Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: drkaje on March 23, 2008, 06:56:41 PM
-
I know it reads like a stupid question but... really. Most people's lives won't change one bit whoever is elected. Some friend of mine was saying how Bill Clinton suggested candidates talk about the issues. My argument is if Abortion and the war aren't inclded there really aren't many issues the candidates can disagree on.
For the vast majority of Americans Jesus Christ being president wouldn't change their lives one bit. I'd really like to know exactly how the eventual choice between two evils will affect people's lives.
I realize, on its face, the question seems stupid. In the same vein: is it really a stupid question or will people say it's stupid because they don't have an articulate answer? None of them represent my interests and nothing would change (for me) regardless of who was elected.
-
It's actually Congress who makes most of the decisions that can affect you, and the bulk of those are economic. But having a president of the opposite party as congress is always the best situation, as gridlock ensures government can fuck less shit up. Things were just fine when we had Bill Clinton in the White House with a Republican Congress.
With the Democrats in control of Congress, the last thing we need is a Democrat in the White House.
-
I know it reads like a stupid question but... really. Most people's lives won't change one bit whoever is elected. Some friend of mine was saying how Bill Clinton suggested candidates talk about the issues. My argument is if Abortion and the war aren't inclded there really aren't many issues the candidates can disagree on.
For the vast majority of Americans Jesus Christ being president wouldn't change their lives one bit. I'd really like to know exactly how the eventual choice between two evils will affect people's lives.
I realize, on its face, the question seems stupid. In the same vein: is it really a stupid question or will people say it's stupid because they don't have an articulate answer? None of them represent my interests and nothing would change (for me) regardless of who was elected.
Not a stupid question at all. Mayors, city councils, governors, and state legislatures have a far greater impact on our day-to-day lives than the president. That's partly why I think all this "change" talk is misleading.
-
Not a stupid question at all. Mayors, city councils, governors, and state legislatures have a far greater impact on our day-to-day lives than the president. That's partly why I think all this "change" talk is misleading.
that is, assuming no major changes.
You know, the dollar breaks, social security isn't there one day, etc.
Your local mayor doesn't have the power to borrow 5 trillion dollars of your retirement money in 7 years, using your roads as collateral. Your President did ;)
-
The president cannot do anything substantive regarding the bottom line of the average American without Congress. So jake's question (and the answer) are pretty much spot on. In fact, if we wind up with President Obama I doubt we see any significant changes that actually affect most Americans, including any substantive change in the war. His contention that he will bring home 1 to 2 brigades a month is a pipe dream.
-
The president cannot do anything substantive regarding the bottom line of the average American without Congress. So jake's question (and the answer) are pretty much spot on. In fact, if we wind up with President Obama I doubt we see any significant changes that actually affect most Americans, including any substantive change in the war. His contention that he will bring home 1 to 2 brigades a month is a pipe dream.
When a president has a rubber stamp congress, and Bush did from 2001 til 2007, then yes, he easily borrow $5 Tril and use our streets as collateral.
Nice to see you disagreed with this but lacked any substantive argument, so you tried to redirect the conversation to "obama sucks and he is wrong about..."
5th post of the thread and your point was proven wrong so you try to create a completely unrelated one.
Classic BB
-
His contention that he will bring home 1 to 2 brigades a month is a pipe dream.
Another internet guru.
-
Another internet guru.
Beach Bum knows more about troop redeployments than a sitting US Senator.
He's also read and completely dismissed Obama's plan,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_De-Escalation_Act_of_2007
We're in the presence of greatness!
-
Another internet guru.
Do you live with your parents?
-
Do you live with your parents?
Hey, BB, you solved that whole iraqi deployment thing when no senator could.
Can you solve the national debt next? Shouldn't take you more than 12 minutes, given the speed at which you figured it all out with that iraqi mess!
-
Do you live with your parents?
monster 'attack the messenger, not the message'.
he pwned the shit out of your shitty argument, so you insulted him.
calmus 1, BeachBum 0.
-
Hey, BB, you solved that whole iraqi deployment thing when no senator could.
Can you solve the national debt next? Shouldn't take you more than 12 minutes, given the speed at which you figured it all out with that iraqi mess!
Actually I'm waiting for you to solve the moon landing conspiracy. Can break that down for me? I find that particularl government conspiracy quite intriguing.
-
Actually I'm waiting for you to solve the moon landing conspiracy. Can break that down for me? I find that particularl government conspiracy quite intriguing.
LOL... you just did it again. You attacked the messenger, not the message.
I pwned your argument, so instead of debating it, you insulted me with something completely unrelated to the argument.
240 is back, 1.
beach Bum, 0.
You're getting proper fuct in this debate. how embarassing for a moderator who doesn't seem to know how to debate without insults and red herrings.
-
LOL... you just did it again. You attacked the messenger, not the message.
I pwned your argument, so instead of debating it, you insulted me with something completely unrelated to the argument.
240 is back, 1.
beach Bum, 0.
You're getting proper fuct in this debate. how embarassing for a moderator who doesn't seem to know how to debate without insults and red herrings.
:) So does this mean you won't detail the intricacies of the government's monumental moon hoax?
-
:) So does this mean you won't detail the intricacies of the government's monumental moon hoax?
-
Do you live with your parents?
Even if I did live with my parents, it wouldn't change the fact that you're a pompous (and devious) ass given to making unsupportable statements and then playing semantic games for three pages.
Hope this helps. :)
-
Even if I did live with my parents, it wouldn't change the fact that you're a pompous (and devious) ass given to making unsupportable statements and then playing semantic games for three pages.
Hope this helps. :)
lol. I'll take that as a "yes." :)
-
lol. I'll take that as a "yes." :)
lol
-
You all might be able to say this about some presidents, but ain't no way in hell that shit is going to fly with Bush. A lot of people have been effected by this presidency.
-
So let me get this straight.... People argue all day here about the benefits or suckiness of candidates but no one can say how their lives will be changed by the election? That's sad.
-
personally it'll irk me to no end if that c u nt hillary wins...i cant quite put my finger on why i dislike her so much...i just know that i do...
-
lol. I'll take that as a "yes." :)
What's so funny about people living with their parents?
I wish I lived with mine. They're nice people, have a great full-time cook/housekeeper, and their new house is on a beach.
If I lived in the same city, you could bet I'd find a way to move back in at least 5 days of the week.
-
One of you should at least have a legit reason.
-
So let me get this straight.... People argue all day here about the benefits or suckiness of candidates but no one can say how their lives will be changed by the election? That's sad.
Here're two simple things showing how the president's leadership has changed my life personally:
*I have to see the report of the deaths of fellow wisconsinites on almost a weekly basis b/c of Bush's illegal Iraq war--that's a horrible feeling.
*My house is now worth less b/c the Bush administration hamstrung state oversight of predatory mortgage lenders
There are many more things this pinhead has done to undermine the american way of life--doubling the national debt, torture, unconstitutional spying, total surrender of national energy policy to Enron and the boys, he's forgotten Bin Laden, ....in short, as president, he's created more problems than he's solved.
In fact, I would like to see a thread devoted to the successes of the Bush Administration. And not one of those bullshit lists where "Bush cut taxes..." is listed as a success.
-
What's so funny about people living with their parents?
I wish I lived with mine. They're nice people, have a great full-time cook/housekeeper, and their new house is on a beach.
If I lived in the same city, you could bet I'd find a way to move back in at least 5 days of the week.
oh boy, no wonder you're voting for Obama
-
Here're two simple things showing how the president's leadership has changed my life personally:
*I have to see the report of the deaths of fellow wisconsinites on almost a weekly basis b/c of Bush's illegal Iraq war--that's a horrible feeling.
*My house is now worth less b/c the Bush administration hamstrung state oversight of predatory mortgage lenders
There are many more things this pinhead has done to undermine the american way of life--doubling the national debt, torture, unconstitutional spying, total surrender of national energy policy to Enron and the boys, he's forgotten Bin Laden, ....in short, as president, he's created more problems than he's solved.
In fact, I would like to see a thread devoted to the successes of the Bush Administration. And not one of those bullshit lists where "Bush cut taxes..." is listed as a success.
But the war and how raped the economy (and surplus was) by Bush won't change at all. Leaving now would destabilize the region endangering Israel and Oil... two things our polititics love the most. There is no graceful, cheap, safe, healthy, etc... way to leave iraq at this moment. Leaving is a non-issue, issue that they are playing people with because it just can't happen for a few years.
-
It's not the president who ruins the country, us American are at fault, we expect everthing and don't work for nothing!! We need to get back to the old days were hard work was the way to success.
-
I'm not happy with Bush either but its accurate to point out that though the president and administration have power and influence, the congress has the most power and influence in passing laws and government decisions.
-
I'm not happy with Bush either but its accurate to point out that though the president and administration have power and influence, the congress has the most power and influence in passing laws and government decisions.
Bush had a repub congress from 2001 thru 2007, which rubber stamped anything he wanted.
He could have fixed things - he had every tool at his disposal.
instead, he borrowed 4.5 trillion in that period while giving tax breaks to the wealthy and big business.
-
So let me get this straight.... People argue all day here about the benefits or suckiness of candidates but no one can say how their lives will be changed by the election? That's sad.
no it's not... You're asking people to be future tellers ::) As with this president, many lives are effected and it would not be hard whatsoever to go down a list of how this admin has effected the people. Other presidents haven't exterted as much influence in their presidency. With this admin, I would definitly say with his backing that he has weilded more power than congress. Will the next president not have the machine like backing to do such or will they and will they use it or will checks on that branch come back into play? There's a lot you're asking people to see into the future on.
-
But the war and how raped the economy (and surplus was) by Bush won't change at all. Leaving now would destabilize the region endangering Israel and Oil... two things our polititics love the most. There is no graceful, cheap, safe, healthy, etc... way to leave iraq at this moment. Leaving is a non-issue, issue that they are playing people with because it just can't happen for a few years.
I understand your points. You have a very practical view.
I look at it like this: I would take out the troops and provide some financial incentive to the Iraq government to succeed. Would the withdrawal destabalize the region? Maybe. That's not my concern. The region has been destabalized for decades. I mean the middle east does have a reputation.
I do know that our country is collapsing under debt and our expenditures in Iraq are making that debt much worse.
Maybe Obama is playing both sides of the field and will pull George Bush once he gets into office and withdraw the troops from Iraq: I'm a uniter not a divider...what?, I've been selected to the Whitehouse...fuck y'all, it's my way or the highway.
-
oh boy, no wonder you're voting for Obama
apparently liking my parents makes voting for Obama a bad thing. ::) ;D
-
apparently liking my parents makes voting for Obama a bad thing. ::) ;D
woosh
-
woosh
English too hard for you?
-
I know it reads like a stupid question but... really. Most people's lives won't change one bit whoever is elected. Some friend of mine was saying how Bill Clinton suggested candidates talk about the issues. My argument is if Abortion and the war aren't inclded there really aren't many issues the candidates can disagree on.
For the vast majority of Americans Jesus Christ being president wouldn't change their lives one bit. I'd really like to know exactly how the eventual choice between two evils will affect people's lives.
I realize, on its face, the question seems stupid. In the same vein: is it really a stupid question or will people say it's stupid because they don't have an articulate answer? None of them represent my interests and nothing would change (for me) regardless of who was elected.
Same here.
The new president would effect you via his/her policies and decisions.. I mean you can't tell me that Bush hasn't effected you at all? He's made your country(assuming you live in the US) a lot worse than before.. The new candidate could either improve it, or continue to drive it down the shitter.
-
Same here.
The new president would effect you via his/her policies and decisions.. I mean you can't tell me that Bush hasn't effected you at all? He's made your country(assuming you live in the US) a lot worse than before.. The new candidate could either improve it, or continue to drive it down the shitter.
"affect"
-
no it's not... You're asking people to be future tellers ::) As with this president, many lives are effected and it would not be hard whatsoever to go down a list of how this admin has effected the people. Other presidents haven't exterted as much influence in their presidency. With this admin, I would definitly say with his backing that he has weilded more power than congress. Will the next president not have the machine like backing to do such or will they and will they use it or will checks on that branch come back into play? There's a lot you're asking people to see into the future on.
It's just that people are so vested in the election it really makes no sense for them to not have a reason it matters.
-
It's just that people are so vested in the election it really makes no sense for them to not have a reason it matters.
I seems a retarded thing to ask to me. Is not the answer obvious? Will not every president in the end have influence on things that will effect their daily lives? The list is freaking huge if you want to get technical about it. If you care about what kind of judges will be assigned to the highest court which does make calls that effect the people. This person we elect is going to put people at the head of many government departments that do have an impact on the people. For me there are so many reasons it matters that I could go on forever and in the end, much of it is going to be guesswork based unknown factors. A presidency can be rendered fairly un-influential depending on the opposition machine or not. I think some people don't answer questions like this when a good portion of the question requires divination. But at a minimun, I think the obvious is a given and I get the feeling he was looking for some greater answer than the obvious answer. Who the president is has great effect on the people and the most effect on people who have a set of beliefs important to them about the society we live in.
-
It's just that people are so vested in the election it really makes no sense for them to not have a reason it matters.
Do they not? Are not the obvious reasons sufficient? Did you want people to reaffirm the obvious answers because I got the feeling you're searching for something else from a mundane understand of what is actually quite a vast question. I saw the answer and moved on at first because I thought to really answer this, I would end up typing out a very lengthy post.
-
English too hard for you?
I think it's a Xena thing :D
-
What's so funny about people living with their parents?
I wish I lived with mine. They're nice people, have a great full-time cook/housekeeper, and their new house is on a beach.
If I lived in the same city, you could bet I'd find a way to move back in at least 5 days of the week.
Is that what they call it now? "cook/housekeeper"? We just call them "chores" in my house. So what do your parents pay you to be a "cook/housekeeper"? Do you complain about your chores like my kids? I'm wondering if they will ever grow out of all the whining they do.
-
I'm not happy with Bush either but its accurate to point out that though the president and administration have power and influence, the congress has the most power and influence in passing laws and government decisions.
Correct. And the state legislatures and city councils have an even greater impact than Congress (and the president).
-
Correct. And the state legislatures and city councils have an even greater impact than Congress (and the president).
which all has nothing to do with the fact that the presidency does indeed have many real effects on our country and the people. I get the sense that this thread was created to somehow illustrate the presidency is irrelevant to us simpletons. That's very far from the truth.
-
which all has nothing to do with the fact that the presidency does indeed have many real effects on our country and the people. I get the sense that this thread was created to somehow illustrate the presidency is irrelevant to us simpletons. That's very far from the truth.
Yes the president can impact our lives. What I can't think of is very many ways he can unilaterally have a significant impact on our everyday lives. Most of what he does or can do requires Congressional approval. The things that affect us the most like transportation, food, employment, education, leisure activities, etc. are really state and local issues for the most part.
-
Yes the president can impact our lives. What I can't think of is very many ways he can unilaterally have a significant impact on our everyday lives. Most of what he does or can do requires Congressional approval. The things that affect us the most like transportation, food, employment, education, leisure activities, etc. are really state and local issues for the most part.
Well that's only true on mundane local issues. Feds call the ultimate shot and all these departments, department of transportation etc etc, get their appointments from the president. This all guides the nation with a cumulative direction. Just considering the appointment power of the president alone is enough for any American to take personal interest in who is elected. With congress, we have long left the time that members vote individually. For the most part these days they vote the party and the president's party has for the most part backed him in hole. So if they have a majority, if they don't have a majority has become the main issue of congress serving as a legitimate check againts the presidency. That's an unknown now when looking to future presidents. So far this president has gotten his way even with a small dem lead in congress. Part of that is due to the fact that the dems seem to be still operating under the way it was while the republican march as a whole and we could go on with a few more reasons.
-
Yes the president can impact our lives. What I can't think of is very many ways he can unilaterally have a significant impact on our everyday lives. Most of what he does or can do requires Congressional approval. The things that affect us the most like transportation, food, employment, education, leisure activities, etc. are really state and local issues for the most part.
Well, I called my mayor today and complained about the 4.5 trillion dollars the US borrowed in the last 7 years.
Thanks for the great info, BB. Spot on!
-
Well, I called my mayor today and complained about the 4.5 trillion dollars the US borrowed in the last 7 years.
Thanks for the great info, BB. Spot on!
He is a PhD...
-
Yes the president can impact our lives. What I can't think of is very many ways he can unilaterally have a significant impact on our everyday lives. Most of what he does or can do requires Congressional approval. The things that affect us the most like transportation, food, employment, education, leisure activities, etc. are really state and local issues for the most part.
Congressional approval didn't matter when he authorized illegal wiretaps. Congressional approval didn't matter when he vetoed legislation. it didn't matter when he used signing statements. And it didn't matter when he made the US the laughing stock of the world. it didn't matter when he squandered the unprecedented support from allies and even former enemies after 911. There were men & women in the streets of Tehran crying & holding candles for the 911 victims right after 911. I don't think there are as many now.
-
He is a PhD...
He only earned the PhD because Ron wanted a far-right moderator, and the other candidate was joelocal. Beach Bum had been a high school dropout who often bragged about working his way up to mgmt at a firm despite having no college. As soon as we needed a mod, he was suddenly a PhD who taught psychology in Hawaii. He's living the dream, baby!
Today I spilled a soda, but I didn't blame my own clumsiness, I blamed congress!
-
yes it is also true BB that the president took wartime authorities on a great many things outside of congress. The justice department's loyal bushie gave his the consitutional legal opinion to skip congress on a lot of shit.
-
Well that's only true on mundane local issues. Feds call the ultimate shot and all these departments, department of transportation etc etc, get their appointments from the president. This all guides the nation with a cumulative direction. Just considering the appointment power of the president alone is enough for any American to take personal interest in who is elected. With congress, we have long left the time that members vote individually. For the most part these days they vote the party and the president's party has for the most part backed him in hole. So if they have a majority, if they don't have a majority has become the main issue of congress serving as a legitimate check againts the presidency. That's an unknown now when looking to future presidents. So far this president has gotten his way even with a small dem lead in congress. Part of that is due to the fact that the dems seem to be still operating under the way it was while the republican march as a whole and we could go on with a few more reasons.
I disagree. The issues I mentioned are hardly mundane. We have 18 state departments here dealing with everything from transportation, to crime, to education, labor, budget and finance, agriculture, business, etc. Essentially everything that impacts our day-to-day living. There are county equivalents for many of these departments. This is where most of the rubber meets the road.
-
yes it is also true BB that the president took wartime authorities on a great many things outside of congress. The justice department's loyal bushie gave his the consitutional legal opinion to skip congress on a lot of shit.
Berserker, AG retired several months ago. The statute of limitations has clearly run out. I say we give him a golden parachute package and focus our energies on impeaching mayors who text the F-word to their mistresses. Rampant constititional abuses are one thing, but this guy having an affair is way huger. I was just telling my college students that tonight, after I had dinner with the Easter Bunny and Ronald Reagan, who I voted against.
-
Congressional approval didn't matter when he authorized illegal wiretaps. Congressional approval didn't matter when he vetoed legislation. it didn't matter when he used signing statements. And it didn't matter when he made the US the laughing stock of the world. it didn't matter when he squandered the unprecedented support from allies and even former enemies after 911. There were men & women in the streets of Tehran crying & holding candles for the 911 victims right after 911. I don't think there are as many now.
He was checked by the judiciary regarding wiretaps. A veto can be overridden. Signing statements do not have the force and effect of law. About the closest he can come to unilateral, significant action is his role as Commander in Chief. But even then Congress controls the purse strings.
-
yes it is also true BB that the president took wartime authorities on a great many things outside of congress. The justice department's loyal bushie gave his the consitutional legal opinion to skip congress on a lot of shit.
You mean the war that he started with Congressional approval that Congress has continued to fund?
-
Well, Abortion should be taken off the table forever just so people can shut the fvck up about it either way.
Maybe I'm not being specific enough. A few people have been pissed at Bush, hated Hillary or thought Obama sucked too... but no one has really shown how their actual personal intrests or bottom line would be affected bu the election. Even 240 didn't come up with a conspiracy that included selling more websites!!!
I just don't get how people that passionate about something can't give a lucid, simple explanation about how/why it's important. None of them serve my intrests and nothing would change at all.
Well, I'm not willing to ask again, LOL! HC will end up responding "because". :)
Congressional approval didn't matter when he authorized illegal wiretaps. Congressional approval didn't matter when he vetoed legislation. it didn't matter when he used signing statements. And it didn't matter when he made the US the laughing stock of the world. it didn't matter when he squandered the unprecedented support from allies and even former enemies after 911. There were men & women in the streets of Tehran crying & holding candles for the 911 victims right after 911. I don't think there are as many now.
Judi,
At this point 911 really doesn't matter and I'm bored shitless with repubs pissing their pants saying "911 changed everything" and that a democratic president gurantees another attack. I'm specifically trying to find out if someone can demonstrate how/why the presidency affects them. My guess is a huge percentage of americans might feel more included on an emotional level but in reality their lives probably wouldn't change either way.
-
You mean the war that he started with Congressional approval that Congress has continued to fund?
If you weren't teaching PhDs how to knit all day, you'd see Bush on TV quite often telling congress they'll pass his bill, or they don't love the troops. They've continually tried to stop it, but he keeps telling FOX news that blood is on their hands if they stop the $.
-
I just don't get how people that passionate about something can't give a lucid, simple explanation about how/why it's important. None of them serve my intrests and nothing would change at all.
Well, I'm not willing to ask again, LOL! HC will end up responding "because". :)
I know, I'm in shock as well. I expected more here to at least have some inkling about how their lives are affected by the presidency. Shoot, ...I'm a Canuck, and even I know the im[act the presidency will have oon my life. Didn't include it because I know the reaction will be "who cares, you're Canadian".
-
I know, I'm in shock as well. I expected more here to at least have some inkling about how their lives are affected by the presidency. Shoot, ...I'm a Canuck, and even I know the im[act the presidency will have oon my life. Didn't include it because I know the reaction will be "who cares, you're Canadian".
You Canadians should be happy.... look at where the canadian dollar was when Clinton took office!
Ross Perot's crazy ass warned us all that American workers would be the biggest losers with NAFTA and GAT but no one listened.
-
I disagree. The issues I mentioned are hardly mundane. We have 18 state departments here dealing with everything from transportation, to crime, to education, labor, budget and finance, agriculture, business, etc. Essentially everything that impacts our day-to-day living. There are county equivalents for many of these departments. This is where most of the rubber meets the road.
but not where the national direction goes which in turn affects local departments ;)
-
You mean the war that he started with Congressional approval that Congress has continued to fund?
no, I mean more than that ::) He's taken quite a bit of liberty with his wartime power,...
-
You Canadians should be happy.... look at where the canadian dollar was when Clinton took office!
Ross Perot's crazy ass warned us all that American workers would be the biggest losers with NAFTA and GAT but no one listened.
Why should I be happy about the state of the Canadian dollar. I earn my income in US? :-\
In life, just as in poker, ...it's not always about the cards you're dealt, ...it how you play them.
Regardless of who is in office, financially I will not only survive, but thrive, and prosper abundantly.
My sail is always set to catch the wind, whichever way it blows. I may not be happy about a foul smelling wind, but darnit, if that wind is gonna blow, ...it's gonna power my sail and carry me to my intended destination.
The challenge is, one cannot get to the promised land alone, you need people there... happy prosperous people
Up here in Canada, most of us are praying for a Democratic win south of the border. We realize it will have a negative impact on our economy, and the value of our dollar will probably dip somewhat because no doubt the Dems will take care of the US economy and bring some stability and value back to your dollar, ...but we realize short term pain for long term gain and stability is what is needed in order for the countries on this continent not to go to hell in a hand basket. The US is our biggest trading partner. Your economy tanks, it takes ours with it along with many others around the globe. We could have 4 more years of Bush (via McCain), ...but that would destroy the US economy completely leading to further instability in the US, the middle east, and the world. An invasion of Iran shuts down the straits of Hormuz. That's ok, Canada has oil. But what do you do about nuclear armageddon? That's the path we're on with these guys in charge. It's time for America to turn her sights homeward towards taking care of the domestic issues in her country... NOW! When you strengthen you economy, you strengthen your country, ...and by extension your military. We're all on this little blue / green marble together, and we need to look out for each other, ...even when some people don't know what is best for them. And right now... Barack Obama is the best shot you guys have of turning things around.
-
but not where the national direction goes which in turn affects local departments ;)
I never said there was no impact. Most of the things that we really care about are primarily controlled by the agencies I mentioned, not the president.
-
no, I mean more than that ::) He's taken quite a bit of liberty with his wartime power,...
Namely? What liberty has been taken from you?
-
Namely? What liberty has been taken from you?
re-read my statement. you read it wrong.
-
I never said there was no impact. Most of the things that really care about are primarily controlled by the agencies I mentioned, not the president.
Another dumbass statement from our dumbass in residence.
It's not like the president doesn't appoint the heads of most agencies ::)
-
re-read my statement. you read it wrong.
Ah so. You mean taking liberties with decisions, not taking individual liberties we enjoy in the Constitution?
-
Another dumbass statement from our dumbass in residence.
It's not like the president doesn't appoint the heads of most agencies ::)
lol. The grammar Nazi is wrong again. No, the president does not appoint the head of state and county agencies. ::)
-
lol. The grammar Nazi is wrong again. No, the president does not appoint the head of state and county agencies. ::)
Yeah, 'cause they're the ones who're listening to phone conversations and monitoring internet posts. ::)
why don't you go create a "raucous" somewhere else?
-
Ah so. You mean taking liberties with decisions, not taking individual liberties we enjoy in the Constitution?
I wasn't even going to that issue. I was speaking only with him being liberal with his war powers. Some of that was covered in tonight's Frontline episode.
-
As soon as we needed a mod, he was suddenly a PhD who taught psychology in Hawaii. He's living the dream, baby!
Where'd you get this from, 240? it's just like I said. See bolded font.
Give it a rest, 240, you're not going to get anywhere with the willfully blind.
Judging from the way he writes, BB definitely has a college degree of some sort. But it's probably from a school one step above a degree mill, UNLV or some place where critical thinking does n't exist (Ok, I'm being totally unfair to UNLV here, as I have no idea of what goes on there.... it's just one of those schools that I know is out there, somewhere in the backwoods of America :D
He might even be a teacher as he claims. Does not take much to teach at some schools. Probably got an MA in ed psych or an MBA from a degree mill.
He also probably watched a bunch of Court TV & Fox.... which leads him to come on here and drop terms like "Due Process" and then say, "doesn't matter what the law says." On the one hand, the law makes it ok to kill, and so he gives it porps, and on the other, the law doesn't know wtf it's doing.
Never mind that the "due process" accorded to most death row inmates has been shown by study after study to be little more than a joke. But hey, when you graduate from UNLV :D and when Jesus is your personal "blesser", you don't care about shit like that.
-
I disagree. The issues I mentioned are hardly mundane. We have 18 state departments here dealing with everything from transportation, to crime, to education, labor, budget and finance, agriculture, business, etc. Essentially everything that impacts our day-to-day living. There are county equivalents for many of these departments.
This is where most of the rubber meets the road.
It doesn't matter where the rubber meets the road if you can't afford the fuel, ...the vehicle isn't going anywhere.
How much is the price of gas in Hawaii these days?
-
And let us not forget the gift of Unnecessary Censorship they've bequeathed to your society. >:(
-
censorship my ass... We'll see... Keep it up, we'll hardly have to justify another ban when the complaints keep flowing in ;) A word of advice, you best stop now. As said, your political opinions are welcome but we're going to draw the line even at the "slight of hand" pimping of yours... Keep doing it, there will be a concensus.... Keep in mind, we are not being picky, we are acting on complaints at you doing exactly this. I'm sure you can post your political opinions without filling our inbox with complaints, that shouldn't be hard for you to do.
Ace ;)
3.... 2...
-
He was checked by the judiciary regarding wiretaps. ...
What do you mean?
-
What do you mean?
Judge: NSA warrantless wiretapping unconstitutional
Updated 8/17/2006 10:44 PM ET
By David Jackson, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — President Bush's warrantless surveillance program is unconstitutional because it authorizes illegal searches, a federal judge ruled Thursday.
"There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution," wrote U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit.
. . .
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-17-judge-nsa_x.htm
-
Judge: NSA warrantless wiretapping unconstitutional
Updated 8/17/2006 10:44 PM ET
By David Jackson, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — President Bush's warrantless surveillance program is unconstitutional because it authorizes illegal searches, a federal judge ruled Thursday.
"There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution," wrote U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit.
. . .
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-17-judge-nsa_x.htm
FISA requires judicial oversight of the warrant process.
Bush blew that off.
He'd still be trampling our 4th A rights if he hadn't been caught breaking the law.
He got caught.
The court's holding that Bush broke the law is not how our checks and balances of power works.
Bush should have consulted Congress to change the law instead just ignoring it committing a felony.
Since Congress won't impeach Bush for that penalty, he skates for the moment.
-
FISA requires judicial oversight of the warrant process.
Bush blew that off.
He'd still be trampling our 4th A rights if he hadn't been caught breaking the law.
He got caught.
The court's holding that Bush broke the law is not how our checks and balances of power works.
Bush should have consulted Congress to change the law instead just ignoring it committing a felony.
Since Congress won't impeach Bush for that penalty, he skates for the moment.
Spin it however you like. Bush did what he thought was right. The judiciary stepped in and disagreed. Bush followed the judiciary's interpretation of the law. System worked. He was checked.
-
Spin it however you like. Bush did what he thought was right. The judiciary stepped in and disagreed. Bush followed the judiciary's interpretation of the law. System worked. He was checked.
Bush knowingly broke the law.
He was outed by the NY Times.
Bush did not consult Congress at all. He just ignored the law. Is that how 'checks & balances" works Beach Bum? The president breaks the law (does what he thinks is right? ? ?) and is questioned only after he is caught?
I don't think so. Congress makes the laws and the President enforces the laws. How is breaking the law enforcing the law?
-
Bush knowingly broke the law.
He was outed by the NY Times.
Bush did not consult Congress at all. He just ignored the law. Is that how 'checks & balances" works Beach Bum? The president breaks the law (does what he thinks is right? ? ?) and is questioned only after he is caught?
I don't think so. Congress makes the laws and the President enforces the laws. How is breaking the law enforcing the law?
It's cricket season.
-
Bush knowingly broke the law.
He was outed by the NY Times.
Bush did not consult Congress at all. He just ignored the law. Is that how 'checks & balances" works Beach Bum? The president breaks the law (does what he thinks is right? ? ?) and is questioned only after he is caught?
I don't think so. Congress makes the laws and the President enforces the laws. How is breaking the law enforcing the law?
Whether Bush "knowingly broke the law" is your opinion. The system worked. Executive branch acted in a way it believed was consistent with the law. Judiciary branch disagreed and ordered executive branch to stop. Executive branch stopped. So yes, that is precisely how "checks and balances" works.
-
Whether Bush "knowingly broke the law" is your opinion. The system worked. Executive branch acted in a way it believed was consistent with the law. Judiciary branch disagreed and ordered executive branch to stop. Executive branch stopped. So yes, that is precisely how "checks and balances" works.
Uh... No they didn't. Executive branch stated it didn't care what the Judiciary branch said, and it would continue to do what it was doing. That's not a "check and balance". That's an open declaration of defiance, and a claim to being above the law. It is a liberty that has been taken, and a dereliction of his sworn duty to uphold the law.
-
Uh... No they didn't. Executive branch stated it didn't care what the Judiciary branch said, and it would continue to do what it was doing. That's not a "check and balance". That's an open declaration of defiance, and a claim to being above the law. It is a liberty that has been taken, and a dereliction of his sworn duty to uphold the law.
O Rly? Warrantless wiretaps continued after a judge said they were unconstitutional? Proof?
-
O Rly? Warrantless wiretaps continued after a judge said they were unconstitutional? Proof?
I won't waste time to find something that isn't even required. Whether or not they continued is irrelevant.
That's an open declaration of defiance, and a claim to being above the law. It is a liberty that has been taken, and a dereliction of his sworn duty to uphold the law.
One does not uphold a law, by declaring to be above it.
By doing so, you undermine the very authority you have sworn to abide by and uphold.
-
I won't waste time to find something that isn't even required. Whether or not they continued is irrelevant.
One does not uphold a law, by declaring to be above it.
By doing so, you undermine the very authority you have sworn to abide by and uphold.
I don't blame you. I wouldn't waste my time looking for something that likely doesn't exist either. If it's your belief that Bush continued warrantless wiretaps after a judge ruled they were unconstitutional, then just say that, instead of "Executive branch stated it didn't care what the Judiciary branch said, and it would continue to do what it was doing." What's the factual basis for that statement?
-
I don't blame you. I wouldn't waste my time looking for something that likely doesn't exist either. If it's your belief that Bush continued warrantless wiretaps after a judge ruled they were unconstitutional, then just say that, instead of "Executive branch stated it didn't care what the Judiciary branch said, and it would continue to do what it was doing." What's the factual basis for that statement?
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/em/shocked.gif)
Huh?! "What's the factual basis for that statement?" ???
GWB himself!
I thought that much was clear. Appearently not. Please help me to understand where you're coming from.
Is it that you don't understand my statement, or is it that you don't believe GWB made these declarations at all?
-
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/em/shocked.gif)
Huh?! "What's the factual basis for that statement?" ???
GWB himself!
I thought that much was clear. Appearently not. Please help me to understand where you're coming from.
Is it that you don't understand my statement, or is it that you don't believe GWB made these declarations at all?
I'm talking about after the judge ruled they were unconstitutional. If Bush conducted warrantless wiretaps after the court's ruling, then I would say you might be correct.
-
I'm talking about after the judge ruled they were unconstitutional. If Bush conducted warrantless wiretaps after the court's ruling, then I would say you might be correct.
His declarations came after the judge ruled them unconstitutional; infact were a direct result of the judge's ruling.
-
Whether Bush "knowingly broke the law" is your opinion. The system worked. Executive branch acted in a way it believed was consistent with the law. Judiciary branch disagreed and ordered executive branch to stop. Executive branch stopped. So yes, that is precisely how "checks and balances" works.
Again, the checks and balances system does not work this way:
The president ignores completely a federal statute requiring warrants for searches (since 2000 or 2002 depending on the source);
The president is caught breaking this federal statute by a private third party that publishes the crime (NY Times);
A court tells the president to stop breaking the law.
And as for Bush knowingly ignoring FISA...he admitted that in a national radio address:
In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051217.html
I guess I am spinning. Why Pres. Bush said the program is legal. I feel foolish.
But what of this? The Justice Department determined that the program is illegal. Liars!
No more than four Justice Department officials had access to details of the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program when the department deemed portions of it illegal, following a pattern of poor consultation that helped create a "legal mess," a former Justice official told Congress yesterday.
...Jack L. Goldsmith, former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, who led an internal Justice Department review of the surveillance effort completed more than two years after the surveillance began, said he "could not find a legal basis for some aspects of the program."
"It was the biggest legal mess I had ever encountered," Goldsmith said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100201083.html
The superlatives have run the course with this administration: worst foreign policy blunder in history and biggest legal mess ever encountered.
-
I'm talking about after the judge ruled they were unconstitutional. If Bush conducted warrantless wiretaps after the court's ruling, then I would say you might be correct.
That's just ridiculous reasoning.
The FISA law was there in black and white Beach Bum. I hate analogies but say the president shot Harry Reid to death b/c he believed the democrats were undermining the war on terror.
Would we have to wait until a court ruled on that act before it became illegal?
No.
Laws, like FISA, exist to influence behavior.
In the FISA case, the law protected americans's 4th A rights by compelling the government to consult with the FISA court in requesting a warrant to spy on US citizens.
Bush knew that and he ignored it.
-
Its pretty simple...make it legal. Until such time as it is...then i would agree he has to stop. Our intel folks need everything in their arsenal...but I would also submit that it needs to be in line with a more measured approach to foreign policy. Iraq was a mistake, but its a mistake we're stuck with.
-
Its pretty simple...make it legal. Until such time as it is...then i would agree he has to stop. Our intel folks need everything in their arsenal...but I would also submit that it needs to be in line with a more measured approach to foreign policy. Iraq was a mistake, but its a mistake we're stuck with.
Absolutely. All he had to do was go to Congress and arrange to have the law suspended or modified. That can be done in secret.
-
His declarations came after the judge ruled them unconstitutional; infact were a direct result of the judge's ruling.
It sounds like you're confusing his disagreement with the court ruling with a stated intent to disobey the court ruling. He said the court was wrong. I haven't read anywhere where he said (as you claim) the administration "would continue to do what it was doing."
-
Again, the checks and balances system does not work this way:
The president ignores completely a federal statute requiring warrants for searches (since 2000 or 2002 depending on the source);
The president is caught breaking this federal statute by a private third party that publishes the crime (NY Times);
A court tells the president to stop breaking the law.
And as for Bush knowingly ignoring FISA...he admitted that in a national radio address:
In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051217.html
I guess I am spinning. Why Pres. Bush said the program is legal. I feel foolish.
But what of this? The Justice Department determined that the program is illegal. Liars!
No more than four Justice Department officials had access to details of the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program when the department deemed portions of it illegal, following a pattern of poor consultation that helped create a "legal mess," a former Justice official told Congress yesterday.
...Jack L. Goldsmith, former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, who led an internal Justice Department review of the surveillance effort completed more than two years after the surveillance began, said he "could not find a legal basis for some aspects of the program."
"It was the biggest legal mess I had ever encountered," Goldsmith said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100201083.html
The superlatives have run the course with this administration: worst foreign policy blunder in history and biggest legal mess ever encountered.
Yes, this is classic spin. I'm not going to defend what he did, because I don't agree with warrantless wiretaps, but he apparently believed that law didn't apply to their activities. So to say he "knowingly" broke the law is in fact nothing more than your opinion. The system did exactly what it was supposed to do.
And at the end of the day, wasn't the judge overruled anyway?
-
That's just ridiculous reasoning.
The FISA law was there in black and white Beach Bum. I hate analogies but say the president shot Harry Reid to death b/c he believed the democrats were undermining the war on terror.
Would we have to wait until a court ruled on that act before it became illegal?
No.
Laws, like FISA, exist to influence behavior.
In the FISA case, the law protected americans's 4th A rights by compelling the government to consult with the FISA court in requesting a warrant to spy on US citizens.
Bush knew that and he ignored it.
You know what the man was thinking eh? Jedi mind trick? :) So I spent a minute (if that long) looking on the internet and lo and behold I found someone who doesn't think this is black and white. How ridiculous is that? (Keep in mind this goes to whether Bush believed he was violating the law, not whether I believe his actions were appropriate.)
Former CIA agent belittles Judge Diggs decision.
By Bryan Cunningham
The Honorable Anna Diggs-Taylor probably means well. The lone judge in American history to order a president to halt in wartime a foreign-intelligence-collection program that has undoubtedly saved lives probably sympathizes with the journalists, and others, who are suing to stop the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) in which NSA intercepts foreign-U.S. terrorist communications. She probably feels in her heart the program is wrong, and undoubtedly hears the footsteps of the federal judicial panel moving towards taking this case away from her and consolidating it with others.
We can sympathize with her motives, and even share some of her gut feelings of uneasiness about the program. But we cannot accept the stunningly amateurish piece of, I hesitate even to call it legal work, by which she purports to make our government go deaf and dumb to those would murder us en masse. Her bosses on the Court of Appeals and/or the United States Supreme Court will not accept it.
Much will be said about this opinion in the coming days. I’ll start with this: I wouldn’t accept this utterly unsupported, constitutionally and logically bankrupt collection of musings from a first-year law student, much less a new lawyer at my firm. Why not? Herewith, a start at a very long list of what’s wrong with Judge Taylor’s opinion.
Process Fouls. When you sue your plumber over a disputed $50 invoice, before deciding who wins, the judge is required to jump through some minor constitutional hoops like actually hearing evidence (as opposed to press reports), holding hearings, and reading and understanding the briefs filed and the laws at issue. Judge Taylor appears to have taken none of these rudimentary steps before issuing one of the most sweeping wartime legal rulings in our nation’s history. Experts on both sides agree it is impossible to decide the crucial Fourth and First Amendment issues in this case without detailed, factual knowledge of precisely what the government is doing (see, e.g., the brief I filed with the Washington Legal Foundation, at www.morgancunningham.net, and the excellent testimony of David Kris, at http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_hr/index.html). Judge Taylor apparently needs no more facts than what she reads in the papers.
Worse, the judge clearly failed to do enough homework to understand the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act itself, much less the Fourth Amendment. She gets basic provisions of the statute itself wrong, e.g., apparently believing that a provision explicitly dealing with foreign agent/non-U.S. persons communications constitutes an “exception” to FISA’s warrant requirements. She also seems to make the elementary and fatal mistake made by many commentators, that the government can, under FISA, listen in on conversations for 72 hours without meeting FISA’s substantive and procedural tests. This is simply false. NSA cannot lawfully, under FISA, listen to a single syllable of a covered communication until it can prove to the Attorney General (usually in writing) that it can jump through each and every one of FISA’s procedural and substantive hoops. These basic errors could have been corrected had the court bothered to gather any evidence or hold substantive hearings.
More worrisome still are the judge’s breathtaking mistakes in analyzing the Fourth and First Amendments—errors that would earn our first-year law student an “F.” Here’s one of several examples: The judge asserts that the Fourth Amendment, in all cases, “requires prior warrants for any reasonable search, based upon prior-existing probable cause.” She cites no legal authority whatsoever for this colossal misstatement of the law, because none exists. Instead, there are numerous situations where our courts have found no prior warrant is required, so long as a search is “reasonable.” Fatal to her position is the very Supreme Court case she herself cites. This landmark 1972 electronic-surveillance decision, the Keith case, makes clear that, though it establishes a warrant requirement for purely domestic security cases (decidedly not what the TSP is, raising the alarming possibility the judge may think the TSP is a “domestic” program), the Fourth Amendment does not always require a prior warrant for government searches. Rather, the need for warrants depends on a balancing of the government’s legitimate needs, such as protecting us from attack, against other constitutional interests.
Lest there be any doubt as to whether Keith supported Judge Taylor’s view about the warrant requirement for communications with overseas terrorist groups, the Keith court stated that “the instant case requires no judgment on the scope of the President’s surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country.”
While Keith at least left open the question, a post-FISA case, also cited by Judge Taylor herself (In re Falvey), could not have more clearly dispensed with her claimed warrant requirement: “When, therefore, the President has, as his primary purpose, the accumulation of foreign intelligence information, his exercise of Article II power to conduct foreign affairs is not constitutionally hamstrung by the need to obtain prior judicial approval before engaging in wiretapping.”
Apparently Judge Taylor failed to read that portion of the Falvey opinion. She makes similarly striking mistakes on the issues of standing and separation-of-powers. Which brings us to the heart of the problem with the judge’s missive.
Ignoring Contrary Authority. Under legal-ethics rules, deliberately failing to call to a court’s attention legal authority contrary to one’s position is grounds for disciplinary action. In addition to the above, here are several more examples of this unpardonable legal sin in Judge Taylor’s opinion.
Appeals Court Cherry-Picking. The judge relies heavily on the D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals plurality (less than majority) opinion in Zweibon v. Mitchell. That case suggests in dicta (language not necessary to decide the case, and, therefore, of no precedential value) that all electronic surveillance, even for foreign intelligence involving an overseas connection, may require prior warrants. Judge Taylor fails to mention, however, that, while Zweibon didn’t actually reach this question, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (the appellate court set up explicitly to have the foreign-intelligence and national-security expertise Judge Taylor clearly lacks) did. Here’s what it said (in 2002): “[A]ll . . . courts to have decided the issue, held the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.’
Utterly ignoring this 2002 FISA Court of Review opinion, as well as the numerous 1970s-’80s federal appeals and district court decisions directly opposed to her position, Judge Taylor offers instead an extended discussion of a 1765 case from England.
Selective Reading Redux. The judge discusses at length Justice Jackson’s concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet and Tube, without bothering to mention:
—that Justice Jackson himself, in that very opinion, disavowed the application of the opinion beyond that case’s primarily domestic context (seizure of U.S. steel mills in the face of a union strike);
—that our courts long after Youngstown emphasized its limitations to primarily domestic cases and that other legal authorities more appropriately govern primarily foreign-affairs/foreign-intelligence-collection cases, such as the TSP; or
—most importantly, the entire line of Supreme Court and other decisions, most famously including Curtiss-Wright Export, cited many times since Youngstown, making clear the president’s constitutional primacy in foreign-affairs/foreign-intelligence collection, upon which neither Congress nor the courts may intrude.
Lawyers and judges are free to argue that contrary authority does not control a particular decision. They are not free ethically to disregard the vast majority of cases rejecting their position, selectively citing the single case arguably supporting them.
Trivial Pursuit. Perhaps most disturbing about the judge’s opinion is the trivial way it treats the Fourth and First Amendments to our Constitution. In landmark cases balancing wartime needs with cherished principles in the Bill of Rights, our great judges and justices have painstakingly analyzed all applicable authority, soberly balancing our crucial national interests and values. Judge Taylor spends a total of three double-spaced pages addressing the Fourth Amendment and little more than two addressing the First Amendment. Her reasoning, to the extent one can follow it, is little more than one would find in watching a surreal “Schoolhouse Rock” episode. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches. All searches without warrants are unreasonable (which, as noted above, is flatly wrong). Therefore, with no case support cited, Judge Taylor finds the TSP unconstitutional. The First Amendment protects free speech, which, defying the dictionary meaning of the word, she asserts the TSP “regulates.” FISA prohibits targeting persons for surveillance solely for activities protected by the First Amendment (FISA, of course, being a statute, not a constitutional provision, and the administration having stated publicly they do not target individuals on that basis). Therefore, says Her Honor, the TSP is unconstitutional.
Such trivial (if not incomprehensible) legal analysis would be unacceptable in our $50 plumbing-bill case. Using it to justify shutting down a program protecting us from terrorist attack in war is tantamount to an abrogation of the judge’s oath to support and defend the Constitution. Though unlikely based on what has been publicly reported, it is possible that a court armed with all the facts could conclude that the TSP runs afoul of the First or Fourth Amendments. It is not possible to decide that based on press reports and platitudes.
Amateur hour? Judge Taylor, a law professor, has been on the bench since 1979. She is decidedly not an amateur. So, how to explain her first-year failing-grade opinion? Regrettably, the only plausible explanation is that she wanted the result she wanted and was willing to ignore and misread vast portions of constitutional law to get there, gambling the lives and security of her fellow Americans in the bargain.
Whatever Judge Taylor’s motives, it is critical to understand the impact of her decision, were it allowed to stand. Among many damaging results, the Terrorist Surveillance Program, publicly credited not 72 hours ago with helping to prevent the “9/11 Part 2” British airline bombings, will be shut down and our enemies will know it. Worse, neither politically accountable branch of government (even working together) would be able to modify FISA in a way that did not require prior judicial warrants based on probable cause and particularity as to the person targeted. In other words, there would be no lawful way, short of amending the Constitution, to ever collect catastrophic-terrorist-attack warning information unless we knew in advance it was coming, and the identities of the precise individuals who were going to communicate it.
As Judge Taylor’s new favorite justice, Robert Jackson himself, warned, the courts should not “convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.” I will put my daughters to bed tonight confident that the Court of Appeals and our Supreme Court will not allow Judge Taylor’s giant step in that direction to stand.
— Bryan Cunningham served in senior positions in the CIA and as a federal prosecutor under President Clinton, and as deputy legal adviser to the National Security Council under President George W. Bush. He is a private information security and privacy lawyer at Morgan & Cunningham LLC in Denver, Colorado, and a member of the Markle Foundation Task Force on National Security in the Information Age. Along with the Washington Legal Foundation, he filed an amicus brief in this case, and has testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Terrorist Surveillance Program.
http://news.lawreader.com/?p=294
-
Hahaha, monster cut and paste by a dumbass who never read Jackson's opinion. If you had, you would realize that Jackson's opinion supports Judge Taylor's opinion far more than it does your dilettante's rambling article.
War powers do not supersede representative government when it comes to internal affairs/inhabitants of the US.
I'm paraphrasing b/c I'm too lazy to google, but ron can delete my account if i misspeak.
And it's significant that he said inhabitants .... even non-citizens who live in the US are entitled to some process under the constitution. A man of Jackson's intellect did not use words lightly.
-
...just like the other day when in response to JBGray's post about how the high cost of fuel was affecting every day prices of goods & services, I mentioned in passing the heavy toll current economic conditions were having on long haul truckers forcing them out of business and off the road
...
I disagree. The issues I mentioned are hardly mundane. We have 18 state departments here dealing with everything from transportation, to crime, to education, labor, budget and finance, agriculture, business, etc. Essentially everything that impacts our day-to-day living. There are county equivalents for many of these departments.
This is where most of the rubber meets the road.
Like I said before:
It doesn't matter where the rubber meets the road if you can't afford the fuel, ...the vehicle isn't going anywhere.
I, along with many of my colleagues are trying to discourage a strike, but we can't get the word out fast enough that a strike is not the correct course of action to take. We don't know if we have enough momentum to avert it. Some of my guys are currently at the Louisville Truck show trying to convince as many drivers as possible NOT to strike, ...cause that will only hurt them, and the everyday consumer. Without these guys, American shuts down. We don't know if we can avoid it, so my best advice to everyone is to stock up. Get what you can, because there might be a bit of a temporary shortage of some things, ...and we all know what happens to prices when supply is tight
Truckers Discuss Possible Strike Over Fuel Prices
By Terry Jessup
Mar 25, 2008 6:39 pm US/Mountain
(http://llnw.image.cbslocal.com/19/2008/03/26/175x131/dieselprices.jpg)
DENVER (CBS4) ― Diesel prices are climbing higher and higher and truckers say it's getting too expensive to stay in business. Now, there is talk of a strike to grab people's attention.
Truckers are threatening to shut down the shipping industry in hopes of forcing some relief at the pumps. The price of diesel fuel soared this week to a record $4.06 a gallon. That's a .27 cent jump in just two weeks.
Diesel prices are not as bad in Colorado as in a lot of other states, especially California. In a solidarity protest, several truckers shut down their rigs Monday in Pennsylvania, and truckers in Colorado are predicting more of that to come. Across the country, more and more truckers are calling for a nationwide strike on April 1.
"We stay out three days to a week, I think maybe people will start listening to us, because without our trucks, America stops," Texas truck driver Pat Dreher said. "That's just the way it is."
"It would only take one day for us for people to understand what effect these drivers would have," Kentucky truck driver Jennifer Kloc said. "Everything comes on a truck."
Diesel fuel is already at or over $4 a gallon in at least 17 states. In many places, it's gone up .50 to .70 cents in the past month. One driver at a Colorado truck stop said it costs him about $1,000 to fill up from empty.
In a visit to Denver Tuesday afternoon, Transportation Secretary Mary Peters said the American Trucking Association is asking Washington for relief, but said a strike by truckers certainly won't bring it.
"I don't think it would be a very good thing for our country at all, and if the strike is because of high fuel prices, I think that would be taking an action that would affect American businesses and American consumers for something that they don't have a direct relationship to," Peters said.
But if there is no relief, many truckers say they might as well strike, because they won't be able to afford to keep driving. Along with the jacked up diesel, the average owner-operator is paying $600 to $800 a month just for insurance.
As for company drivers, one told CBS4 that if he does keep driving his rig, he won't have money to drive anything else.
"We can't live the way we used to the way gas prices are right now," Texas truck driver Kenyon Mulli said. "When I get home, I have a GMC 2500. I don't go anywhere, I just stay at home."
Several truckers were quick to concede a strike would probably not have any impact on oil companies lowering their fuel prices. Some said they could get some relief if the federal and state governments could temporarily suspend fuel taxes until the economy improves, but they realize that's not likely to happen either. When Peters was asked about it, she said she hasn't heard any calls for fuel tax suspension.
Peters was in Denver to promote a pilot program permitting U.S. truckers to deliver goods directly into Mexico. She said efforts in Washington to end the program would hurt Colorado's farmers and ranchers by delaying their deliveries.
-------------------------------------------------------------
To see video, please visit: http://www.cbs4denver.com/video/?id=40206@kcnc.dayport.com (http://www.cbs4denver.com/video/?id=40206@kcnc.dayport.com)
-
It sounds like you're confusing his disagreement with the court ruling with a stated intent to disobey the court ruling. He said the court was wrong. I haven't read anywhere where he said (as you claim) the administration "would continue to do what it was doing."
The Court holding pointed out that Bush was breaking the law since he authorized the spying.
The legality of Bush's act is governed by the law he broke...not the subsequent court holding.
2 years of felonious domestic spying by our government and you see no problem?
Your point re Bush's behavior after the decision is an irrelevant red herring.
-
Yes, this is classic spin. I'm not going to defend what he did, because I don't agree with warrantless wiretaps, but he apparently believed that law didn't apply to their activities. So to say he "knowingly" broke the law is in fact nothing more than your opinion. The system did exactly what it was supposed to do.
And at the end of the day, wasn't the judge overruled anyway?
Sorry, that's not how it works.
By your own admission, Bush knew of FISA's legal restrictions but decided they didn't apply to him.
That's a classic example of knowledge of one's wrongdoing. It's also a classic exercise of dictatorial power.
As I've said, he knowingly broke the law.
-
You know what the man was thinking eh? Jedi mind trick? :) So I spent a minute (if that long) looking on the internet and lo and behold I found someone who doesn't think this is black and white. How ridiculous is that? (Keep in mind this goes to whether Bush believed he was violating the law, not whether I believe his actions were appropriate.)
Former CIA agent belittles Judge Diggs decision.
By Bryan Cunningham
...
No Jedi mind trick. Bush admitted to the country that he knew of FISA's restrictions. That's no trick. That's called evidence of knowledge of a guilty mind....mens rea.
Maybe Bush should hire Bryan Cunningham as a legal rep. since he knows so much about FISA, our constitutional rights, case law and the court decision.
I'll stick with the experts, thank you.
The American Bar Association denounced President Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program yesterday, accusing him of exceeding his powers under the Constitution.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/13/AR2006021302006.html
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/fisa.html
-
...
War powers do not supersede representative government when it comes to internal affairs/inhabitants of the US.
...And it's significant that he said inhabitants .... even non-citizens who live in the US are entitled to some process under the constitution. A man of Jackson's intellect did not use words lightly.
I agree.
-
The Court holding pointed out that Bush was breaking the law since he authorized the spying.
The legality of Bush's act is governed by the law he broke...not the subsequent court holding.
2 years of felonious domestic spying by our government and you see no problem?
Your point re Bush's behavior after the decision is an irrelevant red herring.
My point about Bush's behavior after the decision was in response to this comment from Jag: "Executive branch stated it didn't care what the Judiciary branch said, and it would continue to do what it was doing." Unless he said he was going to defy the court ruling, then his conduct after the court ruling is entirely relevant to her allegation.
The legality of Bush's act is determined by the law and the court's interpretation of the law. That's why we have the courts. That's how the system is supposed to work.
-
No Jedi mind trick. Bush admitted to the country that he knew of FISA's restrictions. That's no trick. That's called evidence of knowledge of a guilty mind....mens rea.
Maybe Bush should hire Bryan Cunningham as a legal rep. since he knows so much about FISA, our constitutional rights, case law and the court decision.
I'll stick with the experts, thank you.
The American Bar Association denounced President Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program yesterday, accusing him of exceeding his powers under the Constitution.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/13/AR2006021302006.html
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/fisa.html
He admitted he knew of the requirements (hardly an admission; the law says what is says). He also said he didn't think it applied to the activities he authorized. He said that before and after the court's ruling. Saying he doesn't think the law applies is a far cry from him saying he knowingly broke the law.
In any event, this is not "black and white" as you claimed. I'm sure I could find more people who agree with this guy, but his credentials are pretty darn good:
Bryan Cunningham served in senior positions in the CIA and as a federal prosecutor under President Clinton, and as deputy legal adviser to the National Security Council under President George W. Bush. He is a private information security and privacy lawyer at Morgan & Cunningham LLC in Denver, Colorado, and a member of the Markle Foundation Task Force on National Security in the Information Age. Along with the Washington Legal Foundation, he filed an amicus brief in this case, and has testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Terrorist Surveillance Program.
-
Bryan Cunningham served in senior positions in the CIA and as a federal prosecutor under President Clinton, and as deputy legal adviser to the National Security Council under President George W. Bush. He is a private information security and privacy lawyer at Morgan & Cunningham LLC in Denver, Colorado, and a member of the Markle Foundation Task Force on National Security in the Information Age. Along with the Washington Legal Foundation, he filed an amicus brief in this case, and has testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Terrorist Surveillance Program.
Hahaha, I just googled this guy, and all I gathered was that he is a govt employee with some access and a JD from a place he's too ashamed to mention (relevant as he said Judge Diggs-taylor's opinion wouldn't be good enough to pass first year con law ::).
Judge Diggs-taylor on the other hand has had a distinguished career for the last god knows how many years, and this tool (featured on o'reilly ::) has the gall to question her.
Go sell st00pid someplace else, BB.
-
My point about Bush's behavior after the decision was in response to this comment from Jag: "Executive branch stated it didn't care what the Judiciary branch said, and it would continue to do what it was doing." Unless he said he was going to defy the court ruling, then his conduct after the court ruling is entirely relevant to her allegation.
The legality of Bush's act is determined by the law and the court's interpretation of the law. That's why we have the courts. That's how the system is supposed to work.
You got me there my friend.
We must remember that in a political system predicated on checks of governmental power, the president's decision to act unilaterally without Congressional notification is wrong. The president can't start avoiding laws he doesn't like and implementing unconstitutional measures on his own. The Congress is the only body that legislates and can change the constitution.
-
The Congress is the only body that legislates and can change the constitution.
???
-
He admitted he knew of the requirements (hardly an admission; the law says what is says). He also said he didn't think it applied to the activities he authorized. He said that before and after the court's ruling. Saying he doesn't think the law applies is a far cry from him saying he knowingly broke the law.
If he had knowledge of FISA--which was enacted with the specific legislative intent of curbing PRESIDENTIAL excesses of power re domestic spying--I would say that he knowingly broke the FISA law.
Surely his legal advisors could apprise Pres. Bush of the fact that FISA was enacted in direct response to the spying efforts of President Richard Nixon.
For Mr. Bush to claim that didn't think the law applied indicates he thinks we are imbeciles or that he really is as stupid as people allege.
In any event, this is not "black and white" as you claimed. I'm sure I could find more people who agree with this guy, but his credentials are pretty darn good:
Of all of Bush's presidential excesses, legally, this one is the closest to a slam dunk.
Bryan Cunningham served in senior positions in the CIA and as a federal prosecutor under President Clinton, and as deputy legal adviser to the National Security Council under President George W. Bush. He is a private information security and privacy lawyer at Morgan & Cunningham LLC in Denver, Colorado, and a member of the Markle Foundation Task Force on National Security in the Information Age. Along with the Washington Legal Foundation, he filed an amicus brief in this case, and has testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Terrorist Surveillance Program.
So he is a friend of the defense, he lost and now he airs his sour grapes about the matter. That's fine. But as Calmus pointed out, this fellow overstates his contentions--he seems to fail to grasp that, even in a 'war time' situation where the president's power is high, that power is not absolute.
The president cannot make up his mind that a law designed to curb his domestic spying power just doesn't apply. He doesn't have the constitutional power to do that.
-
???
What I mean is that the president cannot create his own domestic spying law unless the constitution is changed to afford him that power--that would be a dictatorial power though.
Beach Bum is trying to portray this situation as if there is contention over whether a law was broken--he claims that Bush just thought the law didn't apply to him...
That's never a defense to illegal activity.
"I didn't know that a law designed to stop US Presidents from spying on citizens w/out a warrant applied to me--the US president who is spying on citizens without a warrant"? ? ? ?
How can the president or Beach Bum make this claim with a straight face?
-
You got me there my friend.
We must remember that in a political system predicated on checks of governmental power, the president's decision to act unilaterally without Congressional notification is wrong. The president can't start avoiding laws he doesn't like and implementing unconstitutional measures on his own. The Congress is the only body that legislates and can change the constitution.
I agree in part. If the president believes a certain law doesn't apply, he should get advice from his AG, other legal advisors, etc. If it is something as unconventional as this, he should go to Congress (or a judge).
The only thing that concerns me is national security and how making this public beforehand might interfere with law enforcement efforts.