causes it as you do members of some organization that says man causes it? You still haven't provided for me where it was that the President said it didn't exist.

If what you say is true down in Tampa, then that's splendid.

You can believe that man is responsible for all the global warming you want to. I guess mankind is responsible for the hurricanes too? I will continue to say that the sun is responsible for the majority of it. I will also say that the Kyoto Treaty is a joke and will hurt America.

It is quite evident that neither of us is changing the other's opinion.


"You cannot make a poor man rich by making a rich man poor".

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

Oh, I didn't realize the unwarranted wire-tapping started back then. If that's the case, then I agree with you, he should have felt he had nothing to hide and would not have been trying to dodge political heat (at least, logically we can assume so).

I will say though, that considering how much of a no-brainer it would have been for the courts, the failure to use them was more likely due to incompetence/lack of knowledge in procedure/lack of regard/etc. (all of which, wrong), than it was a trampling of our rights.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

Steve,

Do you know how to google. Just put in 'bush denies global warming' and see what you get. Below are some examples. I also have already told you that every single National Academy of science in every country that has one claims global warming is do to fossil fuel consumption. The National academies are among the most respected scientific oraganizations around the world.

Yes, globe is warming, even if Bush denies it

The Bush administration's mantra on climate change is this: The science is not yet in to prove a link between man's gas-and-coal guzzling habits and rising global temperatures that are causing glaciers to shrink, polar ice caps to melt and seas to rise.
Yet, as USA TODAY's Dan Vergano reported Monday, not only is the science in, it is also overwhelming. Last week, the National Academy of Sciences and 10 other leading world bodies said there is "significant global warming" that requires urgent action.
Another report last week further undercut claims of bad science: The New York Times disclosed that former oil industry lobbyist Philip Cooney, chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, altered global warming reports to downplay links between emissions and climate change.

Bush Again Denies Climate Change By Antony Barnett

05 April, 2004 by the
Observer/UK

George W. Bush's campaign workers have hit on an age-old political tactic to deal with the tricky subject of global warming - deny, and deny aggressively.

Bush: Global warming is just hot air
The planet's getting hotter, ecosystems are going haywire, government scientists know it -- and still the president denies there's a problem. Guess which industry continues to fuel his campaign?

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

I'm certainly not suggesting that there should be no wiretapping of terrorists. I'm simply suggesting that it should be done under the laws that are already in place, which even allow the retroactive issuing of wiretaps on communications with foreign parties.
Bush wants an unfettered right to wiretap anybody he classifies as a "terrorist" with no review or controls. He has asserted the authority to imprison any U.S. citizen classified as an "enemy combatatant" without trial, and has done so (Padilla). It is becoming increasingly apparent that the "war on terror" is a convenient excuse for a massive increase in presidential power and usurpation of civil liberties. Bush has asserted that the fact that we are "at war" (which, legally, we are not) trumps every conceivable check on his authority. Some time in 2008, he will likely assert that it's just too dangerous to elect a new president while we are "at war" and unilaterally cancel the election, so he can remain in control until the "war on terror" has been won. The biggest threat to this country is not lurking in a Middle East desrt somewhere, he is sitting on th Oval Office.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is becoming increasingly apparent that the "war on terror" is a convenient excuse for a massive increase in presidential power and usurpation of civil liberties.

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly does Bush have to gain from a "usurpation of civil liberties"? "Hey let's start a war so that I can run some wire taps and take away people's civil liberties!"

[ QUOTE ]
Bush has asserted that the fact that we are "at war" (which, legally, we are not) trumps every conceivable check on his authority.

[/ QUOTE ]

What he has said about the wire taps is that their secrecy was essential for their effectiveness, hence not wanting to go through a court process. Whether or not you buy it, it's certainly conceiveable that his actions are intended for our protection; saying he's asserted that he can go unchecked whenever he wants is a big jump.

[ QUOTE ]
The biggest threat to this country is not lurking in a Middle East desrt somewhere, he is sitting on th Oval Office.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I guess democracy sucks.... why are you living here?? That was some A+ rhetoric though, well done.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

[ QUOTE ]
What he has said about the wire taps is that their secrecy was essential for their effectiveness, hence not wanting to go through a court process. Whether or not you buy it, it's certainly conceiveable that his actions are intended for our protection; saying he's asserted that he can go unchecked whenever he wants is a big jump.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yeah, that FISA court leaks like a sieve. (rolls eyes) Do you even believe this stuff or are you just typing off of some talking points?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The biggest threat to this country is not lurking in a Middle East desrt somewhere, he is sitting on th Oval Office.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I guess democracy sucks.... why are you living here?? That was some A+ rhetoric though, well done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, clearly you have decided that democracy sucks since you support unchecked executive power. But "why are you living here??" Is that really the best you can do? Sorry, you get an F.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

"it's certainly conceiveable that his actions are intended for our protection; saying he's asserted that he can go unchecked whenever he wants is a big jump."

I agree with the first part. He may have acted in what he thought were national security interests. Let's assume that he did.

I don't see the big jump that you see in the second part of your statement though. The arguments that he, the attorney general, and the vice president have made assert that he has inherent powers under the constitution to act in the national interest. And that those powers permit him to wiretap, without a warrant, when he sees fit. They are saying precisely that he can go unchecked whenever he wants.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

"The arguments that he, the attorney general, and the vice president have made assert that he has inherent powers under the constitution to act in the national interest. And that those powers permit him to wiretap, without a warrant, when he see fit. They are saying precisely that he can go unchecked whenever he wants."

Well I would agree that he has asserted that he has the power to go unchecked, whenever he wants, as long his actions are necessary to national security.... and if that is the case, I don't have a problem with it.


Elliot, I'm just telling you the administration's stance on it (as far as I know). Do I really believe it? Sure. But I haven't informed myself on this subject as much as an uber-partisan Democrat looking for any reason to complain. Perhaps you're better informed. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

"Well I would agree that he has asserted that he has the power to go unchecked, whenever he wants, as long his actions are necessary to national security.... and if that is the case, I don't have a problem with it."

Fair enough. But I sure have a problem with it. Unhchecked power is dangerous. All tyrants claim they are protecting "national security" when doing their dirty deeds. I'm not saying Bush is a tyrant, I'm saying unchecked power is a road to tyrannical actions, paved with good intentions or not.

The FISA court has been quite generous in its interpretation of national security, approving thousands of wire taps while turning down only a handful. Bush could have wiretapped anyone he wanted to and had 72 hours to get approval thereafter. All such requests have not suffered from the court not being able to give approval because of time constraints, as a member of the court is always in Washington for just such reason. There is absolutely no national security reason--security, time, strong possibility of wiretaps being refused by the court--for Bush going around FISA.

That leads to the possibility that there are other reasons for it. Without imputing illicit motives to the administration, one can simply listen to what they are saying. And what they are saying is that the president's powers have been eroded and they want them "restored." So there we are on the road to tyrannical actions/ an imperial presidency.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

Damn it. If you keep writing things that coherently you force me to agree. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]