Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Judging from the preceding posts here, where Beaumandy is trying in vain to get SPP into the mud with him, it would appear Beaumandy is unable to come up with any kind of an analysis and prefers name calling and ugly pseudo tough rhetotic instead. SPP called it. I await Beaumandy insulting me. BFD.>> Well Bob, your an idiot. There. If you read the thread and actually pay attention you might learn something. There has been many posts that explain why this ACLU ruling is so flawed it's laughable. If you look you will see why the 1st and the 4th ammendment are not violated and that this judge wrote an opinion that is on par with a first year D average law student. STPH said he and 80% of his buddies agree with the Jimmy Carter judge who the rest of the legal community is now laughing at. So he also desereves to get mocked since he went to law school only to not really learn the law. Once this is overturned I will repost this.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd Here's what i found: <a href="http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/08/17/cafferty-on-the-nsa-ruling-bush-is-breaking-the-law/" target="_blank">http://www.crooksandliars.com/ posts/2006/08/17/cafferty-on-the-nsa-ruling-bush-is-breaking-the-law/</a> Here is a snippet, jonvn loves snippets: " This Federal district judge ruled today President Bush is breaking the law by spying on people, in this country, without a warrant. The judge said the President is violating the First Amendment to the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act FISA, passed by Congress 1978, specifically to prevent this kind of abuse of power. It was being done before. That’s why the FISA court was created in the first place. So what does this mean? It means President Bush violated his oath of office, among other things, when he swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States. It means he’s been lying to us about the program since it started, when tells us there’s nothing illegal about what he’s doing. A court has ruled it is illegal. And it means a 75 year old black female judge in Michigan has finally stepped in and done the job that Congress is supposed to do, namely oversight of the executive branch of government. But the gov…but the Congress is controlled by Republicans. They are controlled by the President, and they have done nothing in the way of oversight." Which is why all republicans are liars, all republicans are traitors, at this moment in time.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy This is your " proof " that Bush is a liar Ed. A site called... Crooks and liars?? BWWAAHHAAAAAAHAA Lets look at your proof shall we.. "So what does this mean? It means President Bush violated his oath of office, among other things, when he swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States. It means he’s been lying to us about the program since it started, when tells us there’s nothing illegal about what he’s doing. A court has ruled it is illegal." Uh Ed... a crazy left wing judge made a decision that is flat out wrong. She is being laughed at in legal circles everywhere. She has no clue what the 4th ammendment means and she ignores previous precedent. She will also be overturned. What are you going to say when that happens? Finally Ed, ( I must be bored ).. why would Bush lie about the NSA program in the first place? what is in it for him? Please prove your answer better than the last attempt. I know it sucks to actually get called on your moonbat kook posts, but you need to be able to back it up otherwise you get blown out.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Which is why all republicans are liars, all republicans are traitors, at this moment in time. < nice nutjob web site used to reference ( and I use that word loosely)- at least recognize the reason for the controversy..."the president has some latitude under the "executive Power" and "Commander-in-Chief" Clauses of Article II, even lacking explicit congressional approval, to authorize NSA warrantless surveillance without violating the "reasonableness" requirement of the Fourth Amendment." a web site like this means squat...is might as well be www.buttheads.com as somethinfg this slanted is taken seriously by no one. so all this republican liar this and that means zero also...
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "If the republican's had their way, we would still have the black shoeshine boys on mainstreet, u.s.a., dressed in red, and white stripes." And if DL had a Medieval Land, Ed could be the village idiot!
Originally Posted By YourPalEd And what is wrong with the village idiot, you, you village idiot put downer! Village idiots need respect too. Oh wait, george bush. I'm not treating a village idiot with respect. You are right. I apolgize, but only slightly. Actually, i would make a great king, cause i am so magnanimous.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Taylor gave less attention to the more modest statutory argument that has been widely advanced by the program's critics. They say it violates a 1978 law requiring warrants from a secret court and that neither a 2001 congressional authorization to use military force against al-Qaeda nor the president's constitutional authority allowed the administration to ignore the law. A recent Supreme Court decision strengthened that argument. Taylor did not cite it.> I think this judge reached the right decision using semi-faulty reasoning. I think the reasoning above will stand a better chance in subsequent challenges, especially since, as noted, the recent Supreme Court decision did strengthen this line of reasoning.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>How has the president violated these boundaries you talk about?<< Yes. >>At what point did he cross the line?<< When he started deciding that he has the right to interpret the laws passed by Congress and how he will choose to enforce them. When he arrogates power unto himself and refuses to acknowledge constitutional checks and balances on his power, he crosses the line. Caesar did similar things and look what happened to Rome as a result. Actually, I'd say that Bush approximates Nero or Caligula in terms of Roman Emperors. Would that an Augustus is in our future. >>Did FDR and Abe Linclon also cross your line?<< If you mean the rounding up of Japanese and putting them into camps? Yes. That crossed the line. If you mean by suspending the Constitutionally enshrined right (note I said enshrined and not granted...rights are inherent to the individual) of Habaeus Corpus? Yes. That crossed the line. >>Should they have been impeached or sued by the ACLU also?<< I cannot speak to the first question. Were they violations of the Constitution? Absolutely! Does that rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors? I can't say. Unlike some people, I don't claim to know everything. What I do know is that this man's power needs to be checked. Since the ACLU did not exist at the time, the question is hereby rendered moot.