Am I the only One? by Chewie

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Am I the only One?

POSTED BY: CHEWIE
UPDATED: Wednesday, October 4, 2006 16:46
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 11032
PAGE 3 of 3

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 11:46 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

...So the Liberal courts say he needs more permission from Congress.

The Roberts Court!?! My God, that's delusional...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 12:18 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
These terrorist were caught on the battle field, and I frankly don't care how they feel about the U.S. If they survive Gitmo, they have a life of living off the rocks and herding their goats. They can fume all they want under their turbans, I could care less.

And this guy says he's not a bigot.

Yeah it's not that I'm a bigot right, it's just all those goat herding towel head motherfuckers.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 3:01 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
the President has the right by virture of his office and that it's during war time.

That's still only half of a thought. C'mon now Auraptor, don't be shy. Complete your thought. The President has the right, by virtue of his office in time of war, to... ... what?

---------------------------------
Not every detainee is guilty.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 4, 2006 5:57 AM

CITIZEN

Like Big Brother had all those rights in time of war. Perpetual war means perpetual rights.

Oh and I do hate it when I have to point out to Yanks how their own government works, but Congress declares war. Congress has not declared war, ergo the US is not at war, so "and that it's during war time." is complete crap.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 4, 2006 6:22 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
the President has the right by virture of his office and that it's during war time.- Auraptor

That's still only half of a thought. C'mon now Auraptor, don't be shy. Complete your thought. "The President has the right, by virtue of his office in time of war, to..." ... what?

I think he's chewing on what he means, exactly, and how he can phrase it so that it won't sound like a call for tyranny.

And you know what? He'll prolly NEVER finish that thought, because like other knee-jerk Bushies he never thinks anything through. Or, let me re-phrase that: He never thinks. Period.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 4, 2006 9:08 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Since he probably won't respond, I won't be killing the thread by posting.

I've been mulling it over - the complete denial of reality in hard-core Bushites. (Now, 'hard-core' is a phrase that's acquired a new political dimension. But that's in another thread.)

I've decided that the news media is largely to blame. They were flirting with the WH during Vietnam (body counts, victory is at hand) and have finally climbed into bed and become the full-on whore - the propaganda machine.

The US public is now entirely cynical about both politicians and the 'news'. IF the media were to gain the trust of the public as an independent and reliable news source the entire political dynamic would be different. You would no longer have 65% of republicans believing Hussein was involved in 9/11 DESPITE Bush's statements to the contrary.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1169

Until that changes, people will believe what they want to believe, evidence to the contrary, b/c 'it's all a lie anyway.'

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 4, 2006 9:19 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

BTW, that link has some interesting statistics. For brevity, here's a sample:

Would you favor allowing these methods if it meant increased protection from terrorist acts?

Allowing video surveillance of public places
DEM GOP
77% 87%

Allowing your purse, handbag, briefcase, backpack, or packages to be searched at random anywhere
DEM GOP
45% 66%

Allowing regular roadblocks to search vehicles
DEM GOP
38% 62%

Allowing your car to be searched at random
DEM GOP
37% 60%

Allowing your telephone conversations to be monitored
DEM GOP
20% 56%

Allowing your mail to be searched at random
DEM GOP
26% 49%

This puts the poster formerly known as AUraptor, Slick, Zero, and the others right in with the GOP. Sad to say, they are NOT individual crap-in-the-pants aberrations.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 4, 2006 1:22 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006
100401224.html

Court Temporarily OKs Domestic Spying

By DAN SEWELL
The Associated Press
Wednesday, October 4, 2006; 6:16 PM

CINCINNATI -- The Bush administration can continue its warrantless surveillance program while it appeals a judge's ruling that the program is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The president has said the program is needed in the war on terrorism; opponents argue it oversteps constitutional boundaries on free speech, privacy and executive powers.

The unanimous ruling from a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals gave little explanation for the decision. In the three-paragraph ruling, judges said that they balanced the likelihood an appeal would succeed, the potential damage to both sides and the public interest.

The program monitors international phone calls and e-mails to or from the United States involving people the government suspects have terrorist links. A secret court has been set up to grant warrants for such surveillance, but the government says it can't always wait for a court to take action.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 4, 2006 2:53 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Auraptor- I hope you don't take this as baiting, but I would dearly love to hear you complete the sentence that you have so far left dangling. The reason WHY I want to hear the end of the sentence is because I truly do not understand your thinking. And the setence is "the President has the right by virture of his office and that it's during war time to.... WHAT? What does the President have the right to do in time of war?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 4, 2006 4:46 PM

DREAMTROVE

Bump.

The undo of Habeas Corpus is the biggest threat to freedom yet. The worst part is actually something only Democractic Pat Leahy of VT and Republican Arlen Specter of PA noticed: Bush used the Senate to repeal Habeas Corpus, but the Senate does not have that authority.

This is a very serious transgression (so is the repeal of Habeas Corpus) but the rule of example in place of the rule of law. If Bush can get a greet light in his own house to leave his laundry on the floor that doesn't mean he can do it in school. If Bush gets one group of people to say he can do XYZ, that doesn't mean he can do it anywhere. *BUT* and this is the scary part - he intends to do it anyway.

Harry Reid said "oh this is a delaying tactic."
Sure, I see that angle, but I respectfully disagree. Bush actually intends to use this as a justification of his actions inspite of the jurisdictional irrelevence.

Pat Leahy, Kudos by all means (why don't you Dems run this guys instead of a shlub like Kerry or Hillary?) Senator Leahy noticed a real key trick: that the president has passed a law in the US Senate with intent to use it in Iraq, where the senate lacks not only legislative jurisdiction, but regional jurisdiction. Such a law, even if it didn't violate Iraqi law, which it does, would never ever in a million years pass in the Iraqi parliment, which is why Bush chose to pass it hear instead.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE