|
|
|
|
#1
12-27-2005, 10:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Do you support Bush?
I find that WHEN I TYPE IN ALL CAPS I FEEL AS IF I JUST LANDED ON AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER WITH A BIG "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" BANNER. Don't you agree?
|
|
#4
12-28-2005, 01:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do you support Bush?
[ QUOTE ]
I suppose this is an overlap of many topics, but i hope this thread will help me understand more opinions. OVERALL i support Bush. I've always thought the WMD reason was a mistake for the USA to hang its motives on. I wanted us to remove Saddamn because HE WAS AN UNACCEPTABLE THREAT TO NECCESSARY MIDDLE EAST STABILITY. And concerning the phone tapping stuff, I think many don't have their priorities in order. Yes, it would be best if such sticky actions were free of constitutional issues, but it's most inportant that WE ARE FINDING TERRORISTS THAT ARE PLANNING TO KILL US EN MASSE. The white house has stressed that phomes are only tapped against those that are credible suspects. I WANT THIS TO CONTINUE. DON'T YOU? And honestly, i couldn't care less if the goverment is listening to my bad beat phone stories. I have nothing to hide. Your thoughts? [/ QUOTE ] My thoughts? I see no problem with the white house obeying the FISA law. Unfortunately, the current white house thinks that it is above the law. Go figure....
|
|
#5
12-28-2005, 01:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do you support Bush?
Approximately 50% of the electorate voted for Bush in 2000 and again in 2004.
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. 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. They can protect us from terrorists using the FISA system. The idea that the president has inherent powers to wiretap or because of the congressional resolution to use force in the wake of 9/11 is a naked, undemocratic power grab. This was stated very clearly by Vice Presidnet Cheney on his way back from Iraq when he said we need to increase the powers of the president. If we let paranoia about our enemies effect us so that we allow our leaders inordinate power over our lives, we will face a bigger problem at least as big as the terrorists.
|
|
#6
12-28-2005, 02:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do you support Bush?
[ QUOTE ]
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. [/ QUOTE ] 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. I'm not a fan of violating the constitution, but I'm more concerned about obeying the spirit of it rather than the proper technical procedure. Due process does exist for a reason, but I'm happy to let this one slide because frankly there are more important things to be debating right now. Also I'm surprised this poll is as high in support of Bush as it is (25% when I checked). His approval rating is hovering around the low-30s and I would think the selection bias of an internet forum (generally younger, more urban people.... especially a poker forum) would have a bigger impact.
|
|
#7
12-28-2005, 02:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do you support Bush?
[ QUOTE ]
Due process does exist for a reason, but I'm happy to let this one slide because frankly there are more important things to be debating right now. [/ QUOTE ] That's just scary that you could feel this way about the constitution of the US. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
|
|
#8
12-28-2005, 02:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do you support Bush?
"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."
I don't buy this. The FISA court had been used thousands of times. For example, in 1996, under a Democratic president, the FISA court approved over 800 surveillance and physical search orders. If the Republicans didn't make hay with that against Clinton, why would they have worried about the Dems doing that against Bush? Especially in the wake of 9/11, I don't see how the administration could have thought the Dems could make political hay with this. The problem with obeying the "spirit" of the law, rather than the "proper technical procedure," it that the spirit is open to each person's personal interpretation of that spirit. According to Attorney General Gonzalez, the president has the inherent right to wiretap without a court order to protect the country. If that's the case, why do we even need a FISA court? I thought the Constitution protected us from warrantless wiretaps, not that it gave the president the inherent right to do it when he decided it was OK.
|
|
#9
12-28-2005, 10:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do you support Bush?
[ QUOTE ]
I don't buy this. The FISA court had been used thousands of times. For example, in 1996, under a Democratic president, the FISA court approved over 800 surveillance and physical search orders. If the Republicans didn't make hay with that against Clinton, why would they have worried about the Dems doing that against Bush? [/ QUOTE ] 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. [ QUOTE ] Especially in the wake of 9/11, I don't see how the administration could have thought the Dems could make political hay with this. [/ QUOTE ] HA! Yeah, because the wake of 9/11 has really stopped them in the past.... [ QUOTE ] The problem with obeying the "spirit" of the law, rather than the "proper technical procedure," it that the spirit is open to each person's personal interpretation of that spirit. [/ QUOTE ] I realize, and as far as my personal interpretation goes, Bush didn't violate the spirit of the law. If someone else thinks differently, then they should feel differently. I went on to say "due process exists for a reason", and that reason is to protect our rights. In this case it is my opinion that such protection would have been moot, and as a result I'm not gonna worry about it.
|
|
#10
12-29-2005, 01:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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?
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