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd The more i think about the illegal wiretap, the more i think, that if you are going to illegally wiretap someone, you'll discover more important secrets if the people, who use their phones, think their phones are not tapped.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd The way i trust my phones are not tapped is to have them run by someone, who keeps no secrets.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<If you mean the rounding up of Japanese and putting them into camps? Yes. That crossed the line. If you mean by suspending the Constitutionally enshrined right (note I said enshrined and not granted...rights are inherent to the individual) of Habaeus Corpus? Yes. That crossed the line.>> cmpaley, so in your little world, if you had your way like the rest of the libs out there, we would have lost the civil war and slavery would still be a practice today....and we would have lost WWII...ust so you could say the constitution was not violated. Which brings us to today. Your type also want us to lose the war on terror, which means losing the entire country as we know it. You see, this is why your type lose elections. Finally, you don't have a clue about presidential powers during wartime, but that is another issue.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd Actually we are not at war at this time. To be at war youhave to have a war against a country. We are not officially at war with anyone. There is no such thing as a war on terror. Terror can only be created and fanned. Since terror is a reaction in the individual, only the individual is at war with terror, or in other words, at war with their emotions. Countries have no emotions. There is no war on terror, unless you are a liar.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<We are not officially at war with anyone. There is no such thing as a war on terror. Terror can only be created and fanned. Since terror is a reaction in the individual, only the individual is at war with terror, or in other words, at war with their emotions. Countries have no emotions. There is no war on terror, unless you are a liar.>> Ed, you sound like Pelosi, Dean, Lamont, Durbin and many other high level democrats. The terror attack we stopped a few weeks back where they were going to blow up 10 jet liners was just a lie from Bush, Blair and Pakistan. If anyone wants to have people like Ed be in charge of the war on terror when Muslim fanatics are cranking up their jihad vote democrat.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd The terror attacks from a few weeks back were investigations blown by karl rove, for political purposes. Because of another act of treason by karl rove, 5 of the suspects got away. Blair was in on blowing it in the news, according to the british secret service. Parliment is calling and debating blair's ouster. They are debating it today, as a matter of fact.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Hey Ed, give us some proof about Rove or get ready to get inored by even me. The scary thing about you Ed, is that there are LOTS of people like you in the democrat party. You are the mainstream voice for them now. Congrats!! You are going to lose elections for the rest of your life and then stand on a corner claiming Rove did ya wrong. Loser.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd Well, if i'm the mainstream voice, why are you blocking progress by making me repeat what you already know to be a fact. These are traitors in the white house, not americans.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Beau, I don't think Ed is the voice for anyone but himself - and maybe his dealer.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd A main problem of republican thinking is they love to not think. Instead, they like to tell you how a group of generalized others think. They come across as incredibly ignorant, but they don't care. They just hope they will influence, and confuse you enough, that for a moment you might forget that the known traitor, george bush is the biggest criminal ever in time, and that he needs to be arrested immediately. All republicans lie. All they know how to do is lie. There's a reason america's news programs have 15 minutes of weather, and that is because everyone wants to watch the known traitor, george bush, impeached immediately. The fact that all republicans are liars influences their limited imaginations. They can not conceive of someone who isn't a liar like them, and they are always trying to lie, because that's all they do, and have ever done, and that's all they know how to do. So if someone, who is honest, comes along, they have to label them either a nut or terrorist. As soon as someone does this, you know they are your enemy. The only enemy you have a right to have are enemy creators. Your enemy is the war mongers, the enemy creators. Protect the victims if you can, or at least warn them. The predators are all cowards, watch them run. Like chickens with their heads cut off, they will run directly to jail. No more GO, no more hotels, no more utilities, bye bye, criminal. Anyone who supports bush are know immediately to be the republican crooks, and liars, they are. Impeach the known traitor, george bush, now. What's important is getting rid of these war mongers. That does not mean wire taps will stop, instead they will be done intelligently, and i guarantee you, with a real antiwar democratic candidate, they will catch osama in weeks, probably days. You just need motive. You need someone, who actually wants to catch Osama bin laden. Immediately you see this is the tools of a war monger. This is an enemy creator. The traitor, bush, doesn't even care if osama is caught. If he is out that means one more enemy to demand more power to catch, so why bother even catching them. If bush actually caught the terrorists, why their wouldn't be any more anti terrorist industrial machine to steal 10 trillion from our american treasury, by these sick hateful criminals. By creating an enemy that you can blame all the republicans many problems on, the republicans don't have to actually get smarter and, gulp, learn something. It's really only being done so as to stir up the defense tax money and make it easy to steal.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Again, I give you your mainstream democrat Ed. STPH, are you sure this isn't you? After all, you said the war was for oil and revenge for Bush's daddy. Same website.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<No more GO, no more hotels, no more utilities, bye bye, criminal.>> But does it pay to yearn for Vermont when all you can afford is Baltic?? And how can you be just visiting when there is no one is in jail? If the evil traitors were jailed there would be someone to visit and I could take a ride on the Reading Railroad to see them.
